Will The PVP Flag Work?

People can disagree with me.

I'm just getting sick and tired of people telling me to "Shut up, nothing is going to change," though. The world would be a lot different if everyone took that advice.

 

I have not seen anyone telling you to shut up. Some of us have been here through countless threads just as this and we might be a little numb to them anymore. I do understand your points. You want to promote pvp in the over world instead of just the instanced areas. Maybe Port will have some random scenarios in the future that will spawn rare resources in different areas or schedule some pvp event areas that will give greater resources or something.

 

I agree with this statement.

 

Nobody has told me to literally shut up. I was being flippant. But I feel like there are some people here who want to quiet people like me; and I can't help but think they have ulterior motives. "Please shut up, I like the direction *I think* the game is going in--or I claim the game is going in... Don't upset the applecart! The devs won't listen to you anyway!"

Great. Disagree with me. Bring it on. But don't tell me to stop expressing my opinion. If you're sick of reading my opinion--or this type of opinion--then ignore me. Simple.

 

you have to understand, when you post your opinion on the forums though, you will expect people to contradict or validate it. It will go under scrutiny and people will have counter arguments. It is just the way of the forums. I have banged my head on the wall so many times I think I am a lich lol. Trust me, we all have passion on here, and we all have our thoughts. Just don't expect everyone to agree, it rarely happens.

 

If you think I am telling you to shut up you are highly wrong. But I do think you haven't followed the dev's at all or the many rehashes of this topic.

start at 58:00 mins (where the PvP deep dive starts.)

 

Oh, I don't expect people to agree with me. I am used to people disagreeing with me. My girlfriend disagrees with me all the time.

My issue is with people chiming in, telling me to stop expressing such-and-such because it's been beaten to death, as though they can predict the future and know what's going on inside the dev's minds. The devs themselves have said they value feedback and have changed things that didn't think they would change based on feedback. That's enough for me to not shut up.

Thanks for the video.

I'm following the devs as best as I can. I just disagree with some of the decisions they're making. The thing is though the game is still in pre-alpha and things are still up in the air, so I don't even know if I can really say I disagree with them.

 

The hardest part is going to be knowing what is too deep into the development to change. - instanced based PvP due to the instancing of the scenes.

The easy part is knowing what was promised in the kickstarter will never change. - Consensual PvP

The other part is the systems they are emotionally vested in. What parts will require them to follow through to launch and possibly a few episodes in before they can see if the plan doesn't work. - Not segregating the community with a PvP server. If the integrated design for PvE and PvP doesn't work. They may one day put a hard filter in for open PvP to be spit into it's own game. Only time will tell in that case.

- giving one example of what I mean but there are likely several.

 

I don't have an issue with instanced PVP per se. However, I do think instanced PVP is pretty lame. And world PVP will be impacted and will most likely die off if there are more rewards for instanced PVP than world pvp.

Again, we continue to go around in circles. I don't think incentivizing world PVP contradicts the idea of consensual PVP.

If PVP is lame because the ruleset for it was dumbed down to appeal to PVErs, then the community will be worse off. Instead of part of the community being on a PVP server, part of the community will just leave...

 

In SotA, all things are instances, World pvp - aka open PVP, is still in an instance with a cap on the number of players per scene. No way around this.

This was not talking in circles, it's statement of fact.

From the PvP and Death Mega thread, the opening statement says it all. But if that's not enough, we can dive into the legal requirements of the deliverable product of a kickstarter.

Drawing in incentive's open PvP is your circle, not mine, was not part of my point. The topic of incentives for PvP is a tricky subject that CAN jump into the forced category. Doesn't have to be but it can easy do so.

It's along the lines of the topic of pay 2 win. Trust me, those are some heated threads, maybe even more so than the PvP threads.

Obviously...
But, think about this really really hard. Should we go with a team of devs that have lived on the development side of this issue or us posters, me included? It's RG's vocal belief that segregating the community was a big direction change for UO he would not have made. (there is an interview floating around where he states this clearly, I'll link it if I can find it)

 

I'm talking about instanced PVP in the context of World of Warcraft.

The statement, "You will get reward A for flagging yourself for PVP or engaging in open PVP" does not contradict the statement "Rest assured that no matter what we do, players who wish to avoid PVP will never be forced to participate in PVP nor will there ever be non-consensual PVP."

I have tons of experience with MMO/MMORPGs. I know what works. I know what's fun.

