POT Choice to remove Single Player Online Mode

Well, I don't have a guild so I didn't plan on doing that. However, if the guild warfare system has rewards that make it attractive from a competitive standpoint I might have to form a guild because I'm a competitive kind of guy.

Also, I do plan to do a lot of traveling and exploring when I can. I would definitely like to visit all POTs and meet the people that live there. For me this creates more roleplaying opportunities by default and I'm sure warfare may be the result of some of those encounters. So if there's a roleplaying reason for me to help you in one of your battles, or there's a roleplaying reason for me to hire up a mercenary group to defeat you, I look forward to that.

 

Wow, long read so far… but made it here for the most part

Player OWNED town. That's exactly what I expect from a player owned town. To be owned by the tenant.

What is the issue people have with that? Let it invisible in single mode. He only wants it to exist in online. So what? How does it affect anyone else's gameplay? I read 12 pages, I might have skipped it, but haven't yet found a good reason.

Like it or not. Throw arguments if open vs single is worse or better. All of that is irrelevant to the point. Neither if his payment is a donation or not. He should be able to decide visibility in each mode in a town he owns.

 

I own a house, but I can't choose whether it's visible in single player or not. Nothing in the game has been excluded from single player online as of now. Single player vs. multi player isn't an in-game ownership debate, it's a game-mechanics debate which has nothing to do with what my character in the game owns.

 

You actually nailed it.
Your character owns the house.
The player owns the town.

 

I'm sorry, that's not true. The town is connected to one character, just like a house, and everything else that can be bought in the add-on store. Am I mistaken? It wouldn't make any sense to separate a town from the in-game world.. I think you're taking the lingo used for this too literally. "This word, I don't think it means what you think it means.."

 

The owner of the game owns everything. No player owns anything. If they shut the game down we can't take things with us.

What was paid for was designing and controlling a POT within the rules provided by the devs. What is being asked is a rule change. My stance is the rule change should be consistent across the systems.

The devs decided going into a PvP zone will not force a mode change. I have yet to see any logic beyond "it's my money" to support the change.

What really is happening here is 1 person does not agree with SotA PvP and is attempting to use POT ownership as leverage.

 

Actually, individual housing allows for permissions to block players (even in single player online mode) from coming into the home. So there's precedent there.

 

If I (or Envy, for that matter) owned you in pvp then I expect you to do whatever we tell you to do. If we own you, then we own you. What possible issues with semantics of the word 'own' could there be?

 

Nailed it.

+1 good sir.

/thread

 

The issue with your example (besides maybe being a bit extreme) would be in what degree it would affect my gameplay.
POT owner restricting visibility it their land when in single mode, would not affect my gameplay at all.

 

Let's not pick and choose definitions that suit us in order to 'win' the debate. If you don't mind the propose idea that's fine but don't bring in your favoured definition of the word 'own'. Doesn't really do the idea any justice.

Which is fine, but it may affect other people. Not necessarily in the specific case of Rats Nest, but at least in general.

 

This is true. It would impact people that want to play single player online mode everywhere regardless of playstyle.

Of course the opposite is true if we allow single player online mode in Rats Nest (for example) because it will create a world where no player that enjoys the type of pvp I subscribe to can find it. So even to this point, you're talking about excluding my playingstyle entirely for the sake of not excluding another playing style on less than 1% of the map.

I feel like my playingstyle should be supported at least in my own town.

 

Actually, it does. What is available in SPO? The main thing is vendor access. Beyond that it's probably pretty minor. Still, SPO is cut off from part of the economy.

If you think about it though. What's the purpose of cutting out SPO? Those not wanting to PvP are not going to go the OPO. Cutting out SPO does not change their mind. It does not change anything. When people want to opt out of PvP they will. The PvP population does not increase.

The "scouting" issue is moot because, just like everything else, there will be plenty of info posted on websites about the layout of the zones. Scouting in SPO does not give out any tactical data.

 

What is you PvP style? How is it not represented in SotA? Because I really can't see how blocking SPO or FPO will change anything. People either are in the same zone and instance as you or they are not. If they are not then they do not exist for PvP. Limiting players that do not exist is pointless.

 

I think population would increase. I think there are three kinds of players. Those that like PVP, those that don't, and those that don't have much against it but not consider it their primary playingstyle.

In short, my theory is that some of these people will go into Rats Nest (thus increasing the population) simply because it's the only option. I believe that there's a fraction of people out there that given the choice would just rather stay in single player online mode, but if they had no choice they'd try it out.

I also believe that hardcore pvp addicts would spend more time in pvp Rats Nest if there were no choice. That they would find a way to spend "down time" in a secure part of Rats Nest as opposed to hiding in single player online mode. I think both of these theories are reasonable to assume and try out. Since it's my town, I don't know why anyone would care otherwise.

It gives you a lot actually. It tells you how the terrain (homes, lot decorations, etc) currently are set up. That's important if you're looking for guard outposts, walls, doors, etc...

It also tells you to some degree where people are. If you visit a vendor and items are being placed or removed from the vendor, you know there are players there. You may even know exactly which player because they have their names on items.

So it's a moot point to you, perhaps. But it's an important point to me.

 

My playstyle is PVP and RP. Philosophically that means that if I'm in Rats Nest and you're in Rats Nest, we should be able to see each other, we should have the same amount of risk and possible reward. Because I like to RP, it doesn't help me to be in single player online mode because you can't RP by yourself anymore than you can PVP by yourself.

So from my perspective that sums it up well enough that you should understand. My playingstyle is severely limited by mechanics at the moment, but I hope to change that in my own town. I think that's more than reasonable, especially since the rest of the entire game is available to folks that want to play in single player online mode.

 

BTW, if someone wanted their POT to only be in single player online mode, I'd fully support that. More power to them. I think that's totally in the spirit of player owned towns. (and certainly we have NPC towns that require you to be in single player online mode, so why not?)

 

That's instancing and meta server filtering at it's core. Why would you have any reasonable expectation they would drop those 2 just for a PvP POT?

Removing SPO/FPO from a few zones will not increase PvP population. People always have other options. Block SPO/FPO and they go somewhere else. Remove SPO/FPO completely from SotA and they still go somewhere else.

It's consensual PvP for a reason. This is the part that is hurting your playstyle but that's a dead horse.

 

It is a general opinion so far that I misused the word 'own' here. I take it, and I'll try to make my point without playing semantics, if that is what you think I'm doing (not my intention, I tell you).

I don't like PvP. I will most likely play solo online, though that can change overtime and go multiplayer.
If OP has his land hidden in one of these modes, I don't consider my gameplay affected. It is for others, and I understand, I just talk about my gameplay, my opinion.
I think this is an option a POT owner should have due to the price they pay to set up a land. You think different, and that's ok. But sorry, I have seen no argument or idea that makes me think different.

Sometimes things change when enough people think that something should change. This clearly is not happening here. That's Ok, but even if it's only for statistics, I think a POT owner should be able to decide on this one.

 

Sound more like the ability to lock access to a vendor while stocking would be a better solution.