PvP Zones : The richest 1% get richer?

To be honest, I find that to be the travesty since honestly and you can rely on almost half a dozen other games, the best guilds are typically gatherers that bind together and gank merely because they hate pvp so much that they undeniably have to ruin it for everyone.

As far as hand holding, it's seriously so -rare- that it won't likely happen in this game where the crafters will more or less unionize and smack down any player that flags particularly with the /zone being a hit-squad is easy.

that said, pvers just want to do what they did in UO and a handful of other mmo's particularly where they decimate and hyper inflate the self-economy, and own the macro resources, and the micro-items.

In UO it didn't take long to establish 1,2 or 3; that said, I don't really expect it to be long until a handful of pvpers invite in pvers, merely for the obvious hit-squad-anti-gank-team element, and once that happens and it will almost undeniably happen since cooperation in virtually all online-games typically gives the best, and most fruitful rewards, that we'll all be at the back drop of an economy based on a few guilds with rather elaborate pvp ruses.

As far as hand holding, they love to pretend to be weak since as 1; they are. but getting 50-100 on board, plus nine or ten other guilds, it's the only way a pver feels 'safe enough' to go farming, since unless they can identify over 99% of the player base and their intentions from an easy to use gui, there's just.... too much risk!

 

I disagree with this motif almost entirely, and i disagree with it even to the point of my skill tree and talent abilities. I'm here for rewards, if you decide to keep making me eat unintentional side-effects of a system that works, or wins, then you designed a poor system.

I'm sick of the risk/reward paradigm, I'm risking things already by logging in, and disregarding life at large. I'm here to win, and to have an ego explosion where I am the master(y) of my destiny and the pupils within it.

If i wanted to risk more then (my health (sitting on my ass all day) my time (sitting on my ass all day) my effort (sitting on my ass all day) ) then I would argue that someone didn't really think very hard about how much time they may or may not have already wasted playing games at large.

I want rewards relatable to reality; If someone pvp's 70 hours in a week, and forewent meals, bathroom breaks, their should be a reflective reward to that, not so much mediocre communism reward. And that's exactly where the problem is, as soon as i hear the word "risk" what you're really saying is "i want the risk mitigated because i'm a communist, and I want the reward mitigated since I'm a communist."

 

Risk/reward works on a paradigm that's dated, and we're dealing with intangible assets that have a bare-bone minimum cost reflective to reality. They are pixels, and you can make them shiny, they are cheaper then most if anything to make in reality, and aside from upkeep they over-time still will have a life span of cost almost negligible to the exception of the man hours it took to make it.

Versus that hamburger you ate for dinner last for 3.99 that had a week life-span to it, and with freezing maybe six months. Digital assets are like hyper-frozen food items, case and point is when you log into UO and still see "phoenix armor" in a museum on catskills.

How much time you put in should be reflective of what you get out of the process, and that should be seen as a no upper limit threshold, since really and genuinely does life ever hold back for how much it gives to someone? no, our rates and accumulation of skill and knowledge have a plateau at some points, but someone who has been fencing for 45 years, typically and on average will best someone that just picked up a weapon.

When you start playing with "carrot on a stick" which is more or less your risk/reward paradigm, you start playing a dangerous line of endorphin releases that more or less mocks any real system of gain, since all you're really doing is baiting me with bread crumbs in the hopes of one day getting me to a loaf of bread that was undeniably wasted on bread crumbs.

Risk reward should be renamed "wasted bread crumbs" since this is almost exactly more or less what it establishes.

My BEST PVP experience was the world of warcraft hierarchy where Warlord mattered for the undeniably satisfying accomplishment of HIGH WARLORD (almost 14 tiers, and a playtime requirement similiar to 260 hours a week!) and the pay off was gear that justified the "bread crumbs" into a full "loaf of bread" in sticking with a limited metaphor.

That said -- what you're asking for with risk/reward is merely to be click-baited along, with almost no impending pay out

 

Once you realize world of warcraft was merely a 45 minute loop for quest,quest,quest,quest, and just enough xp either before or after a bathroom break, the game takes on an uneven keel of not caring, since the quest design is more or less enough to accomplish said tasks in said quest area just before your kidneys burst. It's gotten worse in that regard with time, but it's inherently rewarding since it more or less playslike train tracks. Follow this, do that, acquire this, acquire that, disregard this zone since you're level is too low, but continue on the train tracks, and within 10-15 days of riding this train for a typical player, you'll see how much you've seen on this little train ride, that click baited you through the world with +1 upgrades, and a dated system of time investment merely so you can reach an end game, where the system now requires multiple players to ride those same train-tracks with you, for a % bonus gain in over-all performance somewhere in the lines of 1-5%.

And there in lies a huge problem with any system that rewards in consistent, small, rewards, like you're a cumulative algorithm of n+1;

 

That is a very strange way of putting it??? Right now you can, but later you can't...

