SotA has to make a tough decision... GO FOR IT!

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Isaiah, Sep 11, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Isaiah

    Isaiah Avatar

    Messages:
    6,927
    Likes Received:
    8,453
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    THE PVP DEBATE IS A BIG ONE BUT MABYE A 50/50 COMPROMISE ISN'T BEST FOR SotA.
    I placed this in general discussion not the PvP threads for a reason. When the time comes SotA may need to take the risk of making a real and binding decision.

    I hate to say this because there are a lot of role players that just want nothing to do with PvP, but are they really role players for SotA then? Perhapse the role players who want no PvP should still have to expect some PvP in Shroud especially if they venture into the few "dangerous areas". If you want to be a role player (IN SHROUD) you have to accept the fact that there will be a few dangerous areas where PvP will always exist for you no matter if you are not perminatnly flagged for PvP or not. For the true adventurer that wants to experience "the real world" at all times they should be allowed to have PvP anywhere so they must always be on guard. I believe Portalarium has to make the "right" decision and determine what the reality of the World of New Britania is going to be. Let the "reality" be Open PvP, and let others who want nothing more than to play with friends use their imagination. Upon flagging for PvP let it be difficult to switch back from PvP to non-pvp as well. ***disable all player block filters upon entering PvP mode***

    I belive the right decision is to have even the Frends&Single Player Online guys to be notified upon entering any of these few dangerous areas that they will immediately be temporarily flagged for OPO PvP upon entering that danger zone, and only while they are in that area. PERIOD. It's like going to the ghetto in the middle of the night. Expect danger. I believe that SotA is going to have to make a tough decision regarding PvP and I truly believe they should err on the side of Open PvP regardless of the cries, at least for certain areas. Devs TAKE THE RISK. For newbies there should be a detailed description of the type of danger if they attempt to enter one of these areas. Nobody should feel entitled to be safe all the time. That's not role playing it's trying to play your own game. There is an offline mode for that, or you can stay away from the bad neighborhoods like we do in real life. I hope that makes sense, because New Britania has to be one world.

    EDIT from later post:

    I think it translates into SotA greatness if they take the risk. You can still play without opening up to PvP, but to reach every location you have to be open to the risk. I think the terms PvP and non-pvp should disapear tottally. The PvP flag should be labled advanced mode or high risk mode or something like that to change the way it is percieved. PvP and non-PvP already brings with it years of history and different definitions to everybody.

    I think when they are ready the devs should define an SotA's interplayer risk modes with their own term and their own definition so we all know what we are talking about. PvP and non-PvP have too many different definitions. And in the definition it would even sound better if they say one mode has player vs player interactions they should spell it out because even the abriviations have too much history.

    *EDIT*


    RE-EVALUATING MY STANCE BASED ON FEEDBACK:

    Yet this appears it is such a touchy subject I may have to reevaluate my stance that SotA be truly neutral allowing everybody to choose their own destiny and be able to play the full world without PvP entirely. My concern is that the PvP would be made up of only player vs player combatants rather than a mix of roleplay and PvP. I feel like throwing out ideas whenever possible, but I'm also willing to be persuaded otherwise. If my idea isn't good for SotA then I hope it isn't used, and sorry for wasting any body's time.

    My hope was to stretch peoples comfort zones into take the risk, but I don't want to force people to do something that they are totally opposed to. I see the logic that some of the other people like Owain is using in his argument. If there was still a possibility to stretch the comfort zones without making people feel forced into PvP I would be for it, but I'm going to formally retract my words asking for PvP only zones for the sake that others have persuaded me that it may be a bad idea.
     
    Ara, Attrib, Fifty and 1 other person like this.
  2. God

    God Avatar

    Messages:
    175
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Pensacola, FL
    I fully agree. You worded that perfectly.
     
