SPO should be turned of immediately for Shardfalls and other PVP areas

+1

 

No. But if you're trying to say that tempting people to pvp is not virtuous I would argue that you're extending your questioning too far.

From a game design standpoint, the devs are trying to create a world of consensual DANGER. I think that's an extremely virtuous goal considering all the crappy games that have been made over the years that have near ZERO danger.

 

Yeah, I hear you redfish. I'm not interested in jumping into a pvp "arena" for the sake of it either.

I think we should strive to have meaningful pvp if we're going to have ANY pvp.

 

AND, I would suggest (getting back to the OP) that the more people we have in the discussion about what makes pvp "meaningful" the better!

I think we can only have a real discussion about this, when everyone realizes that they either have to accept pvp in this area or they have to opt out. But then maybe we'll hear from people that wouldn't normally participate in this discussion and we'll make pvp much better because of it.

I don't want "random griefer guy" being the only voice of pvp anymore than I want "FPS twitch guy" being the only voice of combat.

 

I appreciate your interpretation of what the devs feel. I also appreciate your opinion on all the other crappy games. There are reasons why these games have been made like this, its because people stop playing the non consensual games. People rag on wow all the time. But it still is huge. Your opinion of crappy is just that. Your opinion. My opinion is if this game goes the way it is right now, you will have another tram/fel. With little to no action in fel. You will have the biggest guild selling the rare resources for the highest prices. That is what you will have in my opinion.

 

Yes, it's my opinion that wow is a horrible game. I made this opinion early on when I learned it existed, looked at its features and determined it was a treadmill with no real value to my playstyle. I never played it. I've never felt like that was a poor decision. Obviously there are millions of people that may disagree with my assessment. (much like farmville)

I think if we don't get pvp under control and working better than it is now, you're more than right! But I have faith that this is a first pass at PVP and the devs have a long term goal of making it meaningful. A first step in that process is shutting down SPO mode as a way of bypassing it. (solely for the sake of bypassing it!)

 

Nope. That is not intrinsic to AI. Instead that is a design choice.
When AI is allowed to, they consistently defeat humans. In a FPS then an AI aimbot would be the perfect example.

Why you don't see that though is because they are designed to be challenging but manageable.

 

I am all for progress! I am all for making it meaningful. I hope they do some balancing in this equation also. I would like to have faith also as you have, but we still need to address our concerns. You have concerns, I have concerns, everyone here is different in some way.

 

Good counter point. How does AI impact the psyche of players in comparison? I've never heard of PVE players that want an NPC free zone?

So to make a PVE area as risky (challenging) as a PVP zone, wouldn't we need to code the AI to spawn camp and post youtube pictures of their defeats? I'm being serious in a way that says "you're wrong". (although it really is a good counter point...to a point)

 

Well Said

 

I think you're confusing the issue, "the other hats" were never "blocked" from PvPers to acquire. What you suggest in your OP was a total "block" of access to SPO players, which IMO won't happen. The instancing technology has already proven that to me and Chris S acknowledged it by saying there would be a warning when entering, which there is, you/I assume I am still in SPO, but after I enter, I am in a PvP zone which IS instanced as OPO. Unless there is a coding technicality that was missed you know about.

By placing the tour guide in a PvP zone, violates my access to them and "blocks" me. By putting up a "warning" makes no difference, as I am now "forced" to press the button, and "forced" to enter the zone, and "forced" to encounter PvPers (if there are any around) just to acquire the hat (a rare item). In the rest of the World, PvPers have self flagged themselves for PvP, so this argument is not the same. You as a PvPer were never forced to press a button, never forced to un-flag just to acquire a rare item.

Resources are another matter, it has never been stated that rare resources will be exclusive to PvP zones, all it means is I will need to work 4 times as hard to get what I need... If anyone bothered to watch the video Starr said: "the yield would be greater in PvP zones"... (an idea I'm not in favor of, but have to live with)...