The devs have been clear that for live launch they will either remove the ability to be in single mode at shardfalls completely, or, they will nerf the resource nodes heavily for single player modes.

 

Just so you know, you didn't counter anything I said, you just went on a meaningless and irrelevant rant. Next time don't bother quoting a person if you don't want to respond to their points, and only seek to go off on your own tangent.

 

even if that's true, the best zones to farm aren't even the shardfalls

 

tbh, i just ignore you for the most part. unfortunately you suffer the same fate. But tbh, you should be a mod, I'd +1 that request in a heartbeat, since you clearly can't be bothered. LOL

 

It's not a lie, it's just not the case with the current release. Are you not aware of the intended design or are you purposefully attacking something you know is not finished?

 

i play the game, i don't keep up on the hype-notes. Short of the wiki page listing changes, and my own game play experience I don't seek out press related data/information, or dev posts

 

Then maybe you should be less hostile and approach things with more of a question?

The conversation is about rare resources and rare creatures in PvP zones. Have you found any of this in the PvP zones? I mean come on, how can we compare the 95% of the zones to the 5% zones when the only difference currently is PvP. Without the rares the economic factor isn't there.

The current state of the game isn't going to be an effective topic if you ignore then intended design.

 

@ OP

It's possible if the Devs design it that way. As of R15 it is not so.

Resources are currently poor to average in quantity in the PvP zones and the terrain is annoyjng to get around. Exp per node is on par with the other hard areas in the game. There are currently 4 better areas to mine that are not shardfalls.

Edit: Gold, silver and gems are found in the lowest exp areas of PvE. Once you can decorate with gold bars, silver bars and gems there would currently be a rush to low level areas.

 

I don't choose how you read my texts if you see them as hostile, that's a problem between your keyboard and your chair.

As far as rare resources or rare creatures in pvp zones, nope haven't seen any. As far as PvP zones at large, It's rare to even see another player in a shard-fall since there's no advantage to being in there over a half a dozen other zones.

If I was going to pvp over resources, the expectation in that advantage would be gamed anyway. Since I'd be trying to ally with everyone I see so we can 'ni-hao' the entire zone together. Hence a cooperation bonus having implicit advantage in a circumstance with pvp zones and relating to my posts above rather well. As far as current state of the game isn't an effective topic --- it should be, since if you're not playing it, there's probably a reason why? as far as intended design argument -- It'd be too difficult/expensive to forum hunt for each particular topic, and since I don't get invited to round-table events, for the most part, I throw it in the hype pile. Since really, I imagine this conversation took place a long time ago for obvious playability reasons.

 

Calling someone a liar is hostile, anyway you look at it.

Pvp death current thinking megapost

The announcement section isn't too hard to skim.

SotA Kickstarter

Also, the Kickstarter campaign, the opening page, is a deliverable product. Hype is not acceptable, what was stated in that opening page and the stretch goals must be delivered. For example, they can not change this without going against the original pledges.

Beyond that, ask, someone has a link. Because without the intended design you are going to be, at best, holding half a conversation.

 

Then expect to be called out for the ignorance, everything you have posted here is loaded with it. Something as simple and fundamental as the meta shard system would change how you posted. Something more complicated like selective multiplayer makes your posts not even usable in the conversation.

Again, frame the post in more of an answer seeking perspective and you won't have to bother hunting down the info, someone will fill you in.

As for calling it hype. Some much of what is being left out of your post can never be hype. These things are too core to the design.

 

being called out at all, isn't a problem. you see it as something i mind

and i'm calling things in just about every way hype, since chances are half the things named in that community thread may be hype until they are actualized. this is why i work from the current pub issue, and typically ignore what you see as 'intended' design. If it were 'intended' it would already be in the game, but that's post humorous to the issue here.

 

As I have said many times before, Pre-Alpha, Alpha, Beta is not for everyone. Comparing and contrasting current state to intended design is common. Ignoring the existence of the intended design removes yourself from the conversation.

Might as well be ranting to a wall.

 

Yes but it invalidates the strange "blatant lie" comment.
Then I have to ask; are you trying to insinuate that I'm a liar as well? Your "if that's true" comment is really out there as well. It tells me you can't be bothered to check the source, but you still want to question me???

You are baselessly and needlessly aggravating people, why exactly???

Very strange behavior.

*goes away, shakes head*

 

*nods* There seems to be a lot of this going around lately.

 

c'mon folks - don't feed 'em. lets get back to topic here.

i'd love to hear more from lollie on this - seems their feedback has some basis we can discuss at length. there is a need for risk/reward in games, almost all aspects and systems within games, actually. but the real question is how to implement them so they will not discourage different playertypes to keep playing. there's an upper limit to the reward that shouldn't be crossed, for that very purpose.

lollie, with the current system, what would be the line you would draw, that would be acceptable for a pvp zone to have more resources (not different resources) than pve zones? would there need to be further systems in place to help mitigate any hostile market chagnes that may or may not occur?