    Isaiah MGT470 likes this.
  3. Ashlynn [Pax]

    Ashlynn [Pax] Avatar

    Messages:
    996
    Likes Received:
    2,244
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Female
    They could just make the RPG they said they were making, rather than obsessing over MMO elements for a game that isn't an MMO.

    I know lots of you want UO2 or some other MMO but that was never what they originally said they were making.

    And do you think you're gonna get an MMO with "microsharding"? That is your own home internet connection hosting an instance? I seriously doubt my internet connection could host more than a dozen players without serious lag. I really think some of you don't actually get what an impact that is going to have on the networking side of things. As an example: most PvP instances are going to be hosted on someone elses computer. That means they have no lag, and everyone else does. And the more people that join, the greater that lag will be. Cue epic forum complaints.

    I wish we could get back to the whole RPG with selective multiplayer elements, rather than the (not)MMO thing going on right now, which is being encouraged by the devs.
     
  4. Vyrin

    Vyrin Avatar

    Messages:
    2,970
    Likes Received:
    7,652
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    Yet another entry in the "maybe if I word it this way, everyone will agree SoTA should be an open PVP sandbox." How many entries now -200?

    Not all of us "role players" are opposed to PvP, and to say so is quite an unfortunate distinction that doesn't need to exist. Most I think are ok with a more "realistic" PvP mode: dangerous areas, safe and guarded areas, true consequences for attacking other players (inciting guards, not being able to show oneself in certain areas, etc.). If you are worried about getting more people into the open world, let the developers, who have the most experience in this area, design it.

    I guarantee you more people would be willing to try PvP with silence on this issue, than these continued attempts to try to force it. Really, this is just getting silly.
     
  5. Tizon

    Tizon Avatar

    Messages:
    29
    Likes Received:
    30
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Corpus Christi, Texas
    For the past 2 days I have been playing alot of UO on the Renaissance client. They have a pretty cool idea for new players. You have the option to go to an anti PvP island, and get used to the game before you go out into the open PvP world. I think its a pretty good idea.
     
    postulio, Ara and Isaiah MGT470 like this.
  6. Vyrin

    Vyrin Avatar

    Messages:
    2,970
    Likes Received:
    7,652
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    Except that SoTA is supposed to go beyond what UO can do. If people want that they can play Renaissance. This is a next-gen game.
     
    Isaiah MGT470 likes this.
  7. Escanaba

    Escanaba Avatar

    Messages:
    166
    Likes Received:
    146
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I liked your take on this.

    I personal think that the PvP group is the most vocal group vs. the casual player. I keep seeing hundreds of topic’s on PvP but not too many on please no PvP (yes there are a few). This is the fairest take I have seen on it so far. Very nice job for thinking both sides of this hot topic.
     
    BillRoy, Espada and Isaiah MGT470 like this.
  8. ArcanumVeritas

    ArcanumVeritas Avatar

    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Aus
    From what I've read/watched (and I have gaps), the Devs have gone to lengths to promote the aspect of NOT forcing anyone to Open PVP.

    Devs talked about encouraging people to go Open PVP for limited content/quest ... but I doubt that will translate to whole areas/continents being Open PVP only, more likely just quest instances for which you need to be flagged. You would CHOOSE to flag yourself (and WHEN), then do content. Not wander around and have PVP FORCED apon you (and a waiting ambush on the line, for anyone who accidently crossed while really not ready/expecting it).

    Why do PVP demand everyone else must play their way?

    The game is being designed from the ground up to cope with multiple styles of play. Some people don't want to get bullied by people who will be able to spend far more time honing anti-people skills. They want to play a game with an emersive storyline. Thankfully this game will allow for both styles, AND keeps them apart.

    I see no crisis point looming that would change this fundament principle.
     
  9. vjek

    vjek Avatar

    Messages:
    1,162
    Likes Received:
    1,639
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    ̣New Britannia
    Having ONLY region based PvP has already been tried, and more or less failed (those games don't have growing populations).

