[Rant] A Generation Of Gamers That Dont Know What Role Play Is ? (Dev) Replied

I was ranting with my friends about the damage World of Warcraft and other games like this have done to new gamers into Role Play. In these games you pick a battle class, and 'level' up to get the next 'great thing' and continue grinding away.

When we used to RP you wouldn't choose a 'class' you would choose a profession, a farmer, a scholar, an outlaw. shortly after that events would occur by the GM(DM if you D&Ded) that bring you together. As you adventured you slowly became a warrior, a mage, a stealthy thief. Depending on the skills you developed.

But the point here is that you were something more before, and you would be something more after. I was a fan of farming and magery. It would always put me at an disadvantage as I would have to find books and other scholarly resources to learn magery for our adventure. But my character had something he did in life before the adventure and after the adventure he would go back to doing it while being a little wiser.

I dont want SotA to cater to a play style they are used to just to "win" them into playing it. I think they will come naturally. They already played the Sims, Minecraft, and of course that RP game that isn't RP... WoW.

Im asking Portalarium to keep the faith. Dont cater to some of these crazy ideas like a voluntary PvP system... if they dont like PvP they should do single player or play offline. Your Online to RP... REAL RP with multiple players and personalities.

Thanks for reading my rant.

 

Counter RANT:

I have been going crazy listening to these UO nuts debate whether this game should be the next UO. As someone who has gamed all of his life (I am 40 now in case it matters), I know Role-Playing is more than just "HEY N00B, U MAD BRO". I still remember the pen and paper days where me and my friends got together to go on epic quests run by a GM. We didn't fight each other (well often ) we certainly didn't kill each other. We cooperated together to a common goal.

Please don't forget those of us who understand that cooperative play is just as important as PvP to online games.

We are also experienced enough to realize that while PvP is sometimes fun, due to the population distribution problems, it can be immersion breaking and isn't what we want to do all the time. We don't want to live in a world where half of the population is evil. Or a place where every step we take we have to look for the dagger going into our back.

We understand that is not how the real world is and true role playing is more than role-playing unending war.

Please don't cater to the halo generation who think teabagging is appropriate behavior and don't even know about the virtues or ultima 4.

We don't mind having them in the game, just don't force them upon us.

We look at your vision of the micro-sharding as a great leap forward in game design allowing all game types to play together in realtive harmony, please do not dumb down this system to cater to a vocal minority.

We miss ultima, and we look forward to playing a true ultima game together with our friends in cooperation with each other in the virtues.

Hail Britannia! Hail Lord British!

 

@ ElvishDragon [Lord]
+1

 

Interesting discussion... goes to show that all shades are present for SotA.

Maybe I just haven't read the forums enough but the question that comes to mind out of those two rants is: Why not have a PvP check box that allows people who aren't interested to never encounter other players in PvP mode? The implication is that they themselves would not be in PvP mode so long as box isn't checked so they wouldn't have to worry about the knife in the back around every corner.

The quests and areas that force PvP would obviously auto-check your PvP box.

 

@Jean-J Nimble - that is in effect what they are doing although the actual expression of it is quite different... if you are interested there is a dev vlog about some of it here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQowuSParmA and here is RG talking about it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNKo2ih3fyU#t=3h43m

However this is a very vocal minority that are claiming that the only way to do the game (unless, they claim, they want it to fail) is to scrap all that and make it all all PvP all the time, no opting out.

 

*Raises a flask with ElvishDragon* Hail Britannia! Hail Lord British!

 

" goes to show that all shades are present for SotA."

Yep, the central problem: people want different things. Although a large chunk of the player base doesn't want open PVP. The notion of changing open to not-open seems like a simple dichotomy except that the game mechanics differ in an asymmetric way.

I enjoy PVP but would prefer if it was consensual. I'm not so fussed for the loot, I just pvp'ed for the thrill of the chase and the kill. I've also RP'ed a lot, and just as RG said in a video it isn't really about the game mechanics but about the story. Me and some friends created our own games and RP'ed the stories just for fun, in some games the mechanics were immature and lacked combat.

 

I know people are fond of criticizing WoW. But remember, you're doing it because they're on top and you think you can improve it. It may not be your game, but it a tremendously successful game. And anything you think you can improve likely has unintended consequences.

1) Classes are picked as the start to balance combat. (PvE or PvP) Most competitive games prefer that there's some balance in the game. Just because you're actually a level 1 whatever, doesn't stop you from RPing at all.

2) You totally lost me at "voluntary PvP system". This is part of the richness of the story behind WoW. There's 20 years of lore in warcraft (8 in WoW) getting you do empathize with either side of the story. The hoard is not evil. tbh, reading the lore the alliance looks like the darker side. And the PvP isn't really voluntary, nearly the whole map is contested zones and someone from the opposing faction is already considered flagged. You can fight and kill them immediately with no consequences and you get rewards from your faction.


What I would do different is to:
1) Take gear gaps out of instanced PvP (or even PvE). Competitive players don't need a boost for time played.
2) Have a player driven factions / end game with castle sieges
3) I simply dislike the way boss fights / PvE progression works. I'd prefer fights with simpler mechanics and more ability to recover than "wipe and rest."


