PvPers, would you play full-time on a full loot, open world PvP dedicated server?

This question is asked for the PvPer. It boggles my mind, but non-PvPers are going to be the most outspoken on this thread. Your concerns w/re: to PvP have been addressed by the PvP flag, so please let this poll serve as a tool for the PvP community. ​

​

PvPers, this is your chance to put-up or shut-up. Let's have our concerns met, and shatter any ideas that we are the root cause that loot is restricted (ie; we're scared to lose our shineys). ​

​

Definitions:​

​

Open world PvP - it's everywhere except guard zones. Includes pk/bounty system for murderers. There are still consequences and choices. just not PvP flags. UO-pre Trammel.​

Full loot - you die, your stuff can be looted freely by anyone. May include criminal penalties for evildoers.​

Full-time - your backer rewards are used on this server and you play the majority of your time here.​

 

I am a PvPer, depending on the game, just to preface this, in case you want to cast it off.

I have two things I find weird.

A) What does this accomplish? As there is not going to be a separate server. That much has been made abundantly clear from the development team, through many conversations, over 18 months of this same topic.

B) If there are an overwhelming majority of Non-PvPers who come around bashing down these ideas, shouldn't that tell you everything you need to know about the size of the potential population? IOW, if they haven't engaged enough to overwhelm the Non-PvPer in the same 18 months, what will seemingly make them have a majority voice now?

Just more curiosity questions.

Personally I am more pissed about the backwards pedalling on the whole "we will host our own 'connection' for friends to join" thing. That would have at least given a more possible pathway to allow secular "worlds" with the potential to let those server-clients change the rulesets. Kind of like Shards, but with a central authority that would populate the towns, vendors, etc...

Cheers.

 

I am using my first post to say.... YES, that would be amazing.

 

Welcome Schmitty!

 

Joviex, fair enough. However, i'd like to have some statistics that can help drive a conversation re: such a server in the future. It costs nothing to answer honestly.

A. Things change. I'd like to think SOTA devs are open minded, and who knows...maybe things such as player population can make a PvP server a reality.
B. PvPers are notoriously bad about putting together a logical, well written, and polite argument. This is an attempt to rally like-minded individuals in order to have our needs met. I suspect many "PvPers" are casual, and many PvP don't take the time to push their agenda.

 

PvPers doesnt play on PvP-only servers. it has been tried with MANY games, all of them short-lived ( in relative terms of game lifespan )

PvPers want non-pvpers to pvp with for it to be 'exciting', So what most people are asking for is FULL pvp so You/they can go around killing people that really dont want to pvp.

So my question to you is, if you REALLY disagree with what i just wrote, then WHAT is wrong with the current system where anyone that really want to pvp CAN flag pvp, and fill the same purpose!?

I am going to take a wild guess and say that i won't get a good answer to that question, same as with every other thread that ever emerged on this topic.

 

3 Reason I voted no:

1: I rather play a server with a lot of player even if not all are flagged than a server with less players and open PvP.
2: With a good mixture of quests that require that you enter PvP arias and hopefully some PvE will at least try PvP some will make make the environment more target rich,
3: I have friends that I want play together with that never would play an a open PvP server

 

I love pvp, but I don't like pvp for the sake of it. See Darkfall for reference.

You need to have meaningful reasons to pvp, and just "because it's fun" doesn't support the economy or the server population the way it needs to in order to have a successful game.

 

Duke Arradin, do you spend the majority of your game time PvPing? If so, great...thanks for the input. If not, why do you care?

- It hasn't failed in every game, ie; Shadowbane, DarkFall, DayZ.

- MANY non-PvPers enjoy the thrill of being hunted and escaping dangerous interactions w/PvPers. It may be weird to you, but they find it challenging.

I suspect, based on your signature image, that you don't spend the majority of your time PvPing. If this is the case, you've done nothing but further my suspicions that your voice is just louder than the rest when it comes to brow-beating developers. If this is not the case, I apologize for the assumption and appreciate your feedback.

 

1. you're assuming a PvP server wouldn't be populated. nobody can answer that question.
2. fair enough.
3. understood, although this makes me suspicious that you don't spend the majority of your time PvPing.

