Trending Games | Pirate101 | ArcheAge | Wasteland 2 | Destiny

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,858,764 Users Online:0
Games:742  Posts:6,243,963
Portalarium Inc | Official Site
MMORPG | Genre:Fantasy | Status:Development  (est.rel N/A)  | Pub:Portalarium Inc
PVP:Yes | Distribution:Download,Retail | Retail Price:n/a | Monthly Fee:n/a
System Req: PC Mac Linux | Out of date info? Let us know!

Shroud of the Avatar Forum » General Discussion » If it doesn't have player looting and stealing, the game will fail.

15 Pages First « 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 » Last Search
295 posts found
  ThomasN7

Novice Member

Joined: 3/17/07
Posts: 6656

"Had to be me. Someone else might have gotten it wrong.” - Mordin Solus

9/24/13 6:11:34 PM#121
Yes the #1 game feature in everyone's mmo is player looting and stealing! #sarcasm!
  aRtFuLThinG

Hard Core Member

Joined: 4/30/09
Posts: 1023

9/24/13 6:12:31 PM#122
Originally posted by Aragon100
Originally posted by aRtFuLThinG
Originally posted by DavisFlight
Originally posted by darker70
Originally posted by Skooma2
Originally posted by flizzer
You can have this as long as I get a completely PvE server.   If the only way I can experience this game is with the PvP gank crowd, then I would pass.  

+1

+1 to Infinity 
 

How about we all stop acting like children and realize that there is a way to have open PvP without their being open gank squads "ruining" the game? Thats just as bad as people who say MMOs with no PvP are useless. At least PvP MMO gamers usually know what they're talking about, but the PvE crowd always seems to speak from total ignorance.

Why force your view on someone else? Some people just don't like the idea at all regardless of justification.

 

There will always be people who don't like a game with any element of pvp regardless of reason, just like there will always be people who don't like games with pve servers.

 

Let them be. Freedom of choice.

What wrong with your reasoning is that the PvE crowd want SotA PvP to fit them and not the PvP crowd. So PvP players will leave andseek a game that isnt infected by PvE players demands.

They have their open PvE and still they want to destroy what the PvP crowd was hoping for.

 

I think that's more to do with whether the developer is willing to stick to their guns or not, not so much the playerbase.

If the develop chooses money or inclusionism over their original/intented vision I don't think there is anything any of us can do - and if they choose money first over fun it won't ended up being a good game anyways, regardless of how good the source material is (swtor or Neverwinter anyone?)
  DavisFlight

Elite Member

Joined: 9/25/12
Posts: 2585

9/24/13 8:10:29 PM#123
Originally posted by aRtFuLThinG
Originally posted by DavisFlight
Originally posted by darker70
Originally posted by Skooma2
Originally posted by flizzer
You can have this as long as I get a completely PvE server.   If the only way I can experience this game is with the PvP gank crowd, then I would pass.  

+1

+1 to Infinity 
 

How about we all stop acting like children and realize that there is a way to have open PvP without their being open gank squads "ruining" the game? Thats just as bad as people who say MMOs with no PvP are useless. At least PvP MMO gamers usually know what they're talking about, but the PvE crowd always seems to speak from total ignorance.

Why force your view on someone else?

You realize that's exactly what you're doing, right?

 

  aRtFuLThinG

Hard Core Member

Joined: 4/30/09
Posts: 1023

9/24/13 8:16:18 PM#124
Originally posted by DavisFlight
Originally posted by aRtFuLThinG
Originally posted by DavisFlight
Originally posted by darker70
Originally posted by Skooma2
Originally posted by flizzer
You can have this as long as I get a completely PvE server.   If the only way I can experience this game is with the PvP gank crowd, then I would pass.  

+1

+1 to Infinity 
 

How about we all stop acting like children and realize that there is a way to have open PvP without their being open gank squads "ruining" the game? Thats just as bad as people who say MMOs with no PvP are useless. At least PvP MMO gamers usually know what they're talking about, but the PvE crowd always seems to speak from total ignorance.

Why force your view on someone else?

You realize that's exactly what you're doing, right?

 

???

I am a pvper buddy... I plays Planetside 2, played APB, Darkfall, WAR, etc etc...

 

I am just saying why bother arguing with people whose opinion are dead-set against pvp?

 

You didn't really read what I said, didn't you? Calm down... you don't have to argue with everyone lol... fighting everyone (especially people who are on the same side as you) only pushes people away from your side.

  lizardbones

Elite Member

Joined: 6/11/08
Posts: 10635

I think with my heart and move with my head.-Kongos

9/24/13 9:41:07 PM#125


Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by Zeppelin4 I'm not sure why anyone would think that pvp didn't drive away customers in UO. Look at the history of the game and see how they kept punishing pvp with changes to the game to the point where stat loss was introduced and pvp was for the most part dead except for the very hardcore. The problem is by this time when they got it under control everyone had left for EQ.
I see you have no clue whatsoever what happened to UO.

Age of Shadows was introduced feb 2003 and it made UO to a WoW game. Just about all felucca players stopped playing and that can seen on the subscriber numbers that went downhill from AoS.

I was there and saw myself what happened.

Making the best ever PvP game to a WoW copy was what really removed subscribers from the game.

 

 




Apparently you have no idea of the history of the game you profess to know so much about.

1UP.com Article on History of UO - Reference drop in Felucca population

UOForums.com - Scroll down to Belanos' post - Reference player preferences in regard to rule sets

Escapist Magazine - Reference drop in Felucca population

Finally there's just the logic of the world doubling in size having an impact on the player population on both continents.

I have no explanation for your personal experiences, other than reality doesn't agree with you.

For every large, complex problem, there is a simple, clear solution that also happens to be absolutely wrong.

  InsaneMembrane

Apprentice Member

Joined: 9/17/13
Posts: 146

9/25/13 1:02:36 AM#126
Originally posted by Aragon100
Originally posted by DavisFlight
Originally posted by darker70
Originally posted by Skooma2
Originally posted by flizzer
You can have this as long as I get a completely PvE server.   If the only way I can experience this game is with the PvP gank crowd, then I would pass.  

+1

+1 to Infinity 
 

How about we all stop acting like children and realize that there is a way to have open PvP without their being open gank squads "ruining" the game? Thats just as bad as people who say MMOs with no PvP are useless. At least PvP MMO gamers usually know what they're talking about, but the PvE crowd always seems to speak from total ignorance.

It's already to late for SotA. Read up on the game and you can see how the PvE players are doing their best to get a lame version of PvP to suit their carebear playstyle.

No risk vs reward and no consequences is the PvE crowds melody. Slow unskilled PvP so the not so expereinced ones have a chance is also popular. Luck should be a big factor.

SotA is like all potentially good PvP games, the PvE crowd destroy it with their demands. They want PvP to fit their playstyle.

 

 

I'm not sure how you could be more incorrect, maybe you are writing a piece of fiction for this forum?

 

PvE players and PvP players will never see each other. The magicpvpsliderbarthingy(TM) sees to that. There is also risk vs reward already established, there will be things you simply can't get without taking chances both PvE and PvP and it will also encourage PvE players to try PvP.

If it is going to be done well or not, remains to be seen but the FACT is it will be done.

  Aragon100

Elite Member

Joined: 2/06/08
Posts: 2224

9/25/13 7:58:04 AM#127
Originally posted by InsaneMembrane
Originally posted by Aragon100
Originally posted by DavisFlight
Originally posted by darker70
Originally posted by Skooma2
Originally posted by flizzer
You can have this as long as I get a completely PvE server.   If the only way I can experience this game is with the PvP gank crowd, then I would pass.  

+1

+1 to Infinity 
 

How about we all stop acting like children and realize that there is a way to have open PvP without their being open gank squads "ruining" the game? Thats just as bad as people who say MMOs with no PvP are useless. At least PvP MMO gamers usually know what they're talking about, but the PvE crowd always seems to speak from total ignorance.

It's already to late for SotA. Read up on the game and you can see how the PvE players are doing their best to get a lame version of PvP to suit their carebear playstyle.

No risk vs reward and no consequences is the PvE crowds melody. Slow unskilled PvP so the not so expereinced ones have a chance is also popular. Luck should be a big factor.

SotA is like all potentially good PvP games, the PvE crowd destroy it with their demands. They want PvP to fit their playstyle.

 

 

I'm not sure how you could be more incorrect, maybe you are writing a piece of fiction for this forum?

 

PvE players and PvP players will never see each other. The magicpvpsliderbarthingy(TM) sees to that. There is also risk vs reward already established, there will be things you simply can't get without taking chances both PvE and PvP and it will also encourage PvE players to try PvP.

If it is going to be done well or not, remains to be seen but the FACT is it will be done.

Are you banned from the SotA forum?

In every PvP thread there is PvE players dictating how SotA PvP should turn out and it is a PvP game without risk vs reward and no consequences.

Example of PvE players standpoint on SotA PvP -  

Balance PvP from a gear/level/skill/class point of view to the extent that people feel that they have a chance - mean lower the requirement of player skills in SotA so the newbies have a chance.

Lower the penalties for failure. You won’t win any casuals talking about “full loot" - which means remove risk vs reward from the game and there should be no consequences of sucking at PvP and no reward for being the better player.

PvE players demanding this and that to accept open PvP have destroyed so many potentially good PvP games and SotA seem to be the next in line. PvE players is a cancer for PvP.

 

  Aragon100

Elite Member

Joined: 2/06/08
Posts: 2224

9/25/13 8:00:00 AM#128
Originally posted by aRtFuLThinG
Originally posted by Aragon100
Originally posted by aRtFuLThinG
Originally posted by DavisFlight
Originally posted by darker70
Originally posted by Skooma2
Originally posted by flizzer
You can have this as long as I get a completely PvE server.   If the only way I can experience this game is with the PvP gank crowd, then I would pass.  

+1

+1 to Infinity 
 

How about we all stop acting like children and realize that there is a way to have open PvP without their being open gank squads "ruining" the game? Thats just as bad as people who say MMOs with no PvP are useless. At least PvP MMO gamers usually know what they're talking about, but the PvE crowd always seems to speak from total ignorance.

