The PvP Thread

RPG = FREEDOM
Sandbox = FREEDOM


How can u think ur in a RPG if poeple cant attaque u ?? heuuuu .....

 

If you have played the last few open PvP games, then you know that a rather big percentage of the population take it upon themselves to weed out the community till the only ones left are the hard core pvpers. Players get bored, this was not the type game they were promised, they bail out in search for the next open PvP game which will do things beter this time around. Rinse/Repeat.

SotA might just have the way to make everyone happy, a huge diverse community, -personalities, talents, rpgers, pvpers etc. We may not all choose to adventure the same way, but sooner or later most of us will combine and mingle in unexpected areas.

This to me has so much win written all over it. Give Richard and team a chance!

 

I think a big percentage of the population left cause we never have a Full PvP / Full Loot games. The pvplayers get bored about the carebears games. We lookinf for a real RPG. So, Portalarium can easy creat a server for the non-pvplayers.


Wanna be free is not a crime ...

 

The next open PvP game. Is there one? Darkfall 2 is in Beta test. Guildwars 2 is features not loot at all for PvP (drops do not count as loot).

Is there a full PvP/Full loot game I am not aware of?

 

Do u mean Darkfall 2.0 ? I played Darkfall 2.0 beta and the game is realy bad. This is not a RPG - sandbox. GW2 is for carebears pvp. No loot etc etc.

We have World of Shadowbane incoming. Maybe Dark Age of Camelot Unchained and Ever Quest 3 ll be a good RPG Sandbox PvP games. But for me, i give a lot of my hope SotA. R.G. created the must perfect game whit UO. This guy is amasing !

PvP is not a crime ....

 

The KGB (Knights of Glory and Beer) currently have a couple dozen players in the Dark Fall 2.0 Beta, but since I'm not one, I haven't kept track of that development. They are hopeful, but I get hives when I hear the word 'hopeful' applied to PvP beta tests because it usually means the game sucks, but they 'hope' it will get better.

 

There is a lot of discussion going on in their forums.

They also have about 7 Podcasts which are all available on their website, they are a good listen, lots of good info in there.

Reminds me a lot of old school Ultima Online, Pre-Trammel, check it out.

Open Sandbox MMO world with non-consensual PvP / Full Loot.

They haven't done their Kickstarter yet.

Check them out, I for one am very hyped and excited for this game and waiting for the Kickstarter so I can throw some money at them!

http://trialsofascension.com/

Trials of Ascension is a MMORPG project that beats to a different drum. For souls brave enough to try something outside the traditional MMO box, ToA will deliver a gaming experience like no other. We mean it. Seriously.

Where else can you find combat with perma-death (each character gets 100 deaths before perma-dead), an open-ended skill system without classes, innovations that are unique to the discoverer, dynamic spawning of fauna, flora and dungeons, player-made settlements and structures, a cooperative crafting system and a magic system that will feel as mysterious as magic itself?

See, we told you its different. The question is: are you brave enough to try it?

 

Hehe i love u Poisoman

 

I'm here to help, I miss UO. I'm getting SoTA and will be playing it, but it is obviously not going to be UO 2 or anything, so I'm looking forward to ToA.

 

Prey for SotA Online in 5 years

 

@rune_74 - you seem to be forgetting we are on a ONLINE forum talking about a ONLINE game being made... we can compare it to the ultima series which i did play but considering it will be ONLINE i think its fair to compare to utima online and maybe not pagan/ascension or anything as much?

Although, couldnt you kill almost any npc in any of the ultima series and take there stuff anyway? when Ultima Online came round the same thing applied.. if you didnt like the prices of a npc barkeep you could attempt to kill him and chop his corpse up and parade around in his clothes... guards permiting. The addition of real players into the game changed nothing, they were also fair game.. guards permiting.

While i dont want the game to turn into a gankfest either .. im almost sure there are ways to avoid losing that REAL sense of danger you dont get from predictable, unpathable, struggling with Line of sight and in general boring AI.

Playerbase will outnumber the PK's. Just make rewards for them to actively do so.

 

what about those of us who are not interested in walking out of a door and getting murdered or having all our stuff stolen?

 

I think with the style of Online play SoTA is going with the play solo online, or play online with friends, or play online with everyone. They could easy do open PK, and people to scared just play online with friends and never see PKs....

But if they want to play with everyone they will have to take the risks that come with it.

 

@Screwtape opined: "They could easy do open PK, and people to scared just play online with friends and never see PKs?."

Once again, the PvPers would claim it all and leave the others with a subset of the game. Just because I don't want to have to deal with PvP every time I leave town doesn't mean I don't want to meet new people in out of the way places.

 

My point of view is that I simply won't open myself for non-consensual PvP, and neither will ever attack another player unprovoked. A game that forces me to be subject to non-consensual PvP is a game I will never play, no matter how good it could otherwise be.

