Want more funding? Add real PvP.

Combat is considered one of the three pillars of the game. Like UO, it won't be a WoW gear treadmill. Player skill will be important.

Combat should be even more dynamic than UO because of the deck system.

 

Imo, a few players from both the hardcore pvp and moderate pvp sides need to discuss a compromise privately and then present it on here as such.

Arguing this on here is just an invitation to engage in forum battles.

 

Stop unjustified ninja-editing of my post please.

You can't be biased when you're a forum moderator.

 

And indeed I try not to be...biased, that is. When I edit a post, I try to maintain its tone and point.

But equally, when there's something in a post that seems ripe for being reported as inflammatory, insulting, or derogatory, I find that it saves everyone a lot of trouble if I preemptively excise the offending content, before it gets reported and I have to remove it anyway...accompanied by a warning.

 

It was an apples to oranges comparison from the start. Ara posted about the mod version of DayZ, while Enderandrew posted about the standalone version that seems to only be available on Steam.

(BTW, the numbers for the mod version of DayZ aren't that encouraging, to tell the truth. Yes, it has about 1.7M registered players, but it's a free mod to a game that could be obtained for free, making it essentially a F2P title; the average time a player spent playing was a bit above 40 hours, which sincerely seems too low for a game with MMO pretensions; for it being the largest game of its genre, it sits far below the top PvP games (that don't have any kind of looting), with both LoL and DoTA2 getting more play hours per week than the mod version of DayZ got in all the years it has been open; and, to top it, DayZ is not purely a PvP game, since it (like Rust) has a PvE mode and PvE servers. The standalone version of DayZ seems to be doing better, but it's still a far cry from the best played PvP games, with DoTA2 and LoL having each more than 30x the number of simultaneous players DayZ gets; even if it's only compared with other PvP-only FPS games it doesn't come on top, with even the old version of counter Strike getting more simultaneous players than it.)

In terms of genre it's also an apples to oranges comparison because DayZ and Rust are completely different beasts compared with progression based MMOs. Those are games where the average life of a character is measured in hours (1h09m for the mod version of DayZ, I don't have official data for the other ones), and where death means going back to the start; on the other hand, it's a game where a player can expect to reach the pinnacle of power in minutes if he has good luck, a few hours if he has rotten luck but manages to survive. It simply can't be compared with even a single player RPG game where the character is expected to be used for dozens of hours, and comparing it with a MMO where a character is expected to last hundreds of hours is even more of a long stretch. Thus, I see the popularity of those games as a curiosity that has little bearing, if any, on what players want of a MMO.

 

No need to link. It's right on this very page. Just scroll up.

Unless you're arguing that there are a large number of people who don't want hardcore PvP but do want full loot, which would imply that full loot is not hardcore. I find that silly, but I suppose it's not impossible.

 

I still haven't gotten a good answer for this from you or anyone else I've asked over the last year or so: If, as you want, gear is made trivial enough that being dry-looted isn't a big deal and only requires a small investment of money to replace, then what exactly makes being dry-looted so different from a simple financial penalty? Why is losing a little money from your bank not an acceptable punishment, but losing gear that equates to losing a little money fine?

I can tell you one difference: by using a simple cash penalty it becomes far easier for the game to make the penalty match the character's power level and progression. It can potentially be much more punishing to pay cash than to lose gear if the amount lost is based on playtime, lifetime earnings, lifetime achievements, skill levels, etc., than the simple flat fee that is losing the armor set that is used by every single player who bothers to wear armor at all. If the punishment for death is flat and constant across characters, that simply means that it's an exorbitant punishment for newer characters and trivial for established ones. To me this is the exact opposite of how it should be.

As for you not hating PvE players... while I'm certainly glad that you've toned things down (not that any of us had a choice if we wanted to keep posting) but I've been around for awhile now Ara. I saw the things you said about PvEers back when you could get away with whatever you liked on this forum. I think "hate" perfectly well describes your attitude toward them. "Contempt" was about as mild as I could put it. If your feelings have changed since then, I'm happy to hear it.

