PVP compromise idea

That's a fair statement but when the team comes to us and says that not one line of PvP code has been written yet it leads me to infer that PvP might just be an addon that is just tacked on like most of the mainstream MMORPGs we have today.

That in and of itself isn't the end of the world but I think that it would be better if we were told one way or the other instead of leaving everything so ambiguous. I understand that while there is still hope, pledges will keep rolling in but it could get into a bit of an ethics quandary if neglected for too long.

And to all of you saying that there will never be any required PvP, what do you have to say to the fact that some of the team is in love with the idea that the main story will have some PvP elements in it? They have never gone back on this to my knowledge. I imagine that the only way to avoid it would be the Singe Player Offline. If this comes to pass, what are you going to do? Are you going to rage quit? Are you going to protest against Kickstarter for voiding what you perceive to be the original contract?

I think the main source of most of the FUD is that Ristra's question is relevant in so many aspects and we are 9 months away from "release" after over a year of development.

 

In my opinion the forcing of pking on the wider population would result in exactly the same as happened in UO; mass gangs of pk's preying on new players who can't get established in the game or raise their skills to escape or defend themselves. This nearly killed UO.

I played on Europa shard and when OSI/EA? saved the game for mass market appeal, easily 99% of the player base went to Trammel to avoid the gank squads, one red with 10 healers dragging poison elementals onto groups of new players....etc. If you were there you can remember how bad it got.

Most of the pvp'ers were already on Siege perilous or migrated there, the ganker pk's stayed for a while after Trammel to have the biggest forum whine in the history of computer forums.

I'm sure there will be plenty of pvper's with plenty of targets to have a fair fight with in SOA, they will be satisfied. The PK gank squads can go and play eve online or one of the many other successful open pvp full loot MMO's out there.

 

You are trying to force the PvPers to play in a boring world without prey to hunt. That's enough.

 

"You are trying to force the PvPers to play in a boring world without prey to hunt. That's enough"

PvPers can always fight each other, some like a real challenge against equally skilled opponent's. PK Gankers are another matter, there is no place for them in a successful MMO. Players cannot police games and that's why the UO experiment failed.

 

Have to completely agree with Noctiflora. Feel free to steer your own course but don't try doing it for others.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

"Free Trade Risk and Thereby Free PK Risk"

TemplarAssassin said; You are trying to force the PvPers to play in a boring world without prey to hunt. That's enough.

I'm actually trying to solve this issue through encouraging trade routs and traveling marketers. If normal road conditions are always "safe from everything", then there is no risk for the reward of transporting goods, whether contraband or not. yet I am also for the ideas of "encumbrance", whereby if a tradesman is stopped on the road and comes out the looser of the PvP encounter, then the victor is also faced with needing a way to carry the weight of the goods, thereby in most instances, limiting the amount of what would be taken unless they can transport the weight.
The keys to PvP, PK style, lay in their ability to adapt to the lock that turns the key and fluctuates from lock to lock and from hex to hex in an ever moving ebb and flow.
Any other ideas just don't work around the unchangeable option of choice. Yet freedom of choice can be toggled to fit where the risk seems valuable to the PvE player, crafter, or marketer.
Free Trade and thereby Free PvP and possibly full loot...
~Time Lord~

 

Has there been any movement by the devs on the proposed PvP/looting plan? I know the original proposal kind of sucked but I have seen no further comments from them.

 

The looting is the part of the proposal I still disagree most with... I cannot see why it would be so immensely difficult to compare 2 flags with eachother and have the most restrictive prevail. It's going to be the exact same type of comparison as with PvP itself, but instead of about PvP it will be about the level of loot... Full or Partial. Ain't rocket science!

 

Actually, there are quite a few border cases when players with different looting flags ally themselves or help each other. How do you deal, for example, with a full loot enabled PK that has one or two loot disabled healers in tow?

 

I agree that some clarification on the major points of contention would go a long way toward cooling some of these arguments. In answer to your question of what do I & others have to say....these quotes are from the PvP mega thread and while, yes, it's not coded yet and a lot is up for eventual change after testing, the first paragraph I quote below is a definite promise....