    I would prefer selective multiplayer
    [​IMG]
    with an additional PvP enabled flag. (note: SPF = Single Player oFfline)

    As per the kickstarter post from March 16, 2013:
    I'll say it once, so I can quote myself in the future:
    If Portalarium breaks their word and forces PvP on ALL their customers, it is doomed to fail like every other game that has done the same. History is a great teacher. Portalarium has learned this lesson.
     
    BillRoy, Isaiah MGT470 and Phredicon like this.
  10. PrimeRib

    PrimeRib Avatar

    Messages:
    3,019
    Likes Received:
    3,577
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    First they need to create a conflict where a reasonable person could take either side. This can be very neutral, such as farmers vs. ranchers, or anything more elaborate. Write interesting lore. Come up with multiple sides. Weave in virtues or whatever.

    As someone follows the path to help one side or another, their reputation with NPCs and towns will tilt one way or another. If you want to be good with one side, you may quickly find yourself thought of as evil with the other. As soon as this happens, you can add PvP or not but the conflict is there. Everything makes sense. Turning off PvP doesn’t let you walk into a town that hates you. In hostile territory you may face NPC patrols or whatever.

    As this grows over releases, these little conflicts can turn into kingdoms at war, ceding more and more aspects of the game to the players. So this eventually grows into guilds at war, running towns, etc. But they don’t need to solve that in the first episode.
     
  11. LoneStranger

    LoneStranger Avatar

    Messages:
    3,047
    Likes Received:
    4,779
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Petaluma, CA
    I could have swore I heard RG or TH say something about a civil war or some other such similar conflict coming, and that Episode I sets the scene and plants the seeds.
     
  12. Isaiah

    Isaiah Avatar

    Messages:
    6,927
    Likes Received:
    8,453
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male

    I agree with this for the most part. I don't see any point in having SPF, SPO PvP flag. FPO should be allowed to spar. However I do believe they should have a PvP flag for sure. However they did say back durring the Kickstarter that there will be certain areas that are absolutly PvP areas that you must concent to PvP to go in those zones but it would be worth it for the resources or whatever. I think they should make good on that, and not only make good on it but be bold about their stance on that matter!

    The point I was trying to make with this thread is yes we should have the option to play non-pvp, but idealy people should play with the PvP on (willfully). However when in doubt err on the side of full player vs player for non-newbies. I think they should stand firm on having certain areas that can only be reached in OPO PvP mode. Single player offline should be able to go anyplace, but there are no other humans in offline mode but those areas should still be more dangerous because they are dangerous areas.

    Forgive the use of the word "zone" because that can be interpreted by some as a mechanical computer term. I'm refering to actual areas in game that are dangerous just like any in our real world. Certain roads thoughout history have been known to have robbers, and inner city areas are usually more dangerous. So why not have manditory PvP areas because those areas are really dangerous?
     
  13. beck7422

    beck7422 Avatar

    Messages:
    10
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    3
    I hate PvP with a passion. I hate experiencing spawning locations that get camped by high level players who are just there to bully lower level characters by constantly killing them.

    I can do PvP, but universally whenever I end up having to do PvP to get further in the game I get annoyed or bored.
     
    nurskizz likes this.
  14. InsaneMembrane

    InsaneMembrane Avatar

    Messages:
    351
    Likes Received:
    262
    Trophy Points:
    55
    Gender:
    Male
    The magicpvpsliderbarthingy(TM) has already fixed these problems. Everyone can play as they wish. Also Izzy, stop yelling. You can use font size and bold for a headings.
     
    BillRoy and Isaiah MGT470 like this.
  15. Arkhan

    Arkhan Avatar

    Messages:
    675
    Likes Received:
    517
    Trophy Points:
    105
    First, CRPGs dominated the 1980s without having multiplayer. They often said "A fantasy roleplaying epic", or something along those lines.

    Role Playing is whatever people want it to be. Some people want to group up with some like minded adventurers and go experience and complete stories together.

