Poll: PVP or PVE - Which Are You? [UNOFFICIAL]

I think when someone voices an opinion it should be heard and not dismissed, this poll isn't representative of everyone cos not everyone is reading this, make it mandatory and well see. Plus until the devs say so its all speculation, which is all this and nearly every thread be it PVP to crafting to the environment that the game will be set in so everyone take it with a spoon full of fantasy and relax. I don't think anyone needs to have their opinions so heavily criticised, this is a PVP thread, if you have no interest in the subject and just want to troll go elsewhere. I'm finding it really petty and pointless, he'll if I want to upset apple carts ill go troll other threads and voice an equally pointless point of view. These are all opinions, treat them as such.

 

I just made a post a bit ago about not wanting to have my pickaxe or other tools of prosperity looted...... But i like full loot! Hmmmm maybe im going from "GIMME FULL LOOT PVP" to... I want to be protected in a trammel world!! =S
Oh well, both are fun! I just dont want to lose my pickaxe of prosperity! I meant to cast my vote as PvP consensual or not full looting and I casted it consensual-full looting whoops!

 

And I think you just hit the nail on the head for why a lot of people dont want full loot.

It seems you now hesitate at full loot because you spent money on an item that you dont want looted.

I value my time equally the same way. So I dislike investing a lot of time into something only to have someone come along and, effectively, steal it.

I dont like it in the real world, why would I like it here?

My entertainment value, from these games, is not to replicate real life. If I wanted that I'd re-read Snow Crash and dream of the day that is a reality. Until then, leave my lewts alone.

 

This is why "Full Loot" simply is not going to happen. There are already too many items that are either Kickstarter rewards or Shop items that would have to be by necessity protected from being looted. Once those are protected, the game is no longer "Full Loot".

Add in the Multiplayer-Choice aspect and there is simply no way to replicate the Old UO that some people here wish to replicate.

That doesn't mean the game will be "No Loot" either, however, by necessity, there will be certain unlootable items and a LOT of people that will simply choose not to be involved in Open (non-Story/Event/Quest-based) PvP.

 

Maybe SOTA could be some MMO casino! where you can buy items with real money and loot them off other players who bought them with real money! >=-P

Dont take me too seriously I love throwing ideas out there. No matter how wild.

 

I'm in near total agreement with you, the more I read about how precious some people will hold there items the more I believe it won't happen. However they may still be able to do this with a zone system maybe, somehow through a justice system, but I realise that it won't bring your items back. Maybe one can lock a few items in that can't be looted, whatever it may be it does sadden me to see it might not happen. I'd love to see this game make a huge difference to others, maybe a totally original open world system that works, not sure what it might be though. I do like reading a lot of ideas in here, both for and against have had some brilliant ideas.

 

Old UO was full loot and met the standards of being a full loot game in the MMO game world.

However, everything wasnt looted. Newbie gears was never looted if you werent a red murderer.

I never counted in the kickstarter rewards or shop items in the full loot scenario, those should of course be left out of the lootable options as i see it however i would still call the game a full loot PvP game.

Everything that is replacable ingame though should be lootable.

And why should the multiplayer-choice remove full loot if developers put full loot in the PvP game? I never expected the ones in the PvE world that i never see ingame to be lootable, i cant loot the player i cant kill. But all i can kill should leave there gear to me as a reward for my effort.

 

Full loot will probably happen for people want it to happen. That is what Selective Multiplayer is all about. If you want it, you can have it. If you don't want it, you aren't forced into it.

 

Few non PvPers will come here to even find out about this poll, so among the people who are looking here anyways you'll have a higher intrest in pro-PvP things.


I don't craft and have no intrest in crafting, I have probably only been to the crafting forums maybe 3 or 4 times since febuary to see if there was anything about fishing.
How many crafting polls have I missed, and what was the conclusion of those polls?
Was I included in some "everyone likes to craft with no pants on" scheme because I didn't say no on a poll?

 

Missing my 3rd option, PVP, consensual, some looting.

(Which is the direction i think PVP here is most likely to go)

 

The multiplayer choice doesn't necessarily remove full loot. But it does mean that, if PvP is tied to full loot, all the players that would prefer to play PvP but don't want to deal with full loot will be able to simply leave PvP and, thus, also play without the full loot component of PvP. Also, if the jump from PvE to PvP also means accepting full loot in the same step, chances are good far less players will even attempt that jump.

It's hard to say without more specific data, but I wouldn't be surprised if making PvP forcibly full loot managed to bring down the number of PvPers below what is needed for spontaneous world PvP to flare up.

