Want more funding? Add real PvP.

In my mind I'm seeing an open PvP battleground, with everyone's weapons, spells, and wounds blurred out to make the PG rating...

 

What Hardcore PVP means to me:

1. Open PVP except towns - If that means a slider to consent first to then fine but I think it would work better to find ways to protect against pks instead of splitting everyone up.
2. Full loot on death - but have ways to slow down the looting
3 . Stealing
4. A criminal system
5. Collision on large objects - yes to cabinet pk's
6. Blocking other players by standing next to them
7. AOE spells effect everyone - don't mater what side your on

Turn off blood and gore - but that could be an option

 

Cool, Rock on with your own bad self.
This satisfies my own single requirement for PvP with item #1. After that, I don't care.

This, however, does not, and I will fight against it with every means at my disposal.
I would not have paid money to support this endeavor without the expressed assurance that participation in PvP would be by consent only, and that consent does not include "stay in town then"

 

What hardcore PvP means to me:

Dedication to the cause. Live it love it do nothing else. Thumb wrestling, rock paper scissors lizard Spock, spit balls, paint ball, foot ball, pin ball, anything with ball in the name, FPS, RTS, RPG, doesn't matter how it's delivered, if it's PvP you are all in.

That's hardcore. The rules of engagement do not make it hardcore.

 

If you have no problem with what Ara said, I can say I would totally be pleased with what Ara said too.

If you're against player blocking, etc etc that jondavis said then I can compromise. I think the things that jon said weren't bad ideas, but I can live without a few of those things to have all the things Ara said then I would be TOTALLY satisfied.

In other words "I can be in agreement with that too"

 

lol no before the t2a patch where there was no secured chaests and no lockdown mechanics and you could be a burgler XD no t2a patch was also nice ,but trammel and such stuff ruined the game for me and later i played on a freeshard with old ruleset

 

totally agree with you


uo was full loot and had a well balanced economy (maybe murder panalty was a bit too much but there need be one (maybe cant play for 2 days) we want an sucessor like announced , there should not be even votes, if there should be pvp or not ,or to have an option for pvp pve. it should be taken for granted

then i got told it should be an successor for the single player ultima games by someone and not an ultima online successor and i found that posted in forums

http://i.imgur.com/e5BgsFm.png

hope its true even when the half players are pve players , because in my opinion an online economy cant work when some people are invurnerable, can use bot programms to sell stuff and more (china farmers). noone will be possible to mine afk for hours , or he will get killed and looted if the have enough materials to be worth a killcount.

 

There was/is nothing balanced about the economy in UO. Your statement is just not accurate.

Another inaccuracy is that this is a spiritual successor of UO. It is a spiritual successor to the single player Ultima games with elements of multiplayer taken from UO.

You have set yourself up for disappointment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Old pattern. People that really want something specific latching to each and every out of context hint that what they want is what is planned (or is the only feasible way to progress) while ignoring every indication to the contrary. If I was like that I would have blown over $300 on Star Citizen (and $150 on a collector's edition of TOR); luckily I was collected enough to properly research what the devs were planning before spending the money.

 

Your inaccurate.

Richard Garriott the guy that develop this game call it a spiritual successor to UO.

http://i.imgur.com/e5BgsFm.png

I believe he know what he want with this game alot better then you.

So the game is in Richard Garriotts eyes a spiritual successor to UO.

End of story.

 

We all hope. Definitely, I do not give a peso to Ned888 to create a game whit a bad PvP

He is scared at the idea of meeting 1 000 000 griefers in a day.

 

How can words from Richard Garriott saying SotA will be a spiritual successor to UO mean anything else then it will be a spiritual successor to UO?

I trust in developers words and i believe Richard ment SotA to be a spiritual successor to UO.

http://i.imgur.com/e5BgsFm.png

 

There are many aspects to UO. The open pvp/full loot only existed for 2 of the 17 years of the games existence. To assume he automatically must mean that small part of the game is seeing what you want to see. He says spiritual successor to the Ultima series and specifically says he's making an rpg with a story line. I've never seen, anywhere, that he says he's making a spiritual successor to the first two years of UO pvp/griefing.

 

Richard Garriott wasnt part of UO all those 17 years -

Garriott sold Origin to Electronic Arts in September 1992. In 1997, he coined the term massively multiplayer online role-playing game (MMORPG), giving a new identity to the nascent genre previously known as graphical MUDs.[16] In 1999 and 2000, EA canceled all of Origin's new development projects, including Privateer Online, and Harry Potter Online.[17][18] In the midst of these events, Garriott resigned from the company and returned to the industry by forming Destination Games in April 2000 with his brother and Starr Long(the producer of Ultima Online). Once Garriott's non-compete agreement with EA expired a year later, Destination partnered with NCsoft where he acted as a producer and designer of MMORPGs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Garriott

When he call a game a spiritual successor to UO he ment the years he was a part of the game of course.

Those years was when UO had for example full loot.

 

Simply inform you that there are more Dev+ who want the Full Loot.

There seems to be people who enjoyed UO.

 

You can't state what he meant unless he tells you that. RG himself has stated that the early system in UO was a mistake. And even with that statement, we can't make assumptions except where he's elaborated like when he talked about the lack of rules being a mistake. He's said this more than once. Until I see him specifically state that he meant first two years pvp/griefing as his ideal game and he plans to emulate that in SotA, then nobody can argue his intent or demand that he keeps a promise he never made.

 

End of story:

Shroud of the Avatar is the “spiritual successor” to Richard’s previous work in the FRP genre. Our primary objectives are to tell a story even more compelling than Ultimas IV-VII, create a virtual world more interactive than Ultima VII, develop deep rich multi-player capabilities beyond combat akin to Ultima Online, and offer a bold new approach to integrate them with “Selective Multi-Player”.

You guys should really read the source material a bit more carefully. Your lack of understanding is disturbing....

Source: Kickstarter page; not my imagination....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

UO PvP was not at it's best the first 2 years since it was non-consensual.

UO Renaissance was the best years of UO PvP and i dont believe i ever heard Richard call that PvP system a mistake. It was consensual PvP and full loot.

 

I read a statement from the horse mouth - http://i.imgur.com/e5BgsFm.png

That tell me his vision - a spiritual successor to UO. His vision mean something - your Ned888 vision mean nothing.

End of story.

 

Hehe! You found a single post that supports your claim despite scads of written evidence to the contrary! Good for you!

You'll notice "spiritual successor" is specifically in quotes... might be significant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk