Why pVe ??

@Ristra - I'd be surprised if a PvP arena wasn't a planned feature already. Certainly there's no reason not to include something like that.

 

Warhammer let you level and gear yourself doing only PvP. This is what prompted WoW to give xp in battlegrounds and this has sort of become the standard. So it is a valid path of progression in many games.

There are actually good reasons to tone down mobs a bit in heavy PvP zones. The existence of other players and the tactics them employ (training, etc) can turn a small number of mobs into a lot to fight at once. Contested raiding, where you're basically PvPing for the right to kill and loot the boss can be a lot of fun and a great challenge. If a certain dragon only spawns once in the whole server per week, you not only need a group to kill the dragon but you also need a group to lockdown, camp the spawn, and otherwise protect the group while killing the boss.

Skilled players use the environment to their advantage. Sometimes this is too effective, but often it just adds another dimension to the challenge.

 

@Sirinan, Strangely enough, there is not much going on as far as arena discussion here on the forums.

I enjoy a good FPS, which I consider in line with arena PvP. (capture the flag, deathmatch, node control, etc) I can not pull off the FPS migration that some of my friends do. I would pull way too much wife agro from all the new game purchases. So I wait for someone to give me a heads up on what looks good. (playing World of Tanks currently)

There has got to be a few player that know the ins and outs of arena style game play. If it was me, I would be lighting up the forums with my opinion on how that arena game play should be best represented here at SotA.

 

PvE is integral to the storyline.

 

PvE = storyline
PvP = end game

Was that really that hard? The non-PvP crowd gets the $60 story driven game they payed for and the PvP crowd gets a sandbox for emergent gameplay.

 

PvP = endgame is too narrow of a definition, imo.

There is so much more meaningful experiences than just PvP -- if you choose to do so. It would be a sad state of affairs if SotA took that route of only going down one path. It would simply follow every other game out there and not push the boundaries of player agency, player choices, and meaningful gameplay experiences.

Emergent gameplay does not have to stem only from PvP. I think UO taught us that.

 

@ Illesac Yes, but it isn't that easy as the MMO-elements are intertwined with the storyparts. So if I want to experience the story I would still have to deal with PvP if the game would be open-PvP. I would have to walk through PvP-territory in order to do the quest etc.

 

End Game? Where does that come in when the story is on going and dynamically pushed to each hex.

 

I'm not a ********, but at the same time, I'm not going to be focusing primarily on any combat skills more than likely. As what I aspire to become in SotA is a bard-style character, who dabbles in crafts (not high end crafting like PvP is going to require -- [e.g. GM armors / weapons]). More along the lines of creating clothes / utilities for other creative players, which will actually make the world feel alive. And, yes, I do believe there's more to "feeling alive" than players trying to slit my throat as I walk through town, traveling to a theatre where other players will be putting on performances for the entertainment of all.

There will be plenty of environmental obstacles tied in with getting materials to do said crafts, or travels. And I'm not saying that should go without risk, because there definitely should be. Simply pointing out that there's much more to life than slaughtering other people and taking their stuff. A game without PvE is a game without core substance, and therefore a game I would not be interested in backing or taking part in.

 

@Pyro:

Interesting, do you think game developers should enforce restrictions on players or do you think more vibrant communities can be created when people create their own rules?

**What do you do when you go to a play in a shady part of town in real life?

 

A friend is one who has the same enemies as you have.--Abraham Lincoln

 

@Ultima Aficionado:

In todays day and age, I think it's to be expected that some degree of restriction is necessary. How much, and the method by which it is done, I'm not sure what that could entail. I do believe in permitting the new players a time to grow accustomed to the game. However I am with you, in letting the players play in control of themselves, it's what I liked a lot back in the old days. I'm not naive however in expecting that it will be how it was before.

I never did say there shouldn't be a risk in going to places that are quite obviously dangerous. I believe there should be, but it should also be known to the players which areas these are.