 

Guild Wars are not PVP, they are just warring guilds that pvp each other so if your not in a guild its nothing to you! I shouldnt have to join a guild just to get some PVP thats Hogwash!

 

Guild PvP is still PvP.

Guild PvP is just one facet of PvP in SotA. You can do the Oracle questline and get yourself flagged for PvP all the time, challenge people to duels and go to PvP maps in additional to guild warfare.

 

I think there is enough PVP players here to PVP each other full loot! WE just get tired of hearing one sided debates where the PVE get what they want and the PVP are pushed to the curb, shunned off, attacked by PVE, and basically ignored by the designers of the game (which surprises me since RG had such a good running with UO years wise.) we are also tired of being ridiculed, not able to attack PVE back when PVE says stuff degrading to US PVPrs, then we eventually get banned bitched at by devs etc... hence the reason most of us just shut up and haven't said much as of late! The PVE definitely have the better compromise, they seem to get what they want and us PVP have to take a seat and hope for the best. If all the PVP people here just pull out and stop dealing with this and go to another game, it will definitely be detrimental to SoTAs, funding and money makers! in turn the game will fall off the face of PC games that are like this, then there will just be all the non pvp people playing this which is basically a copy of "Dragons Age", personally id rather play Dragons Age, without all the drama of PVE hating everything us PVP come up with.
Another thing for PVPrs there are alot of other new games we could go to if we wanted too, and i dont think SoTA quite understands that!? I feel SoTA is being cockey in the responses, videos, advertisements and have the "Im the greatest game designer ever" conception of themselves. Yes they created a good game that lasted 10 or 11 years UO, yes they had a great Ultima series run ............but............thats the old days and they need to get with the now, before this whole thing is a waste of your, mine and thier money. You guys can hate on me all you want, but i have found other games to go to instead of this one if its not what i want in the end!

 

Im not a big fan of guilds! and i dont consider guild PVP regular PVP, its pvp for you only if you go to a guild, dueling people is a great thing to do in an arena, and that would be the only good reason for it, bringing profit to the economy and individuals that have control over PVP, in a controlled environment. you can charge an entrance fee, give out winning money or prizes, and charge people a fee to join in an arena match. this i would probably like.

 

This poll say nothing about what hardcore PvP is. Full loot is hardcore but non-consensual PvP is not hardcore. I am surpriced you dont understand the difference. Consensual PvP and full loot is risk vs reward and hardcore. It give the game consequences and PvP a meaning.

If hardcore PvP in this poll mean non-consensual PvP where newbies with no skills get killed by seasoned veterans then it is far from hardcore PvP. Killing new players that cant defend themself is for the crappy and unskilled PvP player. The skilled PvP player as i and my guild we fight equally skilled players. Praying on newbies is not hardcore in any way.

So this poll say nothing about consensual PvP and full loot.

The poll i linked to say alot though since the options is clearly presented. It is full loot or not.

So give me the link to back your statement or i consider it just another statement taken out of thin air with nothing backing it.

 

I would also say that hardcore PVP is full loot, and if you choose PVP then it is consensual, but you shouldnt have to play PVP if you dont want too. that much i can agree on.

 

Guild PvP is by far the most interesting and rewarding. But it requires a good amount of dedication and reasonably hard core guilds. The idea of fighting over towns and housing is tremendously interesting...but I'm still not sure what their goals are.

Faction PvP is far more casual friendly and allows people to not be in guilds to participate. I'd like to think they can get a blend of the two.

Games like guildwars2 went all out in reaching out to guilds to but ultimately failed to deliver on an experience rewarding to guilds.

Random people fighting random people for no reason is totally uninteresting to me. I could just dual someone or whatever.