Why force your view on someone else? Some people just don't like the idea at all regardless of justification.

 

There will always be people who don't like a game with any element of pvp regardless of reason, just like there will always be people who don't like games with pve servers.

 

Let them be. Freedom of choice.

What wrong with your reasoning is that the PvE crowd want SotA PvP to fit them and not the PvP crowd. So PvP players will leave andseek a game that isnt infected by PvE players demands.

They have their open PvE and still they want to destroy what the PvP crowd was hoping for.

 

I think that's more to do with whether the developer is willing to stick to their guns or not, not so much the playerbase.

If the develop chooses money or inclusionism over their original/intented vision I don't think there is anything any of us can do - and if they choose money first over fun it won't ended up being a good game anyways, regardless of how good the source material is (swtor or Neverwinter anyone?)

It is both. I believe they adapt the SotA PvP game to please the PvE crowd.

  Aragon100

Elite Member

Joined: 2/06/08
Posts: 2224

9/25/13 8:06:04 AM#129
Originally posted by lizardbones

 


Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by Zeppelin4 I'm not sure why anyone would think that pvp didn't drive away customers in UO. Look at the history of the game and see how they kept punishing pvp with changes to the game to the point where stat loss was introduced and pvp was for the most part dead except for the very hardcore. The problem is by this time when they got it under control everyone had left for EQ.
I see you have no clue whatsoever what happened to UO.

 

Age of Shadows was introduced feb 2003 and it made UO to a WoW game. Just about all felucca players stopped playing and that can seen on the subscriber numbers that went downhill from AoS.

I was there and saw myself what happened.

Making the best ever PvP game to a WoW copy was what really removed subscribers from the game.

 

 




Apparently you have no idea of the history of the game you profess to know so much about.

1UP.com Article on History of UO - Reference drop in Felucca population

UOForums.com - Scroll down to Belanos' post - Reference player preferences in regard to rule sets

Escapist Magazine - Reference drop in Felucca population

Finally there's just the logic of the world doubling in size having an impact on the player population on both continents.

I have no explanation for your personal experiences, other than reality doesn't agree with you.

 

Having own experience say alot more then quoting players that might be totally unaware of the total number of subscribers and the numbers that play felucca and the number that play trammel. What shard you played on might also differ alot. Drachenfelds for example had lower population then Europe. 

My reference is playing from beta to april 2003. I knew all PvP players on Europe shard. 

Those players continued to play on felucca after trammel and they left the game after Age of Shadows february 2003. So when it comes to my shard i am right, how it was on other shards might have been a different matter.

UO becoming just another WoW game was what removed all those subscribers in felucca from the game. This is something most people arent aware of. Changing a superb PvP game into WoW wasnt that smart move EA thought it should be.

Here you can see the number of subscribers in UO over time -

http://users.telenet.be/mmodata/Charts/Subs-2.png

Here you can see for yourself that my point of view fit right in with the numbers of subscribers, your view isnt accurate at all. Age of Shadows was the gamebreaker for PvP players and that isnt strange at all since the game became a carebear one with insurance and itemization.

And ask yourself this - why should the PvP players leave the better PvP game UO became after trammel was introduced? I am talking about UO Renaissance that was way, way better then pretrammel PvP. That just not make sence.

UO becaming WoW with Age of Shadows on the other hand left felucca a deserted area. I seem to have more experience then you from UO and my logic is superior yours.

Have to ask, did you even play UO?

  InsaneMembrane

Apprentice Member

Joined: 9/17/13
Posts: 146

9/25/13 8:44:24 AM#130
Originally posted by Aragon100
Originally posted by InsaneMembrane
Originally posted by Aragon100
Originally posted by DavisFlight
Originally posted by darker70
Originally posted by Skooma2
Originally posted by flizzer
You can have this as long as I get a completely PvE server.   If the only way I can experience this game is with the PvP gank crowd, then I would pass.  

+1

+1 to Infinity 
 

How about we all stop acting like children and realize that there is a way to have open PvP without their being open gank squads "ruining" the game? Thats just as bad as people who say MMOs with no PvP are useless. At least PvP MMO gamers usually know what they're talking about, but the PvE crowd always seems to speak from total ignorance.

It's already to late for SotA. Read up on the game and you can see how the PvE players are doing their best to get a lame version of PvP to suit their carebear playstyle.

No risk vs reward and no consequences is the PvE crowds melody. Slow unskilled PvP so the not so expereinced ones have a chance is also popular. Luck should be a big factor.

SotA is like all potentially good PvP games, the PvE crowd destroy it with their demands. They want PvP to fit their playstyle.

 

 

I'm not sure how you could be more incorrect, maybe you are writing a piece of fiction for this forum?

 

PvE players and PvP players will never see each other. The magicpvpsliderbarthingy(TM) sees to that. There is also risk vs reward already established, there will be things you simply can't get without taking chances both PvE and PvP and it will also encourage PvE players to try PvP.

If it is going to be done well or not, remains to be seen but the FACT is it will be done.

Are you banned from the SotA forum?