 

Many PvP players, and i mean many, wont play SotA if there are no risk vs reward and consequences. We can discuss what would be best for the game when it comes to active players in the PvP world forever since we have different standpoints on the matter but i believe that there will be more playing PvP with risk vs reward and full loot then without it.

Im pretty sure that would also increase the number of pledgers. There are so many players out there looking for the next UO, and i mean old felucca, and not catering for them would be a bad business decision as i see it.

 

I find the poll results (even at this early stage) rather interesting.

What it highlights to me is the need for a MINIMUM of 2 servers, each with different rule sets.

Obviously commercially there is a cost attached however with the same breath, if you don't cater for multiple play styles you simply aren't going to attract the player base you desire.

Gasket.

 

Why would two servers with two rule sets be more favorable than one server with two selectable rule sets (ie, toggle full loot or non-full-loot)? Not being flippant, I am honestly curious why you think that would be superior.

To answer my own question, personally, I think one server with two selectable rule sets would be far perferable; this allows you to try out the "other side" if you wish, with a controllable level of risk. It also gives you the opportunity, however unlikely, to interact with people you otherwise would not have gotten the chance to interact with if they were entirely different servers; likewise, the economy will include everyone, not limited to only the people who make the same choice you do.

 

Keep in mind that if this plays out as intended, there will be NO servers. The individual machines will act as local servers, and the seperation between player groups will be highly mutable and constantly shifting. If RG gets his Christmas wish, that is.

What I'm noticing is that while most players who answered here (69.4%) want SOME form of PvP, only half of them (34.7%) want it to be non-consensual with full loot. That inside a forum space devoted TO PvP, where many have agreed that the population will be biased towards PvP. Of course this sample isn't representative, with so few of the backers voting, but then again, if people choose not to vote, they are voting to let someone else decide what happens. What we have here is a representation of those who care enough to be on the forums investigating. It would be NICE to have more votes, but I see a definite pattern emerging, and it's the same pattern I've seen in the other polls.

 

To me PvP is about whether you take the castle or not. If we didn't take it, I don't really care whether it was because someone wasn't logged in, died in the field, or opted out of PvP somehow.

Death is a tactical setback. I don't really care about lingering effects other than we lost the castle. I would prefer to see the least harsh death penalties other than what's of tactical necessity to prevent careless behavior. i.e. infinite respawning and mindlessly charging the battle field needs to be deterred.

As for participating in PvP, it doesn't matter to me whether someone was toe to toe fighting, helping to build catapults, and anything else which contributes to the cause.

If player looting exists, takes more than about a second, and I saw someone on my side doing this, I'd probably shoot them myself for their carelessness and lack of focus on the important objective.

 

Having 1 server will water down the PvP with little risk vs reward and consequences and it just wont attract players that seek that gameplay. As an example i wont play on a server were the PvP rules is adapted to please the PvE crowd.

With a server that fully cater for the hardcore PvP you will get a fully pleased community. The PvE players get their playstyle covered and the PvP community as well.

Anyone that believe that the hardcore PvP players that seek risk vs reward and consequences will accept 1 server adapted to please the less hardcore PvP players/ PvE players just have to think again, cause they arent.

 

How? How would this water anything down? I am really, honestly trying to understand this perspective, but I can't seem to find any tangible answer than "because it does".

You will still encounter the same types of people - the ones who want the same playstyle as you. The only interaction you would have with people who choose differently than you do, is access to each others' vendors, and see each others' houses.

 

No i wont encounter the players that have my playstyle cause the game wont allow it. It will be restrictions to my gameplay.

No full loot
You cant attack all outside the safe areas in cities/villages
You cant steal from anyone in the game

Everrything will be consensual

There wont be hardcore consequences and it will be less risk vs reward with such a game.

I even see the combat system as a system to please the less hardcore PvP players. A PvP game adapted to please the ones that wont put time and training into their PvP game. A less skillbased PvP and more of a luck based.

 

But the game will be pairing you, on-the-fly, with the types of people that choose the same as you (in this case, full-loot PvP). Everyone you see will also have full-loot PvP enabled. Thus everyone you see outside of 'safe' areas, will be people you can attack. They haven't released anything about stealing at all, but I imagine it will follow a similar format... if that is the playstyle you prefer, the game with match you with people who also feel that way, so that everyone you see you will be able to steal from. From your perspective, it will feel precisely as if they had made separate servers. The only difference is you will be able to access the vendors and see the houses of people who chose a different "server".