Unlocking SOTA's Potential with PVP

Never and always are dangerous words gents.

The system has merit, reminds me of EvE.
Non the less i will go with this:

 

That's about the only PvP I can get into. Having a group at my back working towards an objective, like taking a keep or an area over or whatnot. Just running around a map killing or getting killed never interested me but I know some like that as well. It's doubtful we'll ever see open world PvP (didn't say never ) so hopefully they show us some examples of team-type PvP. It's still competitive, yes, but being part of a solid group or even army feeds that need of cooperative gameplay for me. I guess it'll depend on the risk. If I'm going to be losing items and such, I probably won't do it but for some that's going to be the only way that makes it feel worth it. Otherwise, it's just kill/get killed/respawn/repeat with no real consequence. It worked for me in other games so it's what I prefer but we'll see how it plays out. I'd rather have what @Ravicus Domdred suggested and let rules be set up ahead of time and agreed upon so different scenarios have different risks. I can just opt out of some and others can get their fix. There's definitely a way this can all work out without a free-for-all. I hope so, at least.

 

wow another PvP thread on the same topics hijacked by only a few posters , imagin that.

 

The only hope for anthing remotely akin to this vision (and I enjoy PvP immensely) is for the game to get so popular it would warrent another "Siege Perilous". I'll admit it would be fun. But... not so much to most folks. Let's hope it gets that popular in the future.

 

Interessting !

 

Great going SOTA devs on implementing the worst pvp system ever...EVER.

 

If PvP is fun, then you don't need to have an actual reason to do it other than doing it for fun.

This whole concept of needing rare resources in PvP zones or looting items from people is a real hodgepodge of incentives to fight when the fighting isn't really that fun in the first place. That's not what meaningful PvP really is about.

PvP needs factions. Give factions meaning and you validate PvP.

 

wasn't there some slip statement in the Telethon that these were in the crystal ball? I thought I heard one.

 

Yep. They briefly mentioned it so that gives me hope.

 

Why stop at factions, how about "sworn enemy" status between two folks wouldn't you love to see two people that have gone at it back to back in the forums going at it all the time everywhere. After reading through these forums (more so since it went persistence), I can see some takers going for that. I plan on making some

 

Well I read about 3 pages or so after stopping. I'd be ok with a completely separate cluster just for PVP players that you would have to opt-in to (i.e. create a separate, completely new character in that cluster). Then everyone that cares about this can have their fun there and do all the thief/assassin roleplay things they want to do. But this actually wouldn't work, because the population would be too low for the thieves to steal and the assassins to assassinate. The population would be too low because, surprise, the vast majority of players don't want this.

The PVPers know this and so try to come up with various rationalizations to try and convince the devs (and to be clear, it's just the devs they're trying to convince, because the vast majority don't want this) to impose their will on the dissenting majority. I'd be more sympathetic if the PVPers kept trying to convince the devs to make a full, always-on PVP cluster for themselves, but they're trying to force it on the players that don't want it.

Forcing unrestricted PVP upon everyone now would be a great way to kill the game. And it would absolutely, 100%, kill the game. The exodus of players would also be the exodus of a huge amount of revenue, the amounts of which PVPers cannot make good on. Eventually even the very small minority of PVP players left would also leave the game because the general population would have dropped to very low levels, just as it would be on a full PVP only cluster.

So, forcing unrestricted PVP is not only a bad design decision, but more importantly, a bad business decision. How much revenue do you think SotA would have raised if it was billed as a full, unrestricted PVP game from the start? I doubt it would have even cleared the six figures mark. It would have failed. It would have failed because majority of people don't want that, so stop trying to force it on them. Advocate for a separate cluster where you can do what you want instead.

 

Hey hey! Whoa!

Just because some players are asking for it, doesn't mean that all of us want it. Don't put us in the same bucket; it's insulting.

 

I'm not sure of the technical details but I have this idea of 'multi-player only, pvp enabled instances' ... when you go there in multi-player mode, it's a pvp zone. There may be resource distribution, guild warfare related objectives, and other PvP related systems that are enabled in these multi-player instances. If you go there in friends-only or SPO, these various PvP systems and objectives would be deactivated...allowing players to complete quest objectives in these zones without experiencing PvP - but not experiencing the full effect of the intended design of the zone. Perhaps you could be prompted when entering the zone which mode you want to play...then when you exit the zone, you go back to your default mode of play?

Hmm.. guess it's immersion breaking.. /shrugs

 

Remember I am not just talking about fighting. I think people tend to picture a massive brawl, which I have no desire for either. I believe in a player driven game that is balanced to allow a wide range of possibilities, but in a structured way. I personally think guards can accomplish this. People shouldn't be able to walk up and murder someone in the streets for no reason. I had that experience last night. A PVPer followed me inside a city and we fought through the streets for half an hour. As fun as it was, I was there to check player vendors for new weapons and armor. A guard system would have prevented that chaotic situation yet allow a wide range of possible other situations take place.

This is my vision: an assassin who is good at what he does can find opportunities to eliminate a target, even in a guarded city. But the guards still offer the target a great deal of protection. Thieves can steal, but only if they are careful. If a thieves guild is targeting players from another guild that guild can declare war, or otherwise find opportunities to take the fight back to them. Measures and counter measures. I want this game full of peaceful blacksmiths and hired body guards and assassins and thieves and warriors. I want there to be spying and other underhanded tactics, sabotage, people who are peaceful blacksmiths by day and murderers by night. I want people to fight over territory, personal grudges to be settled in duels. What I am trying to get at is this, I want the full range of experiences to be possible. The idea that for a guild to go to war the other guild has to accept is immersion breaking. This game is all about immersion. All the effort to have books and functioning candles and NPCs everywhere and yet when it comes to players interacting the game breaks all immersion. Want to roleplay a good guy? "Great, the options are endless!" Want to roleplay a bad guy? "I mean...I guess...if you want. But stay in one of 3 areas that have no importance to the game and leave everyone else alone."

I want it to be possible to be all things you can be in a world such as this. A fire mage, a healer, a cook, a bandit, a pirate, a body guard, detective, thief, assassin, blacksmith, noble, beggar, book writer, bard, murderer, drunk, knight, paladin, necromancer, tamer, black market dealer, alchemist, dirty businessman, mob boss, carpenter, mercenary, hunter, insurance salesman, religious official, a religious zealot, a violent religious zealot, decorator, tailor, barber, soldier, cop, barbarian, double agent, a raider, a tax collector, a dirty tax collector, wondering potato bread salesman, a diplomat, miner, and many many more. It is easy to look at this list and tell which ones are allowed and supported by the games mechanics and which are not. A good MMO should allow all these things and have them work together in a way that is fair to everyone. Right now that is not the case.

 

When it comes to immersion this community seems to have no issue breaking it when it comes to "bad" character behaviors, why not this as well?

 

Yup, from the earliest of early days, the I-want-to-kill-everyone-but-I'll-couch-it-so-it-looks-like-a-serious-and-much-needed-game-element-that-everyone-will love types have tried.

And nothing's changed.

/thread

 

lets pray they hear our plea's. I think what I posted as an Idea would help immensely with the variable types of players we have. Thank you for tagging me. I appreciate it

 

No problem. I meant to actually link the post. Below is it if you want to check it out, @Maghetti.

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/guild-system-to-fix-many-woes.58821/

 

+1

 

Ill check it out in a bit.