In every PvP thread there is PvE players dictating how SotA PvP should turn out and it is a PvP game without risk vs reward and no consequences.

Example of PvE players standpoint on SotA PvP -  

Balance PvP from a gear/level/skill/class point of view to the extent that people feel that they have a chance - mean lower the requirement of player skills in SotA so the newbies have a chance.

Lower the penalties for failure. You won’t win any casuals talking about “full loot" - which means remove risk vs reward from the game and there should be no consequences of sucking at PvP and no reward for being the better player.

PvE players demanding this and that to accept open PvP have destroyed so many potentially good PvP games and SotA seem to be the next in line. PvE players is a cancer for PvP.

 

 

The account InsaneMembrane is banned from the SotA forums, yes. They didn't like my comments on their BS housing "interview" over at Paradox and didn't like me calling out some of the tossers over there.

 

If you think you'll get a civil discussion when it comes to PvP in any forum, keep thinking. There are as many Full Loot idiots there are there are carebears and they just press each other's buttons, then you've got the real losers in the middle: Anti-PKs.

 

From what I can tell in the dev chats, there will be a pretty close playstyle which allows PK, PvP, Full Loot, the problem that the PKs have is that they want to knock off nubs without challenge. I do so enjoy that myself, but I'll adapt. And on the other side of the coin you have the carebears who seem to think that if there is any PvP at all, it will destroy their game even though they won't be required to take part in it.

 

It really is just all posturing atm in any case, there is no god damn combat engine or magicpvpsliderbarthingy, or magichandshakesliderbarthingy, or game. One needs to wait, I only have a problem with all the nubs here just tossing out their useless opinions on a game which is yet to take shape. 

 

Chill the actual frack out.

  Loktofeit

Elite Member

Joined: 1/13/10
Posts: 12278

Currently playing EVE, SMITE, Project Gorgon, and Combat Arms

9/25/13 8:51:37 AM#131
Originally posted by Aragon100
Originally posted by lizardbones

 


Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by Zeppelin4 I'm not sure why anyone would think that pvp didn't drive away customers in UO. Look at the history of the game and see how they kept punishing pvp with changes to the game to the point where stat loss was introduced and pvp was for the most part dead except for the very hardcore. The problem is by this time when they got it under control everyone had left for EQ.
I see you have no clue whatsoever what happened to UO.

 

Age of Shadows was introduced feb 2003 and it made UO to a WoW game. Just about all felucca players stopped playing and that can seen on the subscriber numbers that went downhill from AoS.

I was there and saw myself what happened.

Making the best ever PvP game to a WoW copy was what really removed subscribers from the game.

 

 




Apparently you have no idea of the history of the game you profess to know so much about.

1UP.com Article on History of UO - Reference drop in Felucca population

UOForums.com - Scroll down to Belanos' post - Reference player preferences in regard to rule sets

Escapist Magazine - Reference drop in Felucca population

Finally there's just the logic of the world doubling in size having an impact on the player population on both continents.

I have no explanation for your personal experiences, other than reality doesn't agree with you.

 

Having own experience say alot more then quoting players that might be totally unaware of the total number of subscribers and the numbers that play felucca and the number that play trammel. What shard you played on might also differ alot. Drachenfelds for example had lower population then Europe. 

My reference is playing from beta to april 2003. I knew all PvP players on Europe shard. 

Those players continued to play on felucca after trammel and they left the game after Age of Shadows february 2003. So when it comes to my shard i am right, how it was on other shards might have been a different matter.

UO becoming just another WoW game was what removed all those subscribers in felucca from the game. This is something most people arent aware of. Changing a superb PvP game into WoW wasnt that smart move EA thought it should be.

Here you can see the number of subscribers in UO over time -

http://users.telenet.be/mmodata/Charts/Subs-2.png

Here you can see for yourself that my point of view fit right in with the numbers of subscribers, your view isnt accurate at all. Age of Shadows was the gamebreaker for PvP players and that isnt strange at all since the game became a carebear one with insurance and itemization.

And ask yourself this - why should the PvP players leave the better PvP game UO became after trammel was introduced? I am talking about UO Renaissance that was way, way better then pretrammel PvP. That just not make sence.

UO becaming WoW with Age of Shadows on the other hand left felucca a deserted area. I seem to have more experience then you from UO and my logic is superior yours.

Have to ask, did you even play UO?

I'd say both you and Zep are correct. The PVPers drove out a lot of players early on, however the release of AoS (which shows a spike from box sales, because that's what EA does best) drove out the PVPers, primarily due to insurance, 'blessed' gear, and artifacts. 

