Questions to the PVP Players

True, but if there's someone who's willingly trying to troll and ruin your RP party, they won't accept that PvP invitation.

For you to have the ability to "get rid" of a player like that would require an objectively fair feature. That's why I asked: Where do you draw the line?

With that said, I wonder if Portalarium still intends on inhabiting your scene by prioritizing people in your friend's list and those you regularly frequent.

As much as I would like that power, I don't trust anyone else with it. So no.

 

Well PVE can grind and farm without worry of being Pkd. Thats one difference, Most of the content is built for PVE as well, including Add ons. (mostly for Rp. Pve people) dont get me wrong i like to dress up my houses, but there is nothing there specifically for PVP

 

So basically what your saying @Spoon is there is no room to change from what has been planned????? I remember a time when we couldnt even jump, run or swim, but all that was changed with the people that came forth and said this needs to change! So why is this so different? You can quote old **** from years ago all you want but you cannot argue some things have changed! and can still change!

 

I think that you are reading something else into my statement than what I intended.
My approach as usual is that of information.


So lets see here.
1)
You seem upset about the old quotes, but it is very strange of you to get upset at me for that when that was specifically what @Armar was asking for. I even quoted his question as the basis for my post "When had this decission been made, why and by whoom?" [sic]. Please note that Armar also replied that the info was interesting.
So directing anger at me for directly answer someone's question seems like an overreaction.
How else could I answer such a question without quoting old stuff?

2)
"So basically what your saying @Spoon is there is no room to change from what has been planned?????"
Nope. That was not what I was saying. You are changing the scope there.
The changes you cite is relatively feasible efforts in man hours in comparison, especially since they were made quite early in the project. While a complete change to the business model and to at the same time also change the technical architecture and infrastructure of the whole project would mean at least adding about 5-10 man years with no added content to show for that, binding their most critical bottleneck personnel (tech architecture). So given their budget practically impossible.

3)
"So why is this so different?"
Scope.
Specifically, Ristra's point that it is not about game design, but rather a business decision.
For them to successfully get the Kickstarter funding they needed to appeal to both the UO vets and the Ultima series fans. As such they had to come up with a business model that support that diversity, which gave the One Shard United, Selective Multiplayer concept. This created enough of a market to get that initial kickstarter funding, and then they started building the game given those requirements for their architecture as outlined during the kickstarter. So almost all of the fundamental tech infrastructure is built around that business decision, which gives us their business model which we can see with the addon store, the land deeds, etc.
At this point they are waaaaaaaaaay too pot committed to even consider such a change as separating the player base.

4)
Can it be done?
Sure. It is just a matter of money. But that is also the constraint of the project, money. They are (mostly) crowdfunded for a reason, and that crowdfunding keeps coming at a steady rate given the current business model and player base.

5)
Would it have made more sense to divide the player base at kickstarter?
Given the prerequisite of crowdfunding - no.

6)
Would it be easier from a game design point of view to have divided this from the beginning?
Absolutely. The cohesiveness of the product isn't good when catering to all. So it would have been much easier if the project had had a better focus on a specific audience from the beginning. Which means that a whole lot of things will not be optimal since it needs to be a compromise.

7)
However the whole argument revolves around the target audience. For hardcore PvP a compromise is not as good, for hardcore PvE a compromise is not as good. However for all of those who can enjoy a little bit of both this game is a marvelous thing.

Strength through diversity.

Take me for example. Here I can unflag one day and not worry about things when running events or such things, then the next can flag and join my PvP friends in a meele, and the next be antisocial in Single Player. Such playing diversity is what appealed to me from the beginning.
As such I'd leave in an instant if they changed the business model. There are better hardcore PvP games out there, there are better single player RPG games out there, there are better PvE MMOs out there - but given this mix and this setting it is hard to find something like it.

 

@Spoon good post, exactly what i'm thinking.

And Options between online Modes and PVP on or off is what makes this game good for me.

 

Correct, it gave me some more background about the "whole thing".

A PvP+ and PvP- server is hardly a seperation of the player base. Its common since a long time to offer different server flavours (PvP+, PvP-, RPG only, etc.) to a player base.

Nice understatement.

Up to now even pure PvP+ servers always included PvE. Thats just about to change now with new, upcoming PvP+ games.

This game appeals to UO vets? As far as i see most had been chased away already. Guild-wise! For UO Vets this game is far too restrictive to appeal to them. Here a reminder what UO Vets are looking for. Although i know it cant be 100% reproducable.

Reminder what UO had been (not the classic Ultima TPG series, thos games are two very different "things")

http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1016629/Classic-Game-Postmortem-Ultima

The interested reader might want to skip to "The players are running this game - Starr Long".

I hear this slogan a lot. I even live in a foreign country which has this slogan as national anthem. I cant remember seeing this really working out.

Like i already said, the idea sounds good but thats it.

// Armar

 

@Armar

One Problem/Task/Creation one Person = unilateral result
Two persons of the same type/shape= more diverse but...
More persons of the same shape, let's say chirurges, = well almost the same point of view, but more input
More persons of different shapes/ types/ opinions...= most diverse input and therefore the best possible results , not allways , but constructive teamwork required it should be true.

Problem with pure PvE and PvP is, they don't like each other because of totally controverse opinions.
Therefore each one won't grant anything to the other one.
Sad but true

 

I dont have any beef with PvE'ers. Why should i? Problems only occur when you force too different playstyles together.

// Armar

 

i wasnt coming at you with anger man, sorry if your interpreted that way.

 

Not anger from my point of view. More akin to misplaced passion.

You always have had a great deal of passion in your posts, which I find refreshing and something which I'd like more of in these forums.
However sometimes such passion leads to tilting at windmills instead of giants.

Doesn't leave that much room for interpretation.

 

One thing i did learn in this whole situation is i will never Kickstart another game ever! Even if i totally loved another game that the designer made.

I was just talking when i said quote old **** all you want.