Like when I move into a new town, I ask around at work or friends from the area, and ask about known "areas" of town, so that I can take care to not go there myself unless necessary, and then, if I do, I know what I'm getting myself into.

Educate the player, and provide them the options, but do not force them to choose; let them do that on their own.

 

@Pyro:

It isn't naive to expect a game similar to Ultima Online from the person who created it, it's only rational. Also, in an open, sandbox style game there should not be restriction. Restriction is required for games following the theme-park model. These games require hand holding and guidance from the developers to enjoy their style of play.

Good, you prepare yourself before going into an area that is known to be dangerous if you have to. I'm glad to hear that because most players do not. They simply expect that invisible barriers are going to protect them, this is not realistic and quite naive. ESPECIALLY in the real world.

I do not expect complete realism from a game, hence the nature of a video game. Some realism only adds to the excitement and immersion of the game. Players should not be restricted in what they choose to do by the developers. This is especially true in a game modeled as a sandbox game.

 

Selective realism is a slippery slope. For each item of realism we leave out there are going to be unintended consequences.

Introduce a predator into an environment and it can wipe out all the creatures that are lower on the food chain. When predators have no restrictions and no civil hierarchy they end up being more like locusts, a plague.

The only rule in nature is survival of the fittest. Games do not implement this (permadeath) and no one has really attempted to create a detailed civil system. It's all hard coded instead.

For example: No one is allowed to play a bank robber.

They could allow for this and let the players defend the bank. Set up a 24/7 guard watch.

So many things must change when enough people want to opt out of less than desirable systems. Mostly cause this is just a game and people are not trying to recreate life. One person's hobby is another person's chore.

 

@Ultima Aficionado:

It's not naive to expect a game similar to UO at all. It is naive to expect UO again, including its opening rulesets, which RG himself has addressed and said he does not wish to reproduce the same mistakess again. While this game is a "spiritual successor" to Ultima, Richard has stated, "This is not an Ultima". It's also been said that he wishes UO had more of the story element in it, in addition to the player-run economy and demographics.

I have confidence that both he and the team will provide a medium which people will enjoy. And if we don't, well, that's what the playtests and alpha are for. If we don't like the direction it's being taken, it is the purpose to discover the flaws of a sysstem, and addresss it before it reaches the live market.

 

If the game was PvP-only - in other words, if it didn't have quests, mobs, crafting, gathering, and any other kind of content that does not involve actually fighting other players - I might actually like it. The same way I like Planetside 2, TF2, some specific PvP modes in a few other MMOs, and quite a few other PvP-only games.

My problem is with non-consensual PvP, which typically happens by someone attacking me while I'm doing PvE. Remove the PvE element and that problem disappears. After all, a PvP-only game is a game where PvP is consensual, because there's no reason for the player to even log into the game if he isn't in the mood to do some PvP.

 

@Pyro:

Obviously this is not an Ultima, everything Ultima is trademarked and legally owned by EA. The creation of another Ultima game would be a infringement upon that copyright. It is not naive to expect an open rule set. It has been several times this game is going to be a *sandbox* game, you probably should look at some other sandbox games to get an idea of what they are like.

@Strider:

Haha, I think they could create story elements without PVE at all. When you ask to remove PVP you are asking to remove an important feature of the game for several players. Essentially, it is asking for nothing more than the PVE players are asking. Lets remove all the PVE!

 

*Removed for content violation*

 

@Lanatir:

Please cease with the personal attacks and address the topic at hand : "Why PVE?"

If you do not I will be forced to report you to the community manager. I am tired of you derailing threads with derogatory, 4 word comments.

Thanks!

 

An idea like that. For Full PvP / LOOT Players, it would be interesting if the filter allowed us to eliminate all the pVe mobs in the game.

++++ However, it is IMPORTANT that when I see a creature or player, I can interact with 100% (Talk, Kill, Trade, Loot and more. ++++