    Did you ever play the Baldur's Gate games with friends over a LAN?

    When the heavy PVP crowd starts spouting off about roleplaying and how SotA NEEDS to include this and that, all it sounds like to me is people who didn't really experience games like Ultima V, Might and Magic IV and V, or Ambermoon. If you guys really didn't experience games from that era, holy crap did you miss out.

    Stop posting about PVP/etc. right now, and go try some of those games out. It will be worth it, I promise.


    Where you will never get to meet other players....

    For some people, their D&D groups can't coordinate together very well anymore. SotA is the type of game where people can get their D&D on with friends who may have moved, or went to college, or have a wife that won't let them have friends over anymore because they get dorito dust all over everything ;).

    Fortunately, I am assuming the story won't focus on PVP elements, and won't be relying on real players to steer the plot.

    It's not like they have a crystal ball that lets them see the future so they know what kind of PVPers will be around to focus the quests and key plot elements on. You can't exactly write a compelling story involving characters you are unaware of...

    So, it's entirely likely that people who just want to enjoy adventuring in the company of people they just met can do so without having to enter "the ghetto".
     
  16. Bowen Bloodgood

    Bowen Bloodgood Avatar

    Messages:
    13,249
    Likes Received:
    23,294
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Caer Dracwych
    Just for the sake of clarify and though Vyrinor has pointed it out already I'd like to emphasis this point. RPers are not by definition non-PvPers.. I might even go so far as to suggest that the majority are otherwise. A story without conflict of any kind is usually a dull thing. Roleplay is the same. We just prefer that conflict be story driven rather than a bunch of people pretending they're in a FPS free for all. Which is what a lot of PvPers.. or more specifcally PKers seem to actually do.

    To be honest I have no taste for PvP.. but during the course of RP I've allowed myself to be drug into many PvP situations (often resulting in my demise I might add because my character build is based on RP while the other guy's build was based on PvP and they roleplay around that). I'm not an anti-PvP guy. I just want to be able to have fun if I'm going to do it.. and that means I've agreed to be involved. I've known quite a few RPers who were advid PvPers.. they just always ensured everything was consensual.
     
    nightshadow, Vyrinor, Koldar and 2 others like this.
  17. Devoid

    Devoid Avatar

    Messages:
    731
    Likes Received:
    869
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    in limbo
    The default setting for 'Single Player' mode should be 'Open PvP' with 'Full Loot'!
    'Nuf said.
     
  18. Owain

    Owain Avatar

    Messages:
    3,518
    Likes Received:
    3,467
    Trophy Points:
    153
    I don't see the need for PvP dungeons or areas. People who want to PvP can select for it, and then the entire world is open PvP. That is what open PvP means, at least to me. PvP everywhere and with everyone who choses to participate. I do not want areas (other than towns) where PvP is not permitted, and I'm sure many PvE players don't want areas where PvP is mandatory.

    This kind of thing will just alienate PvE players, in that there will be a part of the game that is denied to them unless they do something they really don't want to do (PvP). I think this is entirely unnecessary, just as if I were flagged for open PvP, and there was a dungeon where PvP was forbidden, and hard core role playing was mandatory.

    Everyone, let people play the game they want to play, and stop trying to impose YOUR game upon them, whether that is PvE, RP, or PvP.
     
  19. Isaiah

    Isaiah Avatar

    Messages:
    6,927
    Likes Received:
    8,453
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    @Owain I'm with you. If you flag for PvP the world is open PvP for sure. However I think they should make good on their word to have certain zones that require non-PvP people to consent to PvP in those areas. I absolutly don't think there should be safe zones where PvP isn't allowed. Warring guilds should be able to fight in town just like UO. Guards should stop illegal fights such as non-warring guilds etc inside towns. Just like UO. That's my belief.

