Discussion in 'PvP Gameplay' started by tiggis2006, Apr 16, 2014.
First of yes it can but secondly and and in this case more important: SotA is not a sandbox game! SotA are a story driven Fantasy Roleplaying game.
You have a mode. When the player does the Oracle quest, both FPO and OPO modes become PvP ones for him. When the player hasn't done the Oracle quest, or if he does the quest again, then those modes are PvE ones for him.
The only mode that is exclusively PvE is single player, for very obvious reasons.
It's hard to say without further info, but judging by the timing of his departure from EA and when the expansion was released, it's quite possible RG was involved in "the Tram/Fel foolishness."
It also doesn't change the fact that, if having PvP be fully open and include non-consensual PvP is that important for a player, then said player should make sure that this is the case on any game before pledging/purchasing the game.
It's what I did regarding Star Citizen, for example; the game promised a way to choose how much PvP the player was subject to, and it's creation is being spearheaded by Chris Roberts, who never made a PvP game before. Despite that, because being absolutely free from PvP is an ironclad requirement for me, I spent time going after further information about the game, and after finding what exactly was planned for the game's PvP scaled down my planned $250 pledge back to a more comfortable $30 (just the most basic digital copy of the game, since I don't think I will ever play it online).
I see roleplaying as exclusively an exercise in cooperation between players. It's possible for the players to agree to have their characters disagree and fight; I've done it countless times in pen and paper RPG sessions as a player, and helped players do the same as a GM/DM/Storyteller/whatever fancy name the game chooses.
I don't think roleplaying is even possible when the players are disagreeing, and even if it were possible I wouldn't want to take part. The name I reserve for players that attempt to force this kind of "roleplay" on others would likely earn me a warning in the forums.
1. This is denying PvE players the chance to meet people from outside their friend lists.
2. It's not needed in any shape or way. Just do the Oracle quest and be happy in your PvP world.
In PvE mode it's always possible to ignore the distracting player, pretend that he is merely an annoying fly. In PvP mode it's not. Though that is not what I actually meant.
Roleplaying, for me, is only possible when players collaborate to create a story. If there is an unwilling player involved said player has to be removed from the group or otherwise ignored. Not doing so renders the roleplay exercise null and meaningless for me; I don't use roleplay to troll other people, and prefer to not be involved with people that do that by involving unwilling people in their roleplay.
There is an options to open yourself up to PvP. Only in this case, no one can open other up to PvP.
There is a "mode" for mostly everyone, it's only the sect that demands that all others play their "mode" that do not get what they wish. Think about this for a second, if everyone dropped out of OPO to SPO and the only players that would be left in OPO are PvPers. How is that any different than everyone playing in OPO and those that wish to flag open PvP can do so. You still get access to the same player base.
Immersion? Yeah, that a crap answer. Those people are still there and we all know it. Just as well as we know other players (beyond the current 64 per instance) are still there.
Best solution: build a great PvP community that invites players to partake. The PvP population will thrive.
Good luck with keeping the toxic play out of said community. Till then, I will keep my consensual PvP and have the ability to opt out any time I feel that PvP is failing.
The problem is the PVPers can't agree themselves what is good pvp...there are those that are ok with the system and those that are opposed(which haven't given a good reason why)
Sure they have.
Some oppose this system due to the open PvP not being full open PvP.
Not everyone may think this is a good reason but to them it is. It's the one system that is all inclusive and all exclusive at the same time. The system proposed so far is about as close as it can get. I am betting that once the system plays out and people get to see things in action it will go over better - to the open minded.
But that is not a *why*... That's a rephrased statement of the same position. And that is exactly the problem: That small group doesn't give any reasons, they just reiterate their position in different ways, as if that makes it different... But it doesn't! It is still the same position in different words!
Another Great PvP Thread bassaX !........ and let no one tell you any different!
I will be flagged for PvP though I really suck at it! But I'm good at "Mass PvP" and I truly love everything about it so much I want to lick it!
No matter what we all think we know will be any final outcomes, "I'm certain that DS & LB are cracking each other's sculls in right now on some privet server".
