What PvP Players can look forward to

wait a sec, is this going to be a WOW game? if i remm right, UO was full on PVP and when you died you dropped eveything. from what the people and dev are saying, it looks this is going to be a WOW part 2. which is NOT what i give 500 bucks for. as a matter of fact, ALL my buddy's ( even the one that got the Lord manor (yes he paid 10k for)) are getting Turned off by this Real fast. i ask the DEV team to look into FULL on PVP like UO was. in UO you got a "red flag" and couldn't go into towns, which is your chosen path.

 

Everyone from other MMO's I play and have spoken to, have read the way the PvP is going and have said to me, no way they're playing this, its going to be another and I quote "old married couples and childrens game".

Not UO's younger brother.

 

I live the same story.

They waiting for ArcheAge. This MMORPG ll be Full PvP.

 

BTW we have the LORD of the MANOR "keep" and are going to make the biggest PVP guild in the game. PST if you want in!




Lets get this started!

 

I was kinda looking for the kind of game where when you died you dropped everything myself... But this compromise does sound interesting.
All I can say as of right now is... Its a good thing ive never played WoW otherwise I might be saying the same thing you and many others are saying: "NO not WOW!!!"

 

Don't feed the trolls please! There was nothing wrong with WoW, it just wasn't as hardcore as some would have liked, but it was wildly successful, which means they did something very right.

 

I'm not so sure about that. It looks like another 'Tab 1,2,3,4,5' game so far, at least combat wise.

What's the loot rules?

 

Feeding a troll?
Like I said, I never played WoW b4 so I dunno how that was a troll. WoW never really interested me, especially with all the silly garbage like panda bears and stuff.. Its not really the absence of full loot PvP as much as it is that WoW looks like trash to me. UO trammel wasn't bad, even though I was disapointed in the facet seperation and all that. At least the game looked like "ultima" online. No silly ninjas, samurais, necromancers, paladins...

 

Successful does not mean high quality or good. McDonalds is the most successful fast food restaurant in the world, but it is not a high quality or good product. WoW is the McDonalds of gaming, something everyone can eat and eat the same, talk about bland crap. WoW was never good and never will be good, it is MMO Preschool for the masses, as was said previously grandparents and grandkids playing with each other is a perfect example of WoW.

 

Developers who make a lot of money on a game go on to develop more games. No matter how 'good' your game is, if it's unsuccessful commercially, you have failed.

 

Games also do not have to hit anywhere near the numbers WoW have to be successful either, so it is always a horrible example to use in any case.

 

I think you will get into a circular argument with this. If lots of people like it, and they like it enough to keep paying for it, isn't it, by definition "good"? Sure, I don't consider McDonalds to be my cup of tea, but clearly lots of people find it to be a good value or they wouldn't keep flocking to it. WoW, which I played for several years when it first came out, did a lot of things very very well. It's different when you look back on it 10 years in the future. Heck, exactly what you point out, that people of all ages, genders, and skill levels, played is, in itself, a very impressive dynamic.

 

If you want to be looted then that's easy, when you die drop everything and give it to the victor and stop complaining

 

Anytime I play some of these older games it reminds me of why they fail compared to new;

1. Costs; in older titles pvp costs a lot. The newb gets to practice less unless they have infinite wealth. Once that cost meter goes away, people actually get to practice.

2. Advancement; Newer mmo have it where you can literally advance to max level via pvp.

3. Dailies; daily benefit for participation in pvp, even if you aren't a big pvp'er you get benefits for trying. Eventually even they get better.

 

Unfair? Unfair to you? If you're into PvE, then your enemies are going to be the same as theirs. You will never be in battle against them. I'm totally lost by this statment.

Or are you just upset that someone else might have a more shiny 'stick' than you? You can opt into PvP to get it too... no one is stopping you. But the unfair comment makes no sense.

Ahmen brother. Consensual PvP and partial loot are not "spiritual successors". They are more of the same with different icing on the cake... I'm tired of cake... get me a tiramisu.

I understand the need for a non-transferable world made for anti-PvP'ers, but no Open Role Play mode is not what I donated for either.

 

Yeah, seems kind of selfish to me. PvPers are doing more, exposed to greater risk, yet PvE players think they should be entitled to the same rewards?

Yes. Very selfish.

 

That is quite a large assumption on your part. We will have to see how the game rolls out and who participates in what before that statement can be qualified....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Uhhhh, you GET an "Open Role Play mode" currently with what the devs have proposed. See, right here:

Now, it's true that at this time there doesn't seem to be full loot, but that is something unrelated to whether you can experience open PvP everywhere.

 

So I get a mode where ANYONE can attack me?

No, I get a mode where only people that opt in can attack me. This is not Open Role Play. ORP would be a mode where I am surrounded by only other opted in players and I dont have to compete for resources with players that are PvE only.

THIS mode that DS is talking about is not ORP.

 

Which was in response to my post, where i said,

How can it be otherwise? Of course PvPers are exposed to greater risks, by definition. Not only do they face the same PvE threats as purely PvE players, they also face threats from PvP players as well.

I think my post should be filed under Things That Are Tautological.