The Glass is Half Empty - A look inside why people are opposed to Open PvP and Full Loot

Discussion in 'PvP' started by antalicus, Aug 28, 2013.

  1. jondavis

    jondavis Avatar

    Message Count:
    1,119
    Likes Received:
    627
    Trophy Points:
    113
    We have been asking for Full Loot since we got here.
    I'm not interested in trying to get PVE people into open PVP land because it's clear from the forums you don't want to lose anything.
    Towns in UO were secure and houses happen to be in town this time around. I'm good with secure housing.

    Would I like some houses outside of town that could be destroyed and rebuilt with control points to take them over.
    Yes that would be fun and give those without a house something to fight for.
  2. Asguard

    Asguard Avatar

    Message Count:
    1,027
    Likes Received:
    516
    Trophy Points:
    125

    That may not interest you but it does RG, further more its not just those fence sitters who will be scared away if its full loot only. There are lots of PvPers around who do want risk and reward but have said openly that they don't want full loot. There was quite a debate on it, along with permadeath for a while. You may think everyone is split between PvE only or Full Loot PvP but you would be wrong, the biggest section is in the middle

    Anyway I don't paticually care, I might take one of the smuggling quests if the penelties aren't to bad but if they are then I will just stick to co-op
  3. CaptainJackSparrow

    CaptainJackSparrow Avatar

    Message Count:
    341
    Likes Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Asguard are you going to PvP at all? I thought Mgt470 were crafters.
  4. Asguard

    Asguard Avatar

    Message Count:
    1,027
    Likes Received:
    516
    Trophy Points:
    125

    They are whatever they want, it refers to the push which got us to the strech goals we got.
    And as I said, it depends
  5. jondavis

    jondavis Avatar

    Message Count:
    1,119
    Likes Received:
    627
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So include a mode for the middle ground.
    But the two sides to Ultima is 1. story/pve and 2. open pk-loot/pve land
    Telling either side to go back and play the old games is not what we want to hear.
    Silent Strider likes this.
  6. CaptainJackSparrow

    CaptainJackSparrow Avatar

    Message Count:
    341
    Likes Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    43

    What does it depend on, what are your specific requirements in which SotA needs to meet in order to coax you into taking a step into the PvP world?
  7. Asguard

    Asguard Avatar

    Message Count:
    1,027
    Likes Received:
    516
    Trophy Points:
    125

    that its fun rather than frustrating and annoying and that the penelties are not to harsh. The rewards don't matter as much because I would rather have fun and come out with nothing lost and nothing gained than effectivily gamble. I don't gamble, EVER
    Silent Strider and MagiK like this.
  8. CaptainJackSparrow

    CaptainJackSparrow Avatar

    Message Count:
    341
    Likes Received:
    345
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Wow. Well I'm not really quite sure what to say. I guess thanks for being honest, you are in fact exactly what all of us PvP players are totally afarid of...

    Would you not be happy limiting your PvP to arenas and or competitions or something, and letting those who select PvP on the slider play full loot in the open world?
  9. MagiK

    MagiK Avatar

    Message Count:
    342
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    65
    Location:
    USA, Maryland
    You are trying to FORCE your particular definitions, rules and laws onto those who disagree with you. I disagree with your whole premise.
  10. MagiK

    MagiK Avatar

    Message Count:
    342
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    65
    Location:
    USA, Maryland
    Why do you hate the idea that some people....or a lot of people don't want to bother with PvP? Why must you insist that it be forced on EVERY player, not just those who enjoy it?

    While I am 100% for having consensual PvP, so that people who enjoy it can experience it. I am also for having the mechanic set so that they can play the ENTIRE game fully and completely without PvP, not being penalized, not being gimped but able enjoy everything the game has to offer, loot, boss and mob wise.

    Reading another post of yours I see your argument seems a bit different than I recall it being earlier....you want the PvP funtionality of fully looting your kills....Since I am not going to be playing PvP I have no skin in that game, but it sounds reasonable to me.
    Phredicon likes this.
  11. GimmeUOPlz

    GimmeUOPlz Avatar

    Message Count:
    110
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Sounds like those kinds of people should play on a PvE or RP server that includes consentual PvP eh? You seem to be the one making it into an "us vs them" debate, whereas most of the people you are arguing with just want a seperate OPO - PvP/loot option. Why is it that you want to deny us that choice?