"And wikipedia is as accurate as Britannica. Wikipedia is very reliable. You would be hard pressed to find a more reliable source for these kinds of things." -fivoroth

  lizardbones

Elite Member

Joined: 6/11/08
Posts: 10635

I think with my heart and move with my head.-Kongos

9/25/13 9:36:43 AM#132


Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by lizardbones  

Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by Zeppelin4 I'm not sure why anyone would think that pvp didn't drive away customers in UO. Look at the history of the game and see how they kept punishing pvp with changes to the game to the point where stat loss was introduced and pvp was for the most part dead except for the very hardcore. The problem is by this time when they got it under control everyone had left for EQ.
I see you have no clue whatsoever what happened to UO.   Age of Shadows was introduced feb 2003 and it made UO to a WoW game. Just about all felucca players stopped playing and that can seen on the subscriber numbers that went downhill from AoS. I was there and saw myself what happened. Making the best ever PvP game to a WoW copy was what really removed subscribers from the game.    
Apparently you have no idea of the history of the game you profess to know so much about. 1UP.com Article on History of UO - Reference drop in Felucca population UOForums.com - Scroll down to Belanos' post - Reference player preferences in regard to rule sets Escapist Magazine - Reference drop in Felucca population Finally there's just the logic of the world doubling in size having an impact on the player population on both continents. I have no explanation for your personal experiences, other than reality doesn't agree with you.  
Having own experience say alot more then quoting players that might be totally unaware of the total number of subscribers and the numbers that play felucca and the number that play trammel. What shard you played on might also differ alot. Drachenfelds for example had lower population then Europe. 

My reference is playing from beta to april 2003. I knew all PvP players on Europe shard. 

Those players continued to play on felucca after trammel and they left the game after Age of Shadows february 2003. So when it comes to my shard i am right, how it was on other shards might have been a different matter.

UO becoming just another WoW game was what removed all those subscribers in felucca from the game. This is something most people arent aware of. Changing a superb PvP game into WoW wasnt that smart move EA thought it should be.

Here you can see the number of subscribers in UO over time -

http://users.telenet.be/mmodata/Charts/Subs-2.png

Here you can see for yourself that my point of view fit right in with the numbers of subscribers, your view isnt accurate at all. Age of Shadows was the gamebreaker for PvP players and that isnt strange at all since the game became a carebear one with insurance and itemization.

And ask yourself this - why should the PvP players leave the better PvP game UO became after trammel was introduced? I am talking about UO Renaissance that was way, way better then pretrammel PvP. That just not make sence.

UO becaming WoW with Age of Shadows on the other hand left felucca a deserted area. I seem to have more experience then you from UO and my logic is superior yours.

Have to ask, did you even play UO?




It wouldn't surprise me if AoS drove out PvP players, given how it has been described.* I'm not talking about PvP players leaving the game. I'm talking about the PvE players leaving Felucca for Trammel.

The total number of subscribers doesn't give any indication of how the player population split between the two rule sets. What we do have are repeated references to the population of Felucca dropping and repeated references to most of the population playing in Trammel from people who not only played the game, but interviewed Raph Koster and Richard Garriott. The PvP players didn't move, everyone else did and most new players went to Trammel for the relaxed PvP rule set.

History is informing Richard Garriott's decisions with SotA. The game doesn't need full loot or stealing. The game doesn't even need always on PvP. The OP's premise is false.


* It doesn't surprise me that a lot of players would leave UO, regardless of whether they were PvP or PvE players. Why play something that's not as good at being WoW as WoW is? Especially with WoW sitting right there, ready to play. That's something else we can learn from history. Don't make dramatic changes to a game's game play, the players probably won't like it and it probably won't bring in a lot of new players.

For every large, complex problem, there is a simple, clear solution that also happens to be absolutely wrong.

  Aragon100

Elite Member

Joined: 2/06/08
Posts: 2224

9/25/13 10:04:47 AM#133
Originally posted by lizardbones

 


Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by lizardbones  

Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by Zeppelin4 I'm not sure why anyone would think that pvp didn't drive away customers in UO. Look at the history of the game and see how they kept punishing pvp with changes to the game to the point where stat loss was introduced and pvp was for the most part dead except for the very hardcore. The problem is by this time when they got it under control everyone had left for EQ.
I see you have no clue whatsoever what happened to UO.   Age of Shadows was introduced feb 2003 and it made UO to a WoW game. Just about all felucca players stopped playing and that can seen on the subscriber numbers that went downhill from AoS. I was there and saw myself what happened. Making the best ever PvP game to a WoW copy was what really removed subscribers from the game.    
Apparently you have no idea of the history of the game you profess to know so much about. 1UP.com Article on History of UO - Reference drop in Felucca population UOForums.com - Scroll down to Belanos' post - Reference player preferences in regard to rule sets Escapist Magazine - Reference drop in Felucca population Finally there's just the logic of the world doubling in size having an impact on the player population on both continents. I have no explanation for your personal experiences, other than reality doesn't agree with you.  
Having own experience say alot more then quoting players that might be totally unaware of the total number of subscribers and the numbers that play felucca and the number that play trammel. What shard you played on might also differ alot. Drachenfelds for example had lower population then Europe. 

 

My reference is playing from beta to april 2003. I knew all PvP players on Europe shard. 

Those players continued to play on felucca after trammel and they left the game after Age of Shadows february 2003. So when it comes to my shard i am right, how it was on other shards might have been a different matter.

UO becoming just another WoW game was what removed all those subscribers in felucca from the game. This is something most people arent aware of. Changing a superb PvP game into WoW wasnt that smart move EA thought it should be.