Well, like I said, hopefully it doesn't end with a bunch of PVPers leaving out of frustration because the PVP aspects of the game were dumbed down to appeal to the hardcore PVE crowd. So far only the PVP side of things have been compromised in this attempt to join PVE and PVP--instead of giving each crowd their own server and ruleset.

 

I wasn't, I was illustrating something that can not be changed. SotA is instanced, not just for PvP, everything. Well not housing. but everything else. - something too deep into development that can not be changed.

Once again, I was stating a fact that will not change. You are turning it into a different conversation about incentives for PvP.

Build a team, start a kickstarter, build it! Or, apply to Portalarium, they have several positions they are looking to fill.

If you are attempting to tell me your are more experienced than the team making this game, I'mma back away from that topic, enjoy, maybe someone else will entertain that topic with you.

The inverse can be said. Hopefully it doesn't end with a bunch of people not interested in PvP leaving out of frustration because of the PvP aspects of the game are targeting the hardcore PvP crowd.

Example: full loot, this can make the penalty of death too harsh for people to enter PvP casually, or anything less than pure hard core.

What I am saying is post all your suggestions and opinions but at some point it people will remind you that some things will not change. Even if we all know anything is possible and subject to change. Not everything can change without scrapping the project and going back to the drawing board. Which we know won't happen.

 

We should keep in mind also that this game was not ever meant to be an MMO, and to the best of my knowledge still is not meant to be an MMO. When I bought Shroud of the Avatar, I bought it when I thought I was going to be playing in a largely persistent world with a few friends. Maximum 20 people. Not only that, but that our actual gaming PCs would be hosting and connecting based on geographical locations, so that I didn't have to deal with lag and all those issues associated with it.

Your point on pre-alpha is right on because all of the things that I mentioned above save the largely persistent world bit, have in fact been completely changed. It remains to be seen how well PvP can be conducted when you take into the account that all of the instancing going on. It works great for some things, not so great for other things like MMO where PvP lives.

 

Well, it seems to fit the bill of one, regardless of what has been said.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by saying the ruleset would be dumbed down to appeal to PVE? I mean, at it's core PVP means you are fighting another player...what intense rule system is required for that?

There is rewards for PVP you get loot now from the other players...I'm not sure if you get xp from killing them as well, wouldn't be against that as long as their is some form of control to make it so a person couldn't just keep killing his buddy to get xp but I assume that would be controlled by death penalties.

 

It will be interesting to see how PvP plays out. Being how much instancing there is already in the game, and the "world map" to get around. Hard to say how PvP will play out at this point. I personally would like something like what UO was. Open and brutal, but in towns you have the help of the guards, but even there you could be murdered.

It was rough but also motivated you to be cautious and not carry your entire world around on your shoulders. I personally enjoyed collecting heads and putting them on my keep for everyone to see A new player on the server? New head for me! I had a vendetta going with a player named Red. We both had many of each others heads and proudly displayed them on each others keeps.

 

The only thing about a MMO that applies here is the persistent world part. Nothing that has ever been said leads us to believe that they will connect a "massive" amount of players together. The MMO definition would need to be amended in order for Shroud of the Avatar to fit the bill.

 

You seem afraid of the idea of a MMO.

So, personally, I'd call it a MMO and I believe that the team themselves have called it that. I'm a little confused as to how this isn't a MMO in your eyes. The game does give players the option to interact with a large amount of people... cooperatively or competitively

This is from their own page:

"Will this be an MMO?
Shroud of the Avatar is a new form of multiplayer online role playing game we are calling a Selective Multiplayer Game. This will allow players to choose how they want to play. Play options will include solo offline, solo online, friends only online, or open multiplayer online. For players who play in the default open multiplayer, Shroud of the Avatar will feel very much like a traditional MMO. However, Shroud of the Avatar also includes a full solo player story crafted by Richard Garriott and Tracy Hickman, best known for his best selling Dragon Lance series of books."

Based on this definition, yes, it's a MMO. An MMO that can be played with just friends or by yourself. Contra, the famous NES game, can be played with one player but that doesn't mean it isn't a multiplayer game. In the same way SotA can be played by one person, a group of people, or a massive amount of people. If I'm to follow my own logic, SotA should be labeled a MMO.

 

You are adding in the massive part of MMO when this description is actually avoiding the massive part. That's the difference. It has potential for a massive player base but we will never be able to play with a massive amount of players.

10 million players sitting in a lobby waiting to go into an instance with 59 other people. That's what FPS do and those are not MMOs.

 

What does MMO stand for? Massively multiplayer online game. I'm not adding anything. Lol!