Darkstarr: *whack* was that fun?
Lord British: *zap* was that fun?
"That is happening right now without a doubt" **
Then there will be the future Public Release #2 <---<<< this is the one I'm waiting for in the ways of exciting PvP. Our chrs will be buff enough by then and we'll be all very ready to rumble!
The in's and out's of ideas for new inventive PvP have not reached any maxim... nor worthy of any maxim magazine article, but I have total faith that it's coming.
But further to a point, I'd like to say that "we have not experienced anything exactly like this game"... or I hope not... close, but it can't be truly predicted to any normal.
My problem I have with PvP suggestions is, that most people are duelists and I'm not. They have a great sense of single combat and what new things that may entail. So, I stay back from most of these subjects and just read. the other thing I have a problem with is that, "When each different idea of any system is taken on it's individual merits, I generally like them all". Yet when applied to "this game" some just aren't quite a good fit... but well worth the reading in consideration.
In the end when it comes to SotA, my motto is,
I flag for PvP, because PvPers flag for me"
I'll keep reading now...
That is the why. They are looking for a recreation of time passed. That's not being done here.
I do believe they will make some kind of shard/server/whatever how it would be called, but I am pretty sure it would be popular because MO/DarkFall/Random UO shards players will move for it and it would be quite enough. Just like EvE with its stable population.
Actually, I think they are looking for the spiritual successor to the whole Ultima series including online as RG originally had it and has promised in the KS campaign. I think the SotA team using that term Spiritual Successor was really miss-leading for a lot of people.
Well they are getting a lot of the features...not sure what was misleading about it.
You may believe that... Fact is that the team has always said the opposite... *shrugs*
Did they really say that they do not care about sandbox/pvp/social games fans want? Or did they say that they dont care about their community? Or you just want it to be "another" short term game? And the main word is "Another"
No, they said they want the whole community to share the same single consistent world! PvPers can play the way they want with other PvPers. Please explain WHY it is such a big deal there will be people you cannot randomly attack, if there is such a huge amount of PvPers, as you claim, you *can* attack?
I still have not gotten an explanation... The PvE crowd is not limiting the PvPers by saying they shouldn't be allowed to PvP where they play, why the other way round?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.
Yes....isn't the other way sounding more limiting...strange.
I mentioned that 2 posts before. It is a part of social features of any game. It's quite close to life. If you want protection you need to find a clan/person who will protect you, and this is a sandbox feature. 2nd option is to limit by game mechanics and this is casual modern feature. Just compare my point with battleground/arena. Same stuff. All the PvPers there and all farmers doing their stuff in 100% safe zones made by game mechanics. Adding this feature to full loot pvp making you perfect mechanics (my own opinion). But if you want to limit it by game mechanics (yesterday I wanted PvP, today not so I wont flag myself) its more like WoW and not even pre Burning Crusade.
But it is NOT an MMO and NOT a sandbox... It's more like the early Ultima's where there is a story to tell and a role to play... But the world *is* going to be very interactive none the less!
Non-consensual PvP would prevent a high percentage of people from completing the storyline...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.
Yes, BassaX. The problem is that this game will not be that, nor was it ever going to be.
Even the game that you pine for hasn't been that game since Renaissance was released.
That game is close to 17 years old now, and has had a version of Consensual PvP for 15 of those years.
Yesterday I wanted PvP so I went to Felluca. Today I don't, so I'll stay in Trammel.
Definition of words, we all seem to look at that term with our own slant. It's actually much more complicated than "must include X feature"
Along the same lines of the legal term, spirit of the law. It's the the painstakingly detailed wordings of legalese. It's the overall intent.
The big picture, the game that RG wishes to deliver, is all things Ultima. It's new names and new lore. The mechanics have changed, but that's due to the market changing.
Our first MMO hold a very special place in each of us. There are parts we love and miss and there are parts we would never put up with in another MMO. That part we love most is always going to be desired in the next great journey. For some, it's an impossible task. Hope never dies, only gets redirected.
Separate names with a comma.