But everyone has a different list.

 

<blockquote cite="Jatvardur">Yep, the central problem: people want different things. Although a large chunk of the player base doesn?t want open PVP. The notion of changing open to not-open seems like a simple dichotomy except that the game mechanics differ in an asymmetric way.

I enjoy PVP but would prefer if it was consensual. I?m not so fussed for the loot, I just pvp?ed for the thrill of the chase and the kill. I?ve also RP?ed a lot, and just as RG said in a video it isn?t really about the game mechanics but about the story. Me and some friends created our own games and RP?ed the stories just for fun, in some games the mechanics were immature and lacked combat.</blockquote>

The issue at hand to me (for the record despite my rants, I will probably be in PvP I like that gamestyle.. Most of my friends however, don't.) is that wanting different things is fine. But the arguments being made are themselves asymmetrical.

Lets break it down. Lets say Joe has severe issues with PvP (either due to time constraints, skill constraints, medical condition or just plain preference [I actually know people who fall into each of those categories]). To contrast Joe lets look at say Steve. Steve is a hard core PvPer... he loves the clash of steel on steel and if it isn't a human at the other end he gets bored quickly. The thrill of never knowing what is around the corner for him is a rush.

In the game RG is proposing Joe can join in cooperative gaming with his friends and friends of friends and have a great time. Steve is only minimally affected because there are a large number of PvPers and he never has to see the non PvP-ers. The only effect on Steve is economic. And even then they are working to balance that effect out.

In the game the open world PVPers are proposing, Joe can't play. Period.

So in the game as it is proposed now there is only minimal impact to one side, in the game the open PVP crowd proposes there are a large number of people who can't even play.

Such a decision is a no-brainer. Does it make sense to work with the open PvP crowd to improve the PvP side so they feel that it is exciting and fun, hell yes. Catering to them by destroying the desired gameplay of everyone else doesn't.

 

People who make comparisons to table top roleplaying forget that there is a referee at the table to control the flow of the game and help make it fun.

I don't know any GMs who had a level 20 rogue massacre the PCs 5 steps out of Waterdeep's main gate and followed up in character with "LOL NEWBS".

But that's just me.

 

Great comments. Our goal is to make sure you can play the game the way you want to play except when your play style is only to negatively influence others. We believe RP/PvE and PvP focused players can benefit from each other but in more of a controlled manner that properly balances and incentivizes risk/reward.

Sitting in a starting area "pwning noobs" is not PvP... that's ganking.

 

"In the game the open world PVPers are proposing, Joe can?t play. Period."

Yep, exactly. The game mechanics are asymmetric for such a seemingly innocuous binary option. PVP which is toggled on/off in-game, rather than hard wired one way or the other, seems like the best compromise.


Also, I agree with "...and followed up in character with ?LOL NEWBS?."

and: "Sitting in a starting area ?pwning noobs? is not PvP? that?s ganking."

A debate that's as old as the internet but just adding my $0.02.

 

Yea I remember having these same discussions when starting a new MUD.... times change and then they don't.

 

I agree comparing table top games to online rpg's is difficult because of the GM/DM at the head of the table for the pen n paper games, however I have played in multiple games where GM's controlled important characters/monsters that makes the game a whole hell of a love more fun.

Just my 2c.

Yah, GM's in the game wouldn't be free, but I'd be willing to pay a subscription to see the true RP stuff come to fruition.

 

@Elvish Dragon But Steve the PvPer can still interact with all the player run vendors like everyone else, or the local "auction/market(whatever it turns out to be)"

What exactly are these "economic effects" you speak of ??

And thanks for jumping in B(zus)!

 

Going by one of RG?s videos we?ll have 4 game modes: offline, singleplayer online, friends online and multiplayer online (names might differ, speaking from memory), and the game will match who?ll share an instance with you for the friends and multiplayer online modes. RG also said they?d prob?ly iterate to a degree and show you your friends friends, and possibly their friends etc. Sounded promising on first hear and I?m looking forward to it.

Slight concerns though. What if one of my friends, maybe a false friend who befriended me exactly for this reason, has a bunch of PK?er friends raiding the countryside? UO has taught me that people go to greath lenghts to screw other people over.

As an oldtime MUDer and parttime RP'er I hope at least friends online mode will be kept safe from non-consensual PVP / PK'ing.

Incentivising PVP can work, depends on how it?s done. It?s a gradual walk however from shelling out more gold for taking an added risk (quantitative measures) to making it quasi-mandatory by putting rare/needed materials into PVP-only areas only. Content that?s (near-)exclusive to PVP areas is problematic as you?d end up designing mousetraps.

 

@Jean-J Nimble

<blockquote>But Steve the PvPer can still interact with all the player run vendors like everyone else, or the local ?auction/market(whatever it turns out to be)?

What exactly are these ?economic effects? you speak of ??</blockquote>

I am speaking economics in a larger sense of the word and including general gameplay incentive systems.