Here you can see the number of subscribers in UO over time -

http://users.telenet.be/mmodata/Charts/Subs-2.png

Here you can see for yourself that my point of view fit right in with the numbers of subscribers, your view isnt accurate at all. Age of Shadows was the gamebreaker for PvP players and that isnt strange at all since the game became a carebear one with insurance and itemization.

And ask yourself this - why should the PvP players leave the better PvP game UO became after trammel was introduced? I am talking about UO Renaissance that was way, way better then pretrammel PvP. That just not make sence.

UO becaming WoW with Age of Shadows on the other hand left felucca a deserted area. I seem to have more experience then you from UO and my logic is superior yours.

Have to ask, did you even play UO?




It wouldn't surprise me if AoS drove out PvP players, given how it has been described.* I'm not talking about PvP players leaving the game. I'm talking about the PvE players leaving Felucca for Trammel.

The total number of subscribers doesn't give any indication of how the player population split between the two rule sets. What we do have are repeated references to the population of Felucca dropping and repeated references to most of the population playing in Trammel from people who not only played the game, but interviewed Raph Koster and Richard Garriott. The PvP players didn't move, everyone else did and most new players went to Trammel for the relaxed PvP rule set.

History is informing Richard Garriott's decisions with SotA. The game doesn't need full loot or stealing. The game doesn't even need always on PvP. The OP's premise is false.


* It doesn't surprise me that a lot of players would leave UO, regardless of whether they were PvP or PvE players. Why play something that's not as good at being WoW as WoW is? Especially with WoW sitting right there, ready to play. That's something else we can learn from history. Don't make dramatic changes to a game's game play, the players probably won't like it and it probably won't bring in a lot of new players.

 

Many new players joined the PvP in felucca after trammel. How many? Hard to say but i saw loads of new players entering felucca after trammel and after Age of shadows i saw +10000 on some of the bigger freeshards.

Trammel was a salvation for the PvE players and Age of Shadows was the final kill of felucca.

I'm not talking about what the game need, im talking about UO 2. That game would have alot more followers then SotA have today.

  lizardbones

Elite Member

Joined: 6/11/08
Posts: 10635

I think with my heart and move with my head.-Kongos

9/25/13 10:16:05 AM#134


Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by aRtFuLThinG

Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by aRtFuLThinG

Originally posted by DavisFlight

Originally posted by darker70

Originally posted by Skooma2

Originally posted by flizzer You can have this as long as I get a completely PvE server.   If the only way I can experience this game is with the PvP gank crowd, then I would pass.  
+1
+1 to Infinity   
How about we all stop acting like children and realize that there is a way to have open PvP without their being open gank squads "ruining" the game? Thats just as bad as people who say MMOs with no PvP are useless. At least PvP MMO gamers usually know what they're talking about, but the PvE crowd always seems to speak from total ignorance.
Why force your view on someone else? Some people just don't like the idea at all regardless of justification.   There will always be people who don't like a game with any element of pvp regardless of reason, just like there will always be people who don't like games with pve servers.   Let them be. Freedom of choice.
What wrong with your reasoning is that the PvE crowd want SotA PvP to fit them and not the PvP crowd. So PvP players will leave andseek a game that isnt infected by PvE players demands. They have their open PvE and still they want to destroy what the PvP crowd was hoping for.
  I think that's more to do with whether the developer is willing to stick to their guns or not, not so much the playerbase. If the develop chooses money or inclusionism over their original/intented vision I don't think there is anything any of us can do - and if they choose money first over fun it won't ended up being a good game anyways, regardless of how good the source material is (swtor or Neverwinter anyone?)
It is both. I believe they adapt the SotA PvP game to please the PvE crowd.



SotA is a game, not a PvP game. PvP and PvE players will never see each other. PvE players can't be all up in arms about the PvP game because they'll never participate in it. PvP players can't be all mad that PvE players are participating in PvP because they will never see them. Everyone will get to do what they want. I'm not sure why anyone who's into PvP would have a reason to complain about this.

Here's a description of the Online Play modes available.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-18-garriotts-shroud-of-the-avatar-multiplayer-explained-dragonlance-author-tracy-hickman-added

Here's the relevant text from the article.


Shroud of the Avatar can be played online and offline. Offline you connect once to the game for authorisation and that's it. But your character can only be used offline and you won't see any dynamic changes to the world, nor will you see other player's houses nor their items at auction.

Online there are three modes: Single Player Online (SPO), Friends Play Online (FPO) and Open Play Online (OPO).

Single Player Online connects you to the world so you can see the effect other people are having on the world, as well as look at their houses and their items at auction. You won't be visible to other people, though, or be eligible for grouping.

Friends Play Online shows the people you have flagged as friends in the world. It's handy for guilds or role-players who don't want strangers breaking immersion.

Open Play Online is as close as Shroud of the Avatar gets to being an MMO. But you won't see everyone: the server regulates who you see. This is based on a Selevance (social relevance) system that shows people based on "who we believe you will care about", explained tech director Chris Spears in a video update.

It takes into account (probably in order) these things: Friends, guildmates, people you've grouped with, people you've interacted with, people you've sent tells to, people who've set their PVP tag and, finally, character power.