I also tend to never play any game where my preference for never engaging in non-consensual PvP prevents me from seeing part of the PvE content; in other words, any game where either some piece of PvE content or some reward useful in PvE and not available elsewhere is used as a "carrot" to draw players into PvP.

Apart from that I have nothing against any kind of PvP. As long as only those willing to engage in PvP are subject to it, and the game doesn't push players too much into the PvP aspect if they are not willing to partake in it, I have no problem at all with PvP.

With SotA I don't see that risk, as both offline play and solo online play have been confirmed, both of which can be used to completely escape PvP. In fact, I pledged mainly because of the offline option because, no matter how much the multiplayer aspect gets tuned against my preferences, the offline option allows me to still play the game in a way I prefer, without the risk of PvP.

I'm not even sure I will play online at all, even using the solo option, because of the "incentives" to PvP hinted at in multiple interviews. If the incentives feel too great I will rather play offline and find a way to mod the game to offer me those "incentives" in offline play.

BTW, I'm unlikely to even participate in fully consensual PvP in SotA because I only engage in PvP when no one has a character advantage. I never participate in PvP in any game with power progression, unless a way to effectively turn off power progression in PvP is implemented. This seems highly unlikely in SotA. Also, while I was actively looking forward to Ultima Online when it launched, the open PvP aspect drove me away with such intensity that I completely stopped looking for any related news, and thus didn't notice that the open PvP had changed with the Trammel expansion until a decade later, when I was already fully engaged in another MMO; open PvP is what drove me away from UO and into games like LotRO and GW.

Another note, I only know of two games that reached at least 100K players while forcing every player to accept open PvP with player looting: the original pre-Trammel UO and EVE online. Seems like every other game that attempted that crashed and burned, though it's hard to gauge it for F2P games.

 

Open world PvP is what made UO last so long like T2A expansion. When trammel came out (world of no pvp) it split the community and went downhill from there. Without pvp risk, players asked for silly stuff like beetle mounts and bankbags. Without PvP, there is no risk, without risk, no fun! Im Pro PvP because it affects economics, how guilds are made, how people carry gear, to politics! Without PvP, might as well stay on single player because game will be boring boring boring like Trammel was!!

 

What makes you think that risk can only come from the threat of being whacked by another person? I can think of 10 things off the top of my head that are risky without involving PvP. This is just another bogus argument meant to make PvP seem superior to other modes of play. I call BS.

 

@Mugly Wumple, RG is attempting to make the ultimate RPG. Part of RPG is good and evil. Also if you listen to their chats about the see everyone online, it sounds like even if you play that setting you still wont see everyone, you will still only see people their filters "think" you should see. I imagine if you are so adverse to PvP the chance of you running into some PK sounds very unlikely.

I have faith that they will find a way that allows true Role Playing and allows open world PvP but also stops PKs from just destroying new players all day.

 

There's simply no way to design a game that will bring back the open PvP experience of 10+ years ago. People have choices now and won't play the sheep. It had nothing to do with the game. Games have evolved to be inclusive because players have.

PvP is my favorite part of the game. But it others want to effectively play Sims or Farmville in the game, I think that's awesome. So what if they're effectively NPCs from a combat point of view? The choice is to either have them there or not.

Someone mentioned that you could kill any NPC in the ultima games. But you could also stand in town without some NPC running in, killing you, and looting your corpse while you grabbed a drink.

 

PrimeRib Says: There?s simply no way to design a game that will bring back the open PvP experience of 10+ years ago. People have choices now and won?t play the sheep.

Here's the problem. You can go play any other PVP mode you want. If you are a sheep you will always be a sheep. You will never be happy for long in the other games where you install a force field to keep the wolves out. It won't change who you are. Admit it to yourself and quit being silly and maybe you will actually be able to move on and have some real fun.

The problem is that people who take themselves too seriously can't accept that in the real world, they're not going to be the best at everything. You see this trend in a lot of game genres. There are actually FPS games out there now that have flattened out the skill level so much that horrible players and epic players are barely separated at all. Then when these cry-babies play a real FPS they complain that it's 'too hard' and it 'sucks'.

In this universe just giving people what they ask for is the wrong way to proceed. You give them what it takes to make them better people and build character.

You want to baby yourselves, go ahead. Instead of making you a better person, you will be worse for it. Learn to accept that in every human interaction worth doing, there is a logarithmic curve that separates people with even small ranking differences leading to huge differences in outcome. In all sports worth watching, the top 1-3 people destroy the rest in the top 10, who destroy those ranked in the top 20 and so on.

By turning this game into anything other than full loot open world without exception you are all growing fat, lazy and dooming the experience to nothing special.

Go ahead, set this game at the corner of 'care bear special' and
'everyone gets a medal', but know this:
While you grow into fat, lazy and unmotivated slobs because your mommy told you that you're special and it must be true;
I'm coming to f*** your s*** up in the real world instead.

Because in the real world, there are no restrictions and I am a competitive M***** F****.