Specifically if Steve and Joe are both crafters, Steve has a a disincentive to participate in PvP because of the risk associated with it. To counteract that disincentive further economic incentives need to be created to make it as profitable for Steve to participate in PvP as a crafter as it is for Joe to not... that way it is a true choice instead of a false one driven more by profit over weighing of desired playstyle. Care needs to be taken to not flip the problem however, choice needs to be just that choice, strongarming any one type of gamestyle is not choice.

@Calem

<blockquote>
Slight concerns though. What if one of my friends, maybe a false friend who befriended me exactly for this reason, has a bunch of PK?er friends raiding the countryside? UO has taught me that people go to greath lenghts to screw other people over.
</blockquote>

Keep in mind that when shards are created they are matchmaking services. So when you go off of an offline map and create a instance, only those people who match your criteria will be in. If someone joining has conflicting criteria, they will just create a new instance. They haven't covered people joining instances after created (walking in) but I suspect it is the same kind of subsetting. I.E. to join an instance already in progress everyone there has to match your restrictions and you have to match everyone else's.

Now could you have invited a snake into your group of friends or guild and have them PK you without support. Yes. But that is quickly rectified by de-friending him and getting on with your life... you don't lose items (they have been very clear on that point, I can get links if you like) when you die and since it is easily rectified I don't see too much of a problem. Problems arise when there is no serious recourse form the point of view of the player involved (no hiring people to do your pvp for you is not a serious recourse as that relies on both trusting other players and means waiting for other people's schedules/etc.).

Could in friends of friends mode that snake have friends that will lay in wait to gank you. Yes, that is the risk of opening up to friends of friends. [From what I have heard it appears they will give some flexibility to be just friends or friends of friends and so on to the user] Again though, there is an easy and simple recourse that doesn't lose you playtime and only minimal frustration.

Basically both sides are taking minimal frustration hits in this system but neither side is taking a full denial of gameplay.

<blockquote>Incentivising PVP can work, depends on how it?s done. It?s a gradual walk however from shelling out more gold for taking an added risk (quantitative measures) to making it quasi-mandatory by putting rare/needed materials into PVP-only areas only. Content that?s (near-)exclusive to PVP areas is problematic as you?d end up designing mousetraps.</blockquote>

Incentivising is easiest done by introducing goods that are desired but not required. I.E. Places where collection items are more prevalent (gold, reagents, etc) OR places where you can get items that are not required for a given playstyle but might be desired or sought after (stylistic items or items with boosts to stats above the normal itemization, so you don't need them to beat any of the content but it might make things a little easier).

 

@Elvish

Agreed, if there's no item loss involved, it's all handleable. I must have missed the source for that.

 

As a rper I avoid games like WoW because of hearing how it is not a rp game it is simply grinding, however from what I have heard on the many video chats they are trying to pay attention to the rpers and not just those who dungeon crawl or pk.

In playing UO for 10 years I've
found though that you can't simply write out those who you think are not rpers, just because today they 1337 speak, 'lol', or any other form of non-rp it does not mean they will never role play. If the attitude is that it is only the game that won't do enough for rp then there will never be new rpers born. I will hang in Haven and out of 15-20 people in the square I can get at least one non rper to rp the best they can. Some find it funny, some stupid, and then I will catch the occasional one who will find it so interesting that they become a new rper. The SoTA team can't do all of the work, just as was said in one of the Dev videos by FireLotus about community events...(I think it was called)...the same applies to rp. You can't just expect there to be a perfect balance between everything. If you want to rp then rp, I am a role player myself and I make characters only for rp so none have any fully trained skills, when I'm bored I'll train up, but when rp is available I will roleplay.

I am always concerned about pkers in mmos because the last thing I want is to be enjoying myself then get pked by some random person, however there will always be pkers. These players can't be weeded out of the game nor can casual pvpers, or even those who only goal is to kill Lord British. I am one that hates pkers, I can't pvp, and am horrible at pvms even with UO gm characters, but I am a proud rper full time. If you want more rp in the game, then show people how fun rp can be. I believe in Richard Garriot and the rest of the team, they seem to be trying their best to make a game enjoyable to everyone, but every rper needs to take responsibility too. In the guild PGoH that I lead for almost 3 years I took it from 3 members to about 100, 200 if you count alts, and some didn't want to rp but liked the guild then after some time they learned what rp was and now they like it. So all-in-all don't lay it on SotA to make the game a certain way, it won't be perfect, but they are going to try to make it close to perfect.

-- *signed* Charlie Tiberius

 

@calem:

In a thread about item loss decay (https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/?topic=item-loss-decay) B (one of the devs) says:
<blockquote>"We definitely plan on durability/wear and tear being a big part of the crafting game. We have not yet resolved specifics of repairing but the goals is to make items eventually become unusable after enough wear and tear even with repair. We recognized the implications the design of the durability and repair mechanic will have on the life of a crafter.

As far as death, you will not lose your items. We have not finalized specifics of what happens when you die but I can assure you it will not be a situation where others can loot or steal gear. A durability penalty is highly probable however.</blockquote>

There were also areas in the livestream but I don't have links for those in specific.