For every large, complex problem, there is a simple, clear solution that also happens to be absolutely wrong.

  Aragon100

Elite Member

Joined: 2/06/08
Posts: 2224

9/25/13 12:49:41 PM#135
Originally posted by lizardbones

 


Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by aRtFuLThinG

Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by aRtFuLThinG

Originally posted by DavisFlight

Originally posted by darker70

Originally posted by Skooma2

Originally posted by flizzer You can have this as long as I get a completely PvE server.   If the only way I can experience this game is with the PvP gank crowd, then I would pass.  
+1
+1 to Infinity   
How about we all stop acting like children and realize that there is a way to have open PvP without their being open gank squads "ruining" the game? Thats just as bad as people who say MMOs with no PvP are useless. At least PvP MMO gamers usually know what they're talking about, but the PvE crowd always seems to speak from total ignorance.
Why force your view on someone else? Some people just don't like the idea at all regardless of justification.   There will always be people who don't like a game with any element of pvp regardless of reason, just like there will always be people who don't like games with pve servers.   Let them be. Freedom of choice.
What wrong with your reasoning is that the PvE crowd want SotA PvP to fit them and not the PvP crowd. So PvP players will leave andseek a game that isnt infected by PvE players demands. They have their open PvE and still they want to destroy what the PvP crowd was hoping for.
  I think that's more to do with whether the developer is willing to stick to their guns or not, not so much the playerbase. If the develop chooses money or inclusionism over their original/intented vision I don't think there is anything any of us can do - and if they choose money first over fun it won't ended up being a good game anyways, regardless of how good the source material is (swtor or Neverwinter anyone?)
It is both. I believe they adapt the SotA PvP game to please the PvE crowd.


SotA is a game, not a PvP game. PvP and PvE players will never see each other. PvE players can't be all up in arms about the PvP game because they'll never participate in it. PvP players can't be all mad that PvE players are participating in PvP because they will never see them. Everyone will get to do what they want. I'm not sure why anyone who's into PvP would have a reason to complain about this.

Here's a description of the Online Play modes available.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-18-garriotts-shroud-of-the-avatar-multiplayer-explained-dragonlance-author-tracy-hickman-added

Here's the relevant text from the article.



Shroud of the Avatar can be played online and offline. Offline you connect once to the game for authorisation and that's it. But your character can only be used offline and you won't see any dynamic changes to the world, nor will you see other player's houses nor their items at auction.

 

Online there are three modes: Single Player Online (SPO), Friends Play Online (FPO) and Open Play Online (OPO).

Single Player Online connects you to the world so you can see the effect other people are having on the world, as well as look at their houses and their items at auction. You won't be visible to other people, though, or be eligible for grouping.

Friends Play Online shows the people you have flagged as friends in the world. It's handy for guilds or role-players who don't want strangers breaking immersion.

Open Play Online is as close as Shroud of the Avatar gets to being an MMO. But you won't see everyone: the server regulates who you see. This is based on a Selevance (social relevance) system that shows people based on "who we believe you will care about", explained tech director Chris Spears in a video update.

It takes into account (probably in order) these things: Friends, guildmates, people you've grouped with, people you've interacted with, people you've sent tells to, people who've set their PVP tag and, finally, character power.



 

You just dont get it.

PvP will be infected by the PvE players demand.

If you followed PvP threads you can read all about it.

No risk vs reward and no consequences. That is not what the PvP crowd want but im positive developers will listen to the carebears and give them their version of PvP.

The real PvP:ers have to adapt once again to please the carebears.

  InsaneMembrane

Apprentice Member

Joined: 9/17/13
Posts: 146

9/25/13 9:45:23 PM#136
Originally posted by Aragon100
Originally posted by lizardbones

 


Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by aRtFuLThinG

Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by aRtFuLThinG

Originally posted by DavisFlight

Originally posted by darker70

Originally posted by Skooma2

Originally posted by flizzer You can have this as long as I get a completely PvE server.   If the only way I can experience this game is with the PvP gank crowd, then I would pass.  
+1
+1 to Infinity   
How about we all stop acting like children and realize that there is a way to have open PvP without their being open gank squads "ruining" the game? Thats just as bad as people who say MMOs with no PvP are useless. At least PvP MMO gamers usually know what they're talking about, but the PvE crowd always seems to speak from total ignorance.
Why force your view on someone else? Some people just don't like the idea at all regardless of justification.   There will always be people who don't like a game with any element of pvp regardless of reason, just like there will always be people who don't like games with pve servers.   Let them be. Freedom of choice.
What wrong with your reasoning is that the PvE crowd want SotA PvP to fit them and not the PvP crowd. So PvP players will leave andseek a game that isnt infected by PvE players demands. They have their open PvE and still they want to destroy what the PvP crowd was hoping for.
  I think that's more to do with whether the developer is willing to stick to their guns or not, not so much the playerbase. If the develop chooses money or inclusionism over their original/intented vision I don't think there is anything any of us can do - and if they choose money first over fun it won't ended up being a good game anyways, regardless of how good the source material is (swtor or Neverwinter anyone?)
It is both. I believe they adapt the SotA PvP game to please the PvE crowd.