"Rest assured that no matter what we do, players who wish to avoid PVP will never be forced to participate in PVP nor will there ever be non-consensual PVP."

"We feel we can successfully blend these two extremes into a world where PVE players can experience the FULL game (other than the PVP they are trying to avoid)"

"The rarest resources and rarest creatures will be more abundant in PVP Zones. (IMPORTANT NOTE: These resources and creatures also appear in PVE zones)"

Yes, some of the dev team love pvp, heck some of my friends love pvp and I love them dearly. I have nothing at all against people who pvp. What I have a problem with is people insisting that I play the way they like to play.

The fact that some devs love pvp has nothing to do with the price of eggs in China however. By what they've said in the mega post and elsewhere, they are clearly aware of the number of people who will have nothing to do with forced pvp, and are not planning it for this game. Some of them saw first hand how it ruined UO, as has nearly every other successful game since UO and that have tried a bazillion solutions to avoid it, and they aren't likely to repeat old mistakes. And I've seen nothing to indicate that they want a whole group of people playing offline so as to avoid pvp just to appease those who just won't stop throwing tantrums until they can force pvp on anyone they see.

To your question of what would I do if they did do that? No, no rage quits, but I simply would not play the game. Period. I want to play with my friends in this game, some of whom are pvpers, but I know myself well enough after all these years to know exactly what would happen & what i would do. As I've said in another thread, I will choose. That's the bottom line. It's my time & my money. I will be the one to make the decision on whether, or when, I will ever engage in pvp. No other person is going to make that decision for me, ever. I choose by choosing whether to play the game or not. The game allows me to choose, or I choose another game. Very simple really. No rage. Just personal choice.

 

If this happens I will find a way to sell my two most expensive pledges and keep my last one for playing exclusively offline.

Which is exactly the way I'm treating Star Citizen. I've loved Wing Commander for a long time, I still play the old 20+ year old ones, I've loved every game Chris Roberts has created, but I will not touch online play on a game that forces me into PvP. Not even if that game is the spiritual successor to my favorite game of all time made by the same person that created the original, with an AAA grade budget. I will thus play Star Citizen exclusively offline and not even bother creating an online character.

And one other thing, of course: if Shroud of the Avatar goes back on the promise to keep PvP consensual I will likely never again spend a red cent on anything made by RG or Portalarium that is not already released and with a few reviews under its belt. While I might purchase things from people or companies I don't trust, I will do so only with strong assurances about what I'm getting. RG currently has my trust, which is why I've spent more money than I should have with this game.

(And, for reference, so has Chris Roberts. He was never deceitful about what he wants to do in Star Citizen. I just happen to dislike his plans.)

 

lol. Wow. Way to come right out and admit it. Sorry, but in this day and age, there are so many games out there that people have choices. Not like when UO came out and it was, in essence, the only game (except for a few muds). Your "prey" had few choices in those days. Not so now. We just go elsewhere and leave you with no "prey' anyway. lol. Like when trammel opened. Mass exodus. By that time eq was out and I think a few others that didn't allow non-consensual pvp. For all that you guys like to say Trammel ruined UO, in fact Trammel is what saved UO. I grant it could have been done differently, like with flagging maybe, but it saved it all the same.

And no, no one is trying to "force" pvpers to do anything, we're agreeing with the dev's current thinking. It's you who are trying to get the devs to make changes to that thinking that will "force" others into your playstyle. Try preying on people who want to pvp. Personally I really like the current thinking in the pvp mega thread and I really hope that, or something like it, ends up going in the game.

 

Like I said many times, I love PvP, as long as it's exclusively by consent. I spend a large slice of my gaming time playing fully consensual PvP games.

But, at the same time, I'm done with non-consensual PvP, likely for life. Never liked it, and it was not for lack of trying.

I also really dislike mixing PvP with PvE. And imbalances in PvP, including gear progression. The PvP games I play are almost exclusively games where a level playing field is enforced and there is no PvE aspect intruding in the PvP.