    I'm sure people playing on PvE servers aren't going to get scared simply because there is a seperate PvP version. If anyone gets scared off by that they have serious anxiety issues. I'm sure that is not your real reason for being so against us having our option, it seems to me it is likely a very pety and spiteful reason. Why else would you be so vocally against a version of the game that would have absolutely no affect on your play style?

    You MUST be joking. Jack's post was TWO LINES LONG, and one line said that he just wants the option to chose to play OPO PvP/loot seperately. YOU are the one that is trying to force your preference onto other people. WE just want to have our own option, much like your own PvE only option. Seriously why are people like this?
    CaptainJackSparrow likes this.
  12. Umbrae

    Umbrae Avatar

    Message Count:
    2,151
    Likes Received:
    2,790
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Gender:
    Male
    Let me just put this out there. This community's whole problem is due to the fact that, in the beginning, a handful of griefers and trolls came in and tossed around a lot of insults to PVE/non-PVP players. I am not going to name names, and most of the best examples of this was thrown out in the chat room. They even went so far to claim they personally knew RG and that the game would be Open PVP/Full Loot. If you wonder why certain words are banned and not others: this is why. It was bad and many attacks on the PVE people were "orchestrated" with full intention of inciting bad behavior and outrage.

    This incited a LOT of PVE people who were basically being told they that they would be forced into PVP like UO along with various insults explaining why they should shutup and deal with it. Those people are gone now, but even today PVE people tend to be defensive about some of the PVP discussions especially when they are setup in an aggressive manner. I am not saying all PVErs have behaved well, but this continuous cycle PVP vs PVE arguments in this community was crafted by a small number of the community which are no longer active. Basically we are still dealing with the fallout of a terrorist attack.

    It is pretty clear by the developers that players will have control of their PVP options. In the end the DEVELOPERS will have control of how these system work and what options are given. Although they have been very open to comments from the community, they are also very much the ones in control of the development and final features of the game. As such, venting on the other side for trying to "control" the direction of the game to work against someone else just continues to fuel the misgivings. I doubt that a PVE players opinions on PVP will have any influence over PVP features except in ways to encourage them to participate which will probably never been seen or used by PVP focused players.

    Is there anyone still lingering in this community that want to cripple the experience of the other? The only people that have a hard time with the Selective Multiplayer concepts seem to be people who want unwilling victims in PVP, which is pretty much the definition of griefers (note: this exclude people who want to be unwilling victims, but honestly that is a WILLING victim).

    Can we put aside the bickering and start working on the assumption that neither PVPers nor PVEers want to hinder the playstyle of the other, and leave the implementation of these features to the developers? The conversations are much better now (thanks to everyone for that); however, there is still a lingering "us vs them" mentality and its these arguments that get misconstrued and populate discussions on other sites and hinder new people from pledging.
  13. Vyrinor

    Vyrinor Avatar

    Message Count:
    1,006
    Likes Received:
    954
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minnesota, USA
    This discussion is getting so old, so ancient type old that there's nothing but dust to kick around.

    Can't we all just agree that there's really nothing to discuss until the devs release more information and let it go.
    Fireangel likes this.
  14. MagiK

    MagiK Avatar

    Message Count:
    342
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    65
    Location:
    USA, Maryland
    Well said Umbrae.
    Umbrae likes this.
  15. MagiK

    MagiK Avatar

    Message Count:
    342
    Likes Received:
    232
    Trophy Points:
    65
    Location:
    USA, Maryland
    Well said and now I understand your intent, thank you.
  16. GimmeUOPlz

    GimmeUOPlz Avatar

    Message Count:
    110
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    18
    That right there. Right there. It is so painfully clear that you just simply do not get it. Nonconsentual PvP does not equal griefing, it equals an actual role playing game with villains and heros.


    People have their option for OPO PvE, why can't we have a seperate option for OPO PvP with seperate characters? How would that force anything on anyone? In my very short time here the only people I see that are trying to infringe on anyone's playstyle are those that are against a PvP version, and I see all of them spreading misinformation saying that somehow we want everyone to be forced to PvP and that nonconsentual pvp is automatically griefing (clearly you don't understand what defines griefing. Clearly.).