SotA is a game, not a PvP game. PvP and PvE players will never see each other. PvE players can't be all up in arms about the PvP game because they'll never participate in it. PvP players can't be all mad that PvE players are participating in PvP because they will never see them. Everyone will get to do what they want. I'm not sure why anyone who's into PvP would have a reason to complain about this.

Here's a description of the Online Play modes available.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-18-garriotts-shroud-of-the-avatar-multiplayer-explained-dragonlance-author-tracy-hickman-added

Here's the relevant text from the article.



Shroud of the Avatar can be played online and offline. Offline you connect once to the game for authorisation and that's it. But your character can only be used offline and you won't see any dynamic changes to the world, nor will you see other player's houses nor their items at auction.

 

Online there are three modes: Single Player Online (SPO), Friends Play Online (FPO) and Open Play Online (OPO).

Single Player Online connects you to the world so you can see the effect other people are having on the world, as well as look at their houses and their items at auction. You won't be visible to other people, though, or be eligible for grouping.

Friends Play Online shows the people you have flagged as friends in the world. It's handy for guilds or role-players who don't want strangers breaking immersion.

Open Play Online is as close as Shroud of the Avatar gets to being an MMO. But you won't see everyone: the server regulates who you see. This is based on a Selevance (social relevance) system that shows people based on "who we believe you will care about", explained tech director Chris Spears in a video update.

It takes into account (probably in order) these things: Friends, guildmates, people you've grouped with, people you've interacted with, people you've sent tells to, people who've set their PVP tag and, finally, character power.



 

You just dont get it.

PvP will be infected by the PvE players demand.

If you followed PvP threads you can read all about it.

No risk vs reward and no consequences. That is not what the PvP crowd want but im positive developers will listen to the carebears and give them their version of PvP.

The real PvP:ers have to adapt once again to please the carebears.

 

What are you missing bro? 

The only thing PvE players demand is the ability to avoid being PKd and PvP. That is accomplished by The magicpvpsliderbarthingy(TM) and problem solved.

PvP will be left for the PvP players to hopefully provide feedback on and structure to their wish.

 

  lizardbones

Elite Member

Joined: 6/11/08
Posts: 10635

I think with my heart and move with my head.-Kongos

9/25/13 10:08:23 PM#137


Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by lizardbones  

Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by aRtFuLThinG

Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by aRtFuLThinG

Originally posted by DavisFlight

Originally posted by darker70

Originally posted by Skooma2

Originally posted by flizzer You can have this as long as I get a completely PvE server.   If the only way I can experience this game is with the PvP gank crowd, then I would pass.   +1
+1 to Infinity   
How about we all stop acting like children and realize that there is a way to have open PvP without their being open gank squads "ruining" the game? Thats just as bad as people who say MMOs with no PvP are useless. At least PvP MMO gamers usually know what they're talking about, but the PvE crowd always seems to speak from total ignorance.
Why force your view on someone else? Some people just don't like the idea at all regardless of justification.   There will always be people who don't like a game with any element of pvp regardless of reason, just like there will always be people who don't like games with pve servers.   Let them be. Freedom of choice.
What wrong with your reasoning is that the PvE crowd want SotA PvP to fit them and not the PvP crowd. So PvP players will leave andseek a game that isnt infected by PvE players demands. They have their open PvE and still they want to destroy what the PvP crowd was hoping for.
  I think that's more to do with whether the developer is willing to stick to their guns or not, not so much the playerbase. If the develop chooses money or inclusionism over their original/intented vision I don't think there is anything any of us can do - and if they choose money first over fun it won't ended up being a good game anyways, regardless of how good the source material is (swtor or Neverwinter anyone?)
It is both. I believe they adapt the SotA PvP game to please the PvE crowd.
SotA is a game, not a PvP game. PvP and PvE players will never see each other. PvE players can't be all up in arms about the PvP game because they'll never participate in it. PvP players can't be all mad that PvE players are participating in PvP because they will never see them. Everyone will get to do what they want. I'm not sure why anyone who's into PvP would have a reason to complain about this. Here's a description of the Online Play modes available. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-18-garriotts-shroud-of-the-avatar-multiplayer-explained-dragonlance-author-tracy-hickman-added Here's the relevant text from the article. Shroud of the Avatar can be played online and offline. Offline you connect once to the game for authorisation and that's it. But your character can only be used offline and you won't see any dynamic changes to the world, nor will you see other player's houses nor their items at auction.   Online there are three modes: Single Player Online (SPO), Friends Play Online (FPO) and Open Play Online (OPO). Single Player Online connects you to the world so you can see the effect other people are having on the world, as well as look at their houses and their items at auction. You won't be visible to other people, though, or be eligible for grouping. Friends Play Online shows the people you have flagged as friends in the world. It's handy for guilds or role-players who don't want strangers breaking immersion. Open Play Online is as close as Shroud of the Avatar gets to being an MMO. But you won't see everyone: the server regulates who you see. This is based on a Selevance (social relevance) system that shows people based on "who we believe you will care about", explained tech director Chris Spears in a video update. It