PvP Should Be Like This:

I just believe there should be a pve server with dumbed down safe pvp and a second server with full loot open world pvp.

This would fix the hostile arguments between our two sides. Both sides would get what they want.

 

What is with the fixation with separate servers? If SotA can dynamically place characters according to their preferences, I can think of no greater colossal waste time.

 

Forcing pvpers to play in restricted servers meant for role playing and pve and crafters with limited pvp or pvp with major restrictions cuts out the hardcore pvp group from the game and in doing so cuts out an extra income source that would target that gaming group.

If they made this game as intended being a pve role playing game with restricted pvp such as dueling and guild battles with no loot loss. It can than be easily cloned and stripped of the pvp restrictions for a hardcore pvp server.

This would bring in all the hardcore pvpers from games like: EVE, Ultima Online, Darkfall Online, Mortal Online, Shadow Bane, and the newest popular game RUST.

This would give the people that enjoy quests, crafting, innocent dueling, non risk guild battles, and role playing a server that full benefits their game style

and

give us real pvpers a wild west pvp world with no restrictions.

 

I told you before but I say it again, just because a game are the best selling game a few weeks on Steam don't mean it's so popular specially on the long run. Rust had really good sales last week this week it's falling fast on the chart of best selling games. After playing Rust some I might even top things of with that that is not a real RPG and it's definitely not in the same category of game that SotA have been announced to be.

About Shadow Bane: Have they started some new servers or some thing, played it a lot until they closed all servers due to poor economy. Shadow Bane had really good potential but and can be considered to be a RPG but no one never role played But anyhow a bad example of games due to the bad economy.

Then we have EVE. EVE are a really cool game, I currently have 4 active accounts and only use PLEX to pay for the accounts so I play for free. Problem with using EVE as an example is that your have huge safe zones, hi sec zoned where you can stand and mine all day long and you wont be attacked unless you are in a corporation that are in war. So also a poor example of a free for all full PvP game.

I can say a few things on some of the other games to but I stop here before I create a WoT.

 

Rust has been number 1 seller since it hit steam.

Not just for 1 week.

I mentioned eve because most players go to that game for the full loot open world feel. But your right that was a poor choice on my behalf bc it does have newb zones.

I just don't see why you can't respect my group of gamers that are hardcore pvpers, when we respect your group of pvpers that like non risk pvp like arena duels and guild v guild wars taht really have no reward other than leader boards and holding a guild castle that does nothing other than bragging rights for 1 day until you are sieged and lose it.

 

Look at the players Rust attracted. All I've heard from people who've played it is that it has attracted the worst types of griefers and cheaters. And they just had to do a massive ban of 4,600 players. That's not the community you want to emulate in the long run.

 

every

every game has ALOT of hackers now adays and for a game to have 4600 hackers out of 60000 daily avg players is a rock in the pond.

60,000 + daily Rust players bought a full loot open world sandbox games with no safe zones.

And you dont want SOTA to appeal to those gamers that would bring RG millions of dollars?

 

http://steamcharts.com/app/252490 <- Rust Steam Chart of average players daily.


This is a HUGE corner of the gaming market.

It would help pay for your pve restricted pvp server 10x over and have enough to pay for a second server for full loot open world.

 

First off Rust are #3 on sales list this week so not #1 any more.

As persons I respect your group of players to 100%. In that group there is quite a lot of players I do want to play with even tough I'm for full PvP! I rather play semi/limited PvP so the worst elements of that group look else where. I strongly believe that if SotA are so be successful in the long run we need to PvE players and a lot of them. The truly hard core PvP player will move on to the next game quickly anyway so they wont contribute to SotA in the long run.

 

We feel that way about PvE guys. We feel like they always want a dumbed down pvp game that caters to PvE and in a way ruin the games potential and they finish all the quests in 6 months and leave to the new game.

20 year old UO pre-tramel shards player base out number every modern mmo when the UO shards are combined.

That means hardcore full loot pvpers do NOT abandon a good game.

Every new mmo has a shelf life of about 6 months and than they get a population surge when they come out with expansions but only for a month until those new quests are finished.

Games that favor PvE heavily are those that get eaten up and spitten out the most v pvp games.

 

The only pve game with restricted pvp that has and will always be a huge success is World Of Warcraft.