    NO, we just want it seperate and not just with an on/off switch, for those of us that love the incredible depth that good/evil gives to an RPG when it is put into the hands of the players.
  17. Umbrae

    Umbrae Avatar

    Message Count:
    2,151
    Likes Received:
    2,790
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Gender:
    Male
    This game was sold with the Selective Multiplayer. This separation of people was in the design BEFORE KICKSTARTER and very well documented. If this isn't what you want I am sorry. Many of us invested a lot of money in this idea, as advertised, and the conversations should be focused on the features the Developers are already committed too. You are feel to voice your opinions, but you will always have resistance: even from PVP people.

    Its not that "I" don't understand. There will be a Open PVP mode, at least for guilds, so you are arguing for a feature that is already planned. The crux has always been that people want sheep, which want and were promised a different game. SOTA is being developed for both groups, so statements like this are only lead to inciting people and spreading misinformation.

    You will have your victims and you will be able to be a victim, but you will never see someone that would not enjoy that enviroment. Is that not suitable to you?

    Mod edited for content against forum rules.
  18. GimmeUOPlz

    GimmeUOPlz Avatar

    Message Count:
    110
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    18
    How is an option for an OPO - PvP version forcing people into PvP? How about select OPO PvE instead? NO ONE is saying to eliminate PvE only options, and yet everyone fighting against a PvP version seems hell bent to misinform and misquote and put words into other people's mouths.


    Like I said before you just don't get it, and now I see you obviously are bitter and angry about events that happened 15 years ago which is why you are trying to eliminate an option that doesn't affect you at all.

    Mod edited for content.
  19. Coren

    Coren Herald

    Message Count:
    125
    Likes Received:
    200
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    Let's make the hypothesis for a moment that there is a separate "shard" (the game isn't quite structured that way, but bear with me) that had full-world open PVP with no switch to turn off. That seems to be what you are advocating, right?

    That would, in essence, be an equivalent of what Siege Perillious used to be in UO. And it would have exactly the same issue: the vast majority of players would find this mode of play highly unpleasant, and would simply never play there; you'd end up with a barren wasteland.

    What you do not get is that the vast majority of people very much dislike being jumped and ganked when they're trying do do crafting, or adventuring, or exploring, or what-have-you. Being able to do it to them even when they don't want to causes grief. How much clearer than this could it get? PvP against someone who doesn't want to engage in PvP is griefing.
    MalakBrightpalm and MagiK like this.
  20. GimmeUOPlz

    GimmeUOPlz Avatar

    Message Count:
    110
    Likes Received:
    53
    Trophy Points:
    18
    No repeated and deliberate targetting of a single player OR group with the goal of ruining their gaming experience is griefing, occasional nonconsentual PvP is part of a role playing game that puts good/evil into the hands of the players. No one here knows what griefing is and its unfortunate.

    Siege Perilous was unpopular because of the ridiculously bad skill progression and because it was an afterthought to Trammel which absolutely obliterated the game. I remember viewing SP as a slap in the face to the fans of PvP, with a built in bogus skill system to even further deter people from playing it. SP existing as it was pissed me off back in the day. Very wrong on why people didn't play it. EA was always dead against a true PvP server, which would have actually been popular, I can only assume because they thought such a server would mean admitting how bad of an idea Trammel was.

    Fine, not everyone wants to play open pvp, I GET IT. Did I ever say otherwise? How does giving the option for a seperate PvP version force ANYONE to do ANYTHING? The logic going on in this thread right now is brain melting.

    It should be pretty clear to everyone by now that there are infact alot of people that feel toggling PvP on and off should not be the only option to PvP. Again, why shouldn't there be a seperate PvP version? How would this force anyone to do anything? Does the existance of such a version automatically force you to take part in it? Ofcourse not.




    Good talking to you all, I'm out of here for now. Just want to say that regardless of these issues I am extremely excited for this game, and I will greatly enjoy it within whatever capacity I am allowed to by the devs. I just hope they chose to include this truly epic option is all.

Share This Page