PVP & Death: Current Thinking Megapost

Polio was also unique.

Because, like Polio, there are many who felt that the unique experience you would create was toxic and bad. So many (including the men who designed the game in the first place) felt that it was toxic and bad that they went to extraordinary lengths to change it.

I do not believe that SotA will be like every other game out there. I believe it will be closer to the vision of Mr. Garriott than Ultima Online turned out to be. He is, after all, designing this game too, and if he felt as you do that Ultima Online was the Ultimate, then he would likely and logically be designing Ultima Online II. He's not, therefore his opinion must differ from yours.

Personally, I would not have backed this venture had that not been true.

 

It wasn't just marketing. With WoW, Blizzard spent some time finding out what players liked and disliked about MMOs, and implemented what they found in their game; due to that it became the most casual and solo friendly among the big MMOs of its time, which is likely why it gained such a huge player base. At the time, it was the only one of its kind.

(And this might be why they can't grow it, or even keep it the size it was before, anymore. Competitors wisened up to what Blizzard was doing, and now WoW has competition aplenty for the casual gamer. While the network effect from its still huge player base shore it up somewhat, WoW now faces real competition.)

That being said, it's not necessarily better or worse. Well, it was certainly better for the publisher's bottom line, but as far as the game itself goes it was just different. It's like comparing D&D with Final Fantasy, each has its different strengths, weaknesses, and target player base.

 

I understand your opinion, but I have to disagree.
Everything is moved by money, this game as well as all everything nowadays, has one target maximize its profits..
Nobody cares anymore to do something innovative and risk not to sell. the proof is that all mmorpg look the same.....

 

Because I want to fight a person that is skilled. I want to fight a person for a purpose. I do not want to fight a person that is ready to recall out, running when they know they can't win.

Umm, did you miss the flag for open PvP part? There will be plenty of PKing and unexpected danger. And yes, death will mean more than just running back.

This leads me to believe you haven't done your homework on SotA. Crafters/gatherers will have teeth in SotA.

 

If you're going to use Financial Success as your soul criteria, then WoW is the yardstick that all game should be measured against.

 

Coming in and wanting everyone to play UO2 or some derivative of UO is never going to go anywhere.

Think of what RG and team did when they created UO (all of their games for that matter) UO was a major change in gaming. There was a lot of unexpected. Now they are building a game and they have a much better idea on what to expect.

Recreating UO would be impossible, they know what to expect and not to do.

They are making SotA based on their collective experience of what not to do.

 

And, I'm curious, which opinion are you disagreeing with?

 

Recreating a UO game similar to UO Renaissance would be very much possible and i believe such a game would have more pledgers then today SotA have.

Recreating pre-trammel is not doable though and not something i would like to take part in. Killing new or defenseless players was what many newbie PK:s did pre-trammel time. There was alot of griefing going on.

 

Shards online.... Bombed!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I was talking about a game developed by Richard Garriott and friends, not shards online. Richard as the developer of UO would bring in alot of old UO PvP players. My guild would easy bring +50 pledgers to such a game. As it is now i am the only one here.

 

And yet, Richard Garriott and Friends have chosen to not design that game.
Why do you think that might be?
Why would they abandon what you consider to be both a route to greater financial success and Richard's original vision?

 

I made this claim a long time ago but here I go again.

UO was a rule set not a game. That's loosely the definition of sandbox. The game came from the players. (if anyone ever setup a UO EMU and hosted their own server for solo play they know what I am talking about)

SotA will be a game. They are making the rule set then building a story and a purpose.

In UO PvP, for many, was all that was worth playing. Anything they did beyond PvP was to facilitate PvP. EA's push away from PvP focus killed the game for those players.

Content designed around PvP - PvP hexes and any other PvP with a purpose.
Flagging open PvP so that players may engage in all the content while being open to PvP.

PvP hexes bring the story to PvP. Open PvP is for those that don't care to focus on the story, they want the sandbox.

The reason for the need of this distinction is that there will always be those that are not interested in the story. The problem comes in when players find that the story is a funnel for players. This is no different than portal camping. The only way to answer portal camping is better design.

That's the major change from UO is content. Things like full loot or combat are minor changes. They are being changed because they answer problems on the whole Or at the very least they are changes to ideas they wish to see in action with the option to roll back to something else. We wait and see then we give feed back on what they put on the table.

Beta testing is not for everyone. Some can't watch without emotional melt downs. Alpha is something many people never get to experience and SotA is at a state before alpha. Patience is required.

This team, if any team, can get it right. It will be different. It will be new and refreshing. That's what RG and his team have been doing for many years.

 

I think you have to ask Richard and friends that question.

 

How would they know what you think those reasons might be? Among Richard's many talents, I hadn't known that one was telepathy. Only you can know your mind.
Occam's razor suggests that you're incorrect in one or more of your beliefs.

Given that:

• Richard and Friends have decades of experience building computer games.
• Richard himself knows the vision that he wishes to build
• They have chosen not to build Your vision

I must conclude that one or both of the following is true:

• Richard's vision is not in parallel with your vision.
• Richard and friends feel that the game they are building is more financially viable than your vision.

Until such time as you provide hard evidence beyond the anecdotal claim of 50 of your personal followers, I will assume that they are the experts here, and you are simply an interested bystander yearning for a repeat of what once was.

 

How would i be able to answer your question on how Richard and his friends thinks?

I believe they would have more pledgers if they made a game close to UO Renaissance. And you didnt in any way manage to explain i was wrong in that assumption.

Developers will continue to make changes to this game and neither you or me have today the answer to the feature end result. PvP will change but in what way is anybodies guess.

I hope they listened to the old UO PvP players since such a decision will make this game a more successful one.

 

I didn't ask you to read their minds.
You've done nothing to explain why you think that they, the experts in this, are wrong and you, stating opinion alone without any support save a single anecdotal example are right.
You're welcome to your opinion. Everyone has the inalienable right to be wrong.
I will trust the opinions of the experts until shown evidence to counter it.

 

I'm sorry we never really got an answer out of you as to why you come into PvP threads to harass people about how they think PvP should be.

 

I did, but you chose to ignore everything I wrote.
Get back to me after you've read and acknowledged it.
I have never and will never express an opinion on how PvP will be as long as PvP remains strictly Optional.
I will however expose and continue to expose the specious arguments and logical fallacies used to support any argument that PvP must be non-Consensual.

 

It has never been anything but optional. So you could have saved every word you spoke. Or you can join us in reminding people that PvP is only optional in this game.

 

And yet daily another poster arrives to campaign for Non-Consensual PvP. I will not idly stand by and let such proposals go unchallenged lest they gain traction by appearing to be unopposed.

Don't like it? Sucks to be you.