Sincerely, it would depend on what other players can do to harm my fun. No matter how good a game is, if it has non-consensual PvP I'm not paying. After my last attempt with EVE, I'm not even giving it a chance, to be honest.A game is meant to be enjoyable. It's a leisure activity. A game that is not enjoyable is simply not worth playing at all (as a game, at least), regardless of any other qualities it might have going for it. And a game that allows players to ruin each other's fun is likely not enjoyable in the least.

 

Yea, LoL and WoW. Two casual games that you should absolutely try out.

As to admitting it, I've been admitting it since the beggining on this forum. It's a clash of two opposite playstiles with no way to merge them in order to please both parties. Someone has to be forced. Nothing new.

Did not read past the first line of your post because I believe I wouln't find anything useful there anyway.

 

Ahem, LoL and WoW are both games with hard mechanics and a strong meta-game in which many people dump over 10 hours a day. Not quite the definition of casual.

 

Sand Box and Freedom Plzz

 

"Try a Little Enticement"

Find a Banana, place it in front of a Tiger and see which Monkey eats it....
Enticement is the only road to gain more PvP players
The use of force is out of the question
~Time Lord~

 

When UO came out choices were limited.. You could play diablo or something instead, but it was loaded with non-consensual PvP but there was no looting at least so death really was meaningless. The game was also loaded with people who would exploit the game and hack it, and there was no moderation of it. But in all honesty, when you install and play a game your consenting to what goes on in it. No one forces you to keep playing if you don't like it im sure we all have picked up a game, then tossed it aside after playing it a bit. UO in its early days was no different, some people just didn't like it and im sure it was more than just the non-consensual PvP. Some people might have just thought it was boring.
Point I want to make is: Yes we have choices. So, someone like me I will willingly choose to install and play UO private servers that are full loot PvP. Theres no reason why SotA could not have just right off the bat said "this is going to have full loot open world PvP no trammel" you would still have a choice to not invest your money here and install the game, but as far as I know that did not happen.
For those who say trammel ruined UO... well I believe them. Some will say... trammel saved UO and I believe them as well. Statements such as these are purely subjective. If your looking for an objective look at wether or not trammel saved or ruined UO you'd have to look at population of active players and compare pre-tram and post tram(this data will likely be a bit tough to link directly to the release of trammel, because if after trammel you gained or lost subscribers you might just have to take into consideration that the game is just declining in popularity or just getting more popular because the game overall is either very fun or very boring for most who subscribe to it). For those who stick with trammel with no compromise trammel surely did save UO, and for those who hated trammel, trammel ruined UO simple as that, forget about population, or majority/minority.
It doesn't matter how low in population seige perilous was, there were still plenty of people there to keep a fun full loot pvp open world(till at some point even this world got watered down with all kinds of restrictions) for my liking. And if we have the oracle or whatever that allows us to permanently flag our characters for this type of game, then there will be plenty of room for us in SotA. Victims and all!

 

Agree with this 100%. And as for what the devs did not say, what they did say is this......"Rest assured that no matter what we do, players who wish to avoid PVP will never be forced to participate in PVP nor will there ever be non-consensual PVP." This is the assurance that convinced me to invest, install, and play the game. Had they said there will be, I wouldn't be posting and complaining about it, I would have simply moved on to another game.

I don't dislike pvpers. I love pvpers (well most of them anyway, lol). I just don't like to pvp myself.

 

No one has to be forced.

There will be prey for PvP, always. What was the prey in UO, gatherers. Gatherers can have teeth in SotA so all in PvP doesn't change anything. If people want easy targets, targets of opportunity, those will be there. It's the people that want unwilling targets that will not be there and I will never support anyone that desires this.

Want more prey, allow the dev team to build a PvP system that is inviting, has a purpose, and is fun.

It's not polar opposites that is at battle here. It's people's in ability to imagine (or accept) anything beyond what they already know. That goes for both sides. The PvP that wants prey is picturing the pre-existing models of open PvP. The PvE that wants nothing to do with PvP is picturing past experiences of PvP they did not enjoy.

PvP is a "show me first decide later" system.