 

Nope. There is no limit to that point.
For you to say that "I'm wrong" one would normally provide an argument to that effect. You did not.
Like when I showed you that grass usually isn't green but brown, or that the sky isn't usually blue it's gray.
You always argue from black/white fallacies as if that gives some weight to your arguments. When the opposite is true.

Yes the devs could easily design an AI that spawn camps and post insults with a YouTube vid. It would take less than an afternoon.
Such adversaries make for a crappy gaming experience though. Hence why it's a design decision not to do that.

Also the example you give isn't increased risk or challenge. It's simple brute force. Bring more force and you win. Why you perceive that as more difficult is because by design the game let's players do unto players what MOBs are not allowed to do.
Which is why I think the risk reward angle is a moot non-argument since if the devs wanted to they could easily make scenes much more deadly/risky than whatever PvP could bring and reward us accordingly.


Now as to the actual argument I would agree that I think it would make for a better Online game if shardfalls are multiplayer PvP only and that only offline players could do them solo. But that has nothing to do with risk / reward which is moot but rather with gameplay.
It is much more fun for the PvP market if SotA has some features that cater just to them and I think that shardfalls should be such a feature. A PvP haven to which only people interested in the PvP challenge should go and where none should complain about common aspects of PvP.
There are plenty of features presently and planned that cater specifically to other market segments so I think it would be a good reassuring message to a substantial potential market.

Just like I think that there should be scenes/areas where the Oracle's protection is mandatory and where you can't even go into combat mode. To cater to other market segments.

 

Let's talk about that. You're absolutely correct, there's nothing that causes me to "unflag" to get the tour hat. But that's because I'm already flagged pve by default. I understand you're trying to make point that someone flagged as Open-PVP doesn't have to unflag as Open-PVP to get any of the hats. But what you're failing to recognize is that being Open-PVP doesn't mean that you can just start attacking anyone you want (like you would inside a Shardfall).

They're two different things. Open-PVP is not the same as being in a Shardfall where it's FULL PVP.

Correct, per the devs rare resources will not be exclusive to shardfalls.

 

I like when people do what they say other people are doing. It's funny, but I stop reading after that.

 

I wasn't talking about "openly attacking other players", I am talking about "forced" gameplay onto me... By placing the tour guide inside a Shardfall area, forces me to enter. The same restriction is not placed on you, if you're self flagged, you are not defaulted to PvE, you are now open PvP anywhere in the World to be freely attacked by other self flagged open PvPers. If you are not self flagged, then you are seeking safety from PvPers, IMO... So why are you openning this argument?

Instancing has always worked as designed, entering a PvP zone (now called Shardfalls) has alway flagged you Full PvP (although temporary), my objection is placing the tour guide inside a Shardfall... I know the area is beautiful I was there, and I don't understand why they put deadly plants in there too, wouldn't that detract from the PvPing going on? If I had a choice, I would never had entered, but it was my last stop for the Ladies hat (I don't think Men usually wear hats like that)...

 

I can understand your objection to the tour guide being placed in a shardfall if you don't like pvp. It gets you out of your comfort zone.

But that's kind of the point, that's kind of what you're testing. And during testing you have nothing to lose.

I don't like wondering around finding tour guides, but I want the hat so I do it. You don't like pvp, but you want the hat so you do it. What's the difference? I was forced out of my playstyle to get the hat. Why aren't there 8 tour guides inside the pvp area so I don't have to go outside my comfort zone? (I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, I'm trying to get you to understand that your play style isn't more important than mine is)

 

When one's "comfort zone" is not having unpleasant experiences forced upon them by other players I consider that to be a valid concern.

 

Right, which is why the game is 100% consensual pvp only.

But it's not 100% pvp doesn't exist you can avoid the risk and still get the rewards.

 

I just cant find the logic in this, I am sorry.

 

You don't understand risk vs. reward? Or you don't understand why people that avoid the risk shouldn't get the reward?