 

Absolutely, but that shouldn't drive your response to "no". Sieges, events, guild drama would provide meaning. You're inserting a population argument that isn't supported by any facts. Who can tell how many people will be on a particular server? Btw, Darkfall was successful as a sandbox mmo, but it was also developed by idiots.

 

Unfortunately the war is over, we lost. Full Loot PVP is not a viable strategy.

However, as owner of what is currently the largest Open PVP City in Shroud of the Avatar, The City of Penshire, I believe there are viable ways to make PVP accessible for all those who enjoy it.

 

1. Pure Logic says that that a server that can attract both PvP and PvE will have more users that pure PvP.

 

The war is never over, we just need to do a better job of expressing our concerns. Our money is green too.

 

Darkfall were the last stand. The truth is that no one wants to be continually at risk of losing all of their time, money, and stuff when the odds of success rely upon having some kind of superficial advantage over someone else. That's not fun for the people without the advantage.

I'm not telling you to stop "expressing your concerns", but I'm telling you that if your concerns are that you don't have full loot...that's not a concern it's a preference to a solution for a problem that the devs (and the majority of the player base) are not interested in fixing. So my suggestion to you would be to rephrase your concerns and ask for something that you might actually get, because full loot is not happening.

 

Yah, I feel ya Drocis. It doesn't make any sense. Why would anyone lose ALL of their time, money, and stuff? There's housing, banks, and the ability to actually win instead of lose. My only question was, would you play such a server? Not much effort really. The majority of the effort seems to be keeping the question within scope. So many haters (not talking about you) are so traumatized at the thought of losing pixels they can't see straight...let alone entertain the thought of a separate server. Full loot may not ever happen, but you don't start a bargaining discussion from the middle...you work your way there.

 

Not only would i play on a Full Loot PvP server, but it is the ONLY way i would play SoTA.

 

Yeah, if we were having this discussion a year ago, I'd say it was a good starting point.

Just to get back on topic, the idea of segregating the community into another server would be rough on my player owned town. I'm counting on there being a max population to support the town. In many ways I figure having access to traditional PVE players will benefit my town because a lot of people prefer to PVP using Alts. If there are different servers, that might still be possible, but the segregation leads people to pick a side and by proxy makes them less active in one verses the other. Historically this has resulted in lower server populations on the "riskier" PVP servers.

It's a large investment that I'm making, and I wouldn't want to see part of my customer base forced to choose between whichever server my town was on and another server.

That's not the primary reason I voted no to the poll though. It's just an additional one.

 

Absolutely. Risk vs Reward makes a game fun. I can't relate to someone who wants to be a crafter/explorer/adventurer/roleplayer with no risk. IMO that just seems bland. Full loot in no way means you lose all your time, progress or money. Anyone who claims that is just a fool. The only thing full loot provides is an adrenaline rush most games can't even come close to and sense of reward from adequate risk. I see Darkfall thrown around here as an example of full loot failing. I can only assume these are people who did not play darkfall. That game had a million flaws and problems that ruined it but full loot was never a factor in its downfall.

Full loot boils down to this. When you die you lose your set of gear, weapon and whatever resources/loot you gained on that particular adventure. You do not lose your bank, you do not lose all your money, you do not lose all your progress. It increases a crafters value. It creates an insane amount of RP situations. It is great for the economy as well.

Isn't the magic in this kind of game to bring both PvP'ers and non PvP'ers together? To create a world that combines the two like UO did? Full loot provides this opportunity. You can create such a diversity of play styles. Crafters need gatherers, gatherers need protection. Thieves and thrive off the innocent who then look towards a law system and white knight type protectors. Wars could be fought over resources, while a single stealthy harvester could become richer than ever imagined.

Or we could go the other route. The one which every mmo is taking... Everyone maxes crafting, you just unflag and gather until you max out. Exploring is as simple and autorun with a tank spec. Crafters become the gathers since they need not worry about pvp. Thieves maybe get a pickpocket option with an RNG for petty things that question the need for the skill. No need for a law system, protection or white knights. People just unflag and afk without a care.

Also am I missing the joke here? The biggest voice in this thread is the one wanting a "PvP" city with the number one rule is not to kill him?

 

No, no, no.

This is a moot point, because it's not going to happen.