Every new MMO tries to copy and expand upon this WOW model and they die very fast like i mentioned above.

 

The first week they start banning cheaters, sales dropped off?

And over 7% of your player base getting banned for cheating in one week is pretty sizable.

A good, healthy community that will last for 5+ years (through the 5 episodes at least) doesn't build their base on cheaters.

 

I don't know if this is true or not.... I know EQ2 was very successful. Guild Wars was very popular as well and GW2 is also doing very well at over a year old. Are you sure that the UO shards you are discussing are successful because they are old versions of UO or because they are free....

 

Haha so major pve mmo games dont have thousands of cheaters?

If you believe that than you are deluding yourself.

EVERY game now a days has ALOT of hackers until the devs create stable antihack programs for their engines.

I assure you SOTA will have ALOT of hackers also in its alpha/beta models like rust does in their alpha model.

The reason for this is because all resources are going into content and not game engine anti hack programs.

 

The best way to make something a success is to find a corner of the market that no one else uses and find customers there and you will have less competition. The corner you are talking about with games like DayZ , Rust and a few others have extremely hard competition.

Yes those are the type of PvP I do like BUT with a full loot PvP game today you also get another type of player, a type that UO also had for a while, that I do not like at all and that kind of player are notorious for their volatile behaviour. The type of players I do not want to play with are a typical DayZ and Rust player, most of them simple do not know how to role play and SotA are a Fantasy Role Paying game (at least that is what the kick-starter said all time.).

 

WoW was created as a PvP game. Having two factions certainly doesn't help the PvE part. It simply evolved over time based on the interests of the community. RIFT was the same way. It evolved into more and more of a PvE focused game.
Lineage2 succeed as a PvP game due to the importance of the castles. (Very much like the SotA $2M stretch goal.)
DAoC was obviously built as a PvP game and was successful.
UO wasn't build for PvP. It was simply a game where people had a lot of freedom and the rewards for PvP were higher than indented. (Because you could full loot people who were more or less non combatants.) Emergent gameplay happened. They spent years trying to figure out a happy place to tune the rules where they weren't bleeding subs.

 

So you don't call EVE a success, that is strange

 

I just feel attacked by all of you softcore pvpers to be honest.

Right now SOTA is being built in your image and you guys will be 100% happy with the games current goal.

All I'm asking is for them to give us hardcore pvpers the exact same game on a 2nd server with the safe zone markers removed and access to full loot.

I don't understand why you guys can't share a game in the making that has potential to be the best game on the market for its genre.

I find you all to be very stubborn and selfish to not want to share a game to a corner of the market that would add $ to fuel your game farther.

 

I've been playing SWTOR for over two years and never seen any cheaters in PvE or PvP. There were a few bans for people using a speed hack, but because Bioware caught it so quick and banned people immediately, it never caught on.

Instead of penalizing people with PvP, they incentivize it with gear that you can only get with PvP. They incentivize it with PvP specific missions and quests, with Valor ranks and titles. They incentivize it with Ranked commendations and Ranked Leaderboards. They make it something everyone wants to take part in. And it's really good these days.



You can say that we have to copy Rust because they have 60,000 players and that cheaters are somehow a good thing, but that is a tiny drop in the bucket compared to games like WoW, SWTOR, Lineage 2, Aion, FFIVX, etc. These games don't force non-consentual PvP on people, don't have full loot, and don't have communities of cheating. PvP on these games is fun and competitive. They have tournaments broadcast online for their PvP.

I'd much rather have the millions of subscribers of a game like Lineage or WoW than 60,000 people who spent $20 one-time on Rust and then no subscription fee.

You're also assuming that no work has gone into their "engine" and anti hack programs. They've already described anti-hack mechanics that check for progress over time to make sure someone isn't using cheats for XP, gold, items, etc. The client we'll be using is a heavily modified version of Unity, with Unity largely just providing the rendering and everything else custom written. But the backend to handle P2P communications and the entire online portion of the game is custom written. To say they haven't spent any time developing it doesn't make much sense.

 

But what's is the problem to share a server? If things work as have been talked about you will only see the players that have their PvP flag on, same players that would play on a pure PvP server.

There is a lot of advantages with one server as have been mentioned before.