    However I think they should stand firm on their initial desire to have specific PvP only areas because it will create a greater inscentive for people to take the PvP risk if they want to enter that zone. Then if they find that it wasn't too bad they might flag for PvP willfully at all times. If not then not. However I think it's best to err on the side of Open PvP whenever they can.

    @Bowen I only used the words "role player" because the term "c a r e b e a r" just doesn't have a nice ring to it. I don't know what to call non-PvPers, and most of them say they want to role play. I like to roleplay too but I want the PvP flag set, because in my opinion that should be the way the world should be.
     
  20. vjek

    vjek Avatar

    Messages:
    1,162
    Likes Received:
    1,639
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    ̣New Britannia
    I'm not trying to quote you out of context, I'm just showing the parts of your post I'm responding to, with respect to this idea of "PvP focused resources"

    From this kickstarter post:
    From this kickstarter post:
    So, at a glance, there appears to be content for both play styles, but only if the second post doesn't require pvp, but can be done via pve. Gating content, especially rare resources, with PvP ONLY is ... well, let's look at that in more detail.

    Let's say there are 5 tiers of resources for EP1. Looking at the example of Obsidian as stone, say there's granite, limestone, marble, quartz, and obsidian. Now, via some skill, challenge or level gating mechanism, presumably it is more difficult to obtain quartz vs. granite. Quartz has more value than granite. All good so far.

    Now let's say you can't get Obsidian unless you're flagged for PvP, period. Let's hypothesize a bit with that premise in mind.
    Firstly, how does that affect the SPO and FPO players? I mean, they paid to play the game, just like everyone else, why can't they go out and slay the beasts guarding the obsidian nodes? A glib answer would be: They should switch to OPO if they want Obsidian. Ok, that's an answer, sure, but is it a good answer? Does it make the customer happy? Does it make the game more challenging and fun?
    All they want to do is craft stuff for themselves and friends out of Obsidian. Is that evil or bad? Not in and of itself, but they can interact with the economy, so maybe there is some downside to having more Obsidian resources available to all players. It sounds a bit silly when you actually type it out, but ok. :D In the worst case, due to some trickery of economics, non PvP players obtaining Obsidian is bad. They can get stuff "easier". Alright. Let's move on...

    Second, OPO players. Now, the only difference here compared to SPO and FPO is the number of people they see while moving about the world. They don't just see their friends, they see some strangers too, based on what's been described so far. So now, they want Obsidian. Nope, none for you unless you click the check box and walk into the killing fields. Hm. Does that really make sense, if you were making your own video game? Would you ostracize, intentionally, by design, eyes wide open, a large portion of your playing customers, by saying "No, all of you can't have that that 5th tier resource for one year, because you are unwilling to expose yourself to direct player conflict"?

    Why not make it harder to obtain for players unwilling to PvP? Why not make it EXTREMELY difficult to obtain, requiring groups of players killing incredibly challenging creatures to get it? Why not gate the Obsidian by time, for players unwilling to PvP? Why not make it so you can get exactly one, two or four pieces of obsidian per day, alone, but beyond that, you must group up or PvP?
    If you do something like this, PvP could seem like an easier path. It may be an attractor for people.

    There are a vast array of creative ideas that could be applied to this situation, depending on what behavior you want to encourage, and the economic impact of the resources involved.

    Finally, however, this discussion is all more or less moot until we know precisely what "PvP focused resources" means. Does it mean resources that are only useful to PvP conflict? Does it mean resources that can only be obtained by PvP conflict? Does it mean resources that apply to a larger world-plot mechanic involving player conflict? Is Obsidian the only stone you can use to build guild halls? Is it the only thing you can use to build structures that claim open world land hexes for player control?

    Starr/Chris, if you're reading, it would be nice to have some clarification or a focus thread to discuss this "Some PvP focused resources appear in the tile" phrase, to put some of this unnecessary hand-wringing to rest.
     
    Xandra7 and Phredicon like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.