 

Hardcore PVP to me should be a choice, either your pvp or your not, if in PVP full loot should be acceptable, some items should be "Blessed" (stuff you paid real money for) PVP should be to the death and you either "OoOooO" to a healer or have a friend rez you either or. If you do not like PVP and getting fully looted and killed then you should not play that style. There are many PVP people out there that will teach others how to survive ( you cant win them all) but you can win some of them just accept it! If PVP is not something you want then you shouldn't even play it, since all it will do is piss you off and make you hate the game! Stay in PVP and let the NPCs/monster take all your stuff instead if that is more accepting to you.

 

Loosing gear have always been a harder risk then loosing some money in your bank. You're out of the fight for some minutes (UO) and that had a huge impact especially in teamfights. Getting that extra number advantage cause you played skillful often settled the outcome of teamfights when you fought equally skilled players. Looting gear/items give you a good feel you got rewarded and same time the opponent feel he actually lost something to the better player, getting money as a reward is the same as defeating a PvE mob and far from the PvP rewards players seek in this game (see poll earlier posted on full loot or not). PvP players (i mean the real ones) took the loss in stride and trained and competed more until he could take out the player he earlier lost to. Getting what the other player had in his backpack differed from time to time depending on what he had in his backpack (UO) and sometimes you got the jackpot with Vanquishing weapons and invulnerable armor with loads of reagences and on and on.

Money is a very unpersonal reward and give no thrill whatsoever since it isnt in any way random. You never get the same thrill getting a message from the game that you have some more money in your bank, opening the corpse of your defeated enemy always gave you a good feeling of being rewarded.

 

Yes guild PvP was very interesting both in chaos/order and factions in UO. Factions was far from casual on Europe shard, it was mostly seasoned PvP players in factions.

1 vs 1 in the field with no rules was always interesting in a game like UO since it had so many variables affecting if you PvP with playerskills.

2vs3, 4vs5 or any other small team/guildfights was alot more skill demanding and fun then huge guildfights with never ending lag.

 

I will say that if your in a guild and you attack one of my characters your whole guild is held responsible! The guildmaster needs to take responsibility for his guild, whether its justifying his guildies attack or taking the appropriate measures to apologize to the attacked, and reprimand his guildmate that attacked an innocent. I as a guildmaster had to deal with things like that, negotiations, reprimands, even kicking a player from the guild. Being a guildmaster doesnt mean you just tell everyone what to do cause your leader! You have to be a leader, and lead your people in the appropriate ways according to your guild.

 

That is certainly good news. I'm always being told that it's essential for SotA to simply be 1998 UO in 3D because nobody else is providing that game. Good to know that's not true!

I really don't get it, though. In UO, when you killed another person you got to take some of their wealth. In SotA, when you kill another person... you get to take some of their wealth. The only difference between the UO and SotA systems are that SotA's system allows for more interesting and valuable gear itemization and allows the game to better balance the penalty. What's the big problem?

As for this:

Let's not rewrite history. When it comes to insulting and dehumanizing the opposition, the PvE side can't hold a candle to yours. Believe me, when somebody who is against nonconfulloot like me matches your side's tone and rhetoric, we catch it from the mods too. You simply see it less often since as far as I can tell I'm about the only one on this side who ever got that nasty. (Not that I'm at all against PvP, I just think nonconfulloot is a bad system, especially for a game meant to accomplish what SotA is.) If the mods remove all the degrading and inflammatory comments and only one side of the argument is left, well that's not the mods' fault.

 

Thank you for the answer. I'm far from convinced, though. People who die can be removed from fights by many means: rez sickness, zone lockout, using limited rez points, and others as well. As for the rest, I really do understand all of that, but those upsides don't even come close to making up for the huge downsides. The proposed system (which will have randomness as I understand it) maintains the risk and reward while mitigating most of the other system's flaws, like being too punishing to noobs and encouraging generic, boring, and limited gearing. There's no chance of hitting a massive jackpot like getting someone's house, but that's a very very good thing.