Why pVe ??

I think being flagged for PVP in OPO should give players the initiative in PVE. If i'm chopping wood I don't get bothered by mobs the way someone who enjoys that playstyle does. Make Mobs 25% weaker to abilities like charm, fear, taming ect... The list of ways to make PVE less of a forced playstyle to PVPers needs to start now and grow. Give the players the challenge they deserve in the playstyle they deserve.

 

@Ultimate Aficionado, if it's important enough to mention the FireLotus in the thread, it's important enough to just fire off an email. When it comes to warning shots, I prefer to fire two in the center of mass, but that's just me.

 

Well if you really want to be clear about it. Chris on one occasion said playing in OPO mode one wouldn't be able to tell the difference from an MMO.
And while people will be "encouraged" to PVP the story is open to PVE.

 

@Acrylic 300:

Some time ago I was suggesting something similar: make the PvE content for both PvP-enabled and PvP-disabled players give the same rewards, but make said content easier for PvP-enabled players, enough to make up for the extra deaths from PvP.

Ideally a player should progress at the same speed no matter if PvP-enabled or not, allowing players to choose whether to engage in PvP or not based on their preference, and not on efficiency. Making the PvE content easier for PvPers would also serve to shift the focus more towards the PvP content for those players.

 

@Silent Strider

I remember your idea. I liked it! I like it even better now that PVE has been declared a playstyle. Scaling back a playstyle so as to not "force" it is an easily won argument. The non-pvp crowd has done a good job of it already.

Since pve can not be eliminated as a playstyle, scaling it back for PVP should not be a problem.

Your idea becomes true, without the shock and horror of the non- pvpers thinking they are missing out. Instead we are getting less and they are getting more pve.

It's the exact same idea as yours. The argument is different.

 

pve and pvp flags are the worst thing you can do in an open world game, it makes no sense. Just give the people who want to pve only a way to do so (which they are) but they have to realize the full experience of this game will be in the true open world. Its still a good single player game, but being open world FIRST it will obviously be more fulfilling to play how it is intended.

 

This is an open world, and that's great. Both PvE and PvP types of players will get to live in this dynamic, open world, to explore, to go on quests, to craft, to put on stage plays, to do battle either in guild fashion, or straight up player killing. All of those types of players will exist in this open world. Having one or the other doesn't mean it's not an open world. SotA is an open world, make no mistake about it. But also realize it's an open world with choices and player freedom. Nobody is forcing crafting, forcing quests, forcing stage plays, forcing PvP, or forcing PK on everyone. Play as you want, when you want it, in this open world -- and you can determine who is in your world via the ad-hoc player matchmaking technology. It's going to be great.

 

@UA - "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."

I'm curious whether you consider the laws we have in society to be hand holding? Your posts seem to advocate that there be no pesky rules (laws) in the game to stop you from doing what you want to do, which would make the OPO game fairly anarchic.

 

Why don't you wait to see what they create before you keep complaining? They have already said the game will not force pvp on anyone...multiple times. I think the "pvp-only" and the "no-pvp ever" crowds need to cool off, rewatch the dev chats, and wait until they at least have an alpha version to complain about.

If they go exclusively one way, it would shut out large parts of the community, making the game a much harder sale for certain groups. I'm pretty sure that is the opposite of what they want to do.

 

@Citizen Koldar - +1 .... If only right.

 

@Citizen Koldar - was that post directed at me? I wasn't complaining.

 

@Skez:

No matter how it's called, if the game allows players to, in some way, still go out in the world and not worry about PvP, for all intents and purposes it has a PvP flag. It might be disguised, enabled and disabled in a transparent way based on the player's actions - as is the plan for SotA - but it's still in essence a PvP flag.

Also, in a game where a player in the solo online mode can (apparently) go anywhere in the map, and (if skilled enough) do most, or perhaps even all, group PvE content using hirelings, there is no reason to try to force everyone playing in the open mode into PvP. Attempting such a thing would only force players that prefer PvE but would like some contact with other players to choose between avoiding PvP or seeing other players, leading to many of them choosing solo over PvP and reducing the number of players in the open mode.

Of course, not engaging in PvP means throwing away the PvP part of the game experience - but for many players that experience is a bad one, to the point being open to PvP can kill for them whatever fun they could have with the rest of the game. For those players, removing the PvP experience is a good thing.

And then there is the difference between consensual and non-consensual PvP. Many players that don't like non-consensual PvP actually enjoy consensual PvP. It's my own case; I only play PvP at times of my own choice (quite literally; in a game with non-consensual PvP, if attacked when I'm not in the mood for it, I just /sit and let the other player kill me, without fighting back).