Understanding OPEN PVP (Why?)

That's the good thing about this game. If you don't want to PvP you don't have to. You can select to be PvE only. I still don't understand why there is any argument about PvP vs PvE...Whatever you want you got thanks to selective multiplayer

 

Cool. And just so you're clear on my stance, I have absolutely no issues at all with having pvp in the game.

But it has to be consensual.

 

But you hurt my feelings telling me im a pkr that wants to go gank people! but ill get over it!

 

Not at all, there are many cool pvpers out there, I play siege perilous on UO so I'm cool with it.I have many pvp friends on UO. You are probably in this group from what you are saying.

Unfortunately my point was that there will inevitably but thousands of gankers as well out there giving the whole thing a bad name.

I never put you personally in one group or another , I don't know anything about you.

 

I was guildmaster of (CYS) consider your sins on LS, and Chessie. It was a PK hunter guild built from victims of Pkrs! I started way back when the game first came out and all we had was fel style game!

 

There is an argument, because there is a group out there lobbying heavily for NON-consensual PvP. They don't want selective to affect PvP unless you're solo or friends only. It's not enough to have a PvP environment, they want to force people like me into the same environment. That starts the arguments most of the time.

 

I guess I don't understand why it matters what style of play people want if they can just choose one way or another...If you want to PvP, great, choose PvP mode...It will be a full open world of PvP only people who are there because they enjoy that playstyle. If you don't want to PvP then you can choose PvE playstyle. It's the same exact thing has having 2 servers, except, it's all done in one selective player server.

I know there are games like Aion that force everyone to be PvP. That is wonderful for the people who want PvP, but not for the people who do not like PvP. I loved Aion, until I reached level 25, and the groups of jerks outside the city would just gankfest you. I don't enjoy that playstyle. I want to play a game, not be played by a game

 

We just want a place where we can play the way we like man! no ones trying to force you into anything! Honestly, youll have what you want already theyve already said that! But when they were making the slider thing they forgot about the full loot full pvp people and just pushed us aside, gave you PVE, Consensual,guild wars, partial PVP where you can get money instead of the loot you carry. Thats what the main arguement has always been about, from the get go. Youd have to read a billion posts to see that. But i promise all of you we do not want to force you into anything, we just want our gameplay style. I mean if you think about it PVE could include, partial pvp, no kill, duel, arenas, and guild wars all in one and PVP could have Guild wars, Arenas. Over in PVE you wouldnt have to worry about dieing by the hands of another, or getting ganked, or losing all your stuff! So its good you have options! We just want options too! thats what the whole battle has been about!

 

With the extra time and preparation involved with pvp ....I hope the slider doesn't skew the balance of the economy in favor of any one play style. I hope everyone can fairly get what they want.

 

I would set up the game like this.............

PVE - you can do consensual PVP, Guildwars, Partial loot if any, or no loot, arenas, and duels, all with no penalty of death *except by PVE monsters and such.

PVP -Full death, full loot, Guildwars, Arenas, when you die you either ghost till you find a healer, or you have to completely "reroll" your character upon death. (theres a penalty for Pking, and dieing, ou get to keep what gold and items in your bank or houses, you dont lose that, but you will have to reroll! and start as a noob again.

thats just my opinion, on all of it, and you have a choice PVP, PVE when making a character or having to reroll one (because of an untimely death)

 

Frankly I don't get it either. That's WHY there's an argument. I'm not referring to members like Blaquerogue, who just wants to be able to PvP with other PvP'ers. I want him to have that too, but I've lost track of the number of times I've seen: "There should be full pvp, non-consensual, risk vs. reward, blah blah blah!" And I say: "It's selective multi-player, you can play your way and I can play mine. Win-win!"

But it's not enough for them. They want to force me into PvP all the time. Hence... argument.

 

Would those of you who keep insisting that a scaling slider is the "same exact thing" as having two servers care to explain how the economies would be the same?

 

The economy will by player driven, meaning if no one wants your wares you can't sell the item and you will not earn any money. So the claim that one can make a huge amount of money by flooding the market with items you can make cheap due to there there is no risk of resource gathering is not valid. Add to that that PvP-only zones will give higher yields and certain PvP resources will only be found in PvP zones.

But yes, the economy wont be "same exact thing" but it will be a sustainable economy and we must make a compromise somewhere unless the devs get a huge pile of money to make a side project. A project that are outside of what they promised in the kick-starter.
X

 

Care to explain how SotA econ works? It's not going to be UO econ.

 

Presumably, supply and demand....but how would the supply and demand be the same on the two different servers?

 

Simple. If they have separate servers, they would have to have a different code base for each, and probably separate hardware as well, which is inefficient and more costly, both in terms of ac1quisition and maintenance for both the code and the hardware. Since Selective Multiplayer has to function if SPO/FPO/OPO is to work as announced, it is more simple and effective to have a single code base and a single hardware set up to serve both PvE and PvP aspects of the game.

Or were you talking about game economies rather than real world economic impacts on game development and sustainment? If you are talking about game economics, I don't see that it's a big problem. What significant problems do you see?

 

Yes Owain, game economy. I hope your judgement isn't clouded by having a wife that plays. If I were in the same situation I would not want to be separated from my other half....at all cost.

 

So again, what problems with game economies do you think exist?

 

None yet, I was only pointing out that the slider is not exactly the same as having two servers from an economic point of view.

 

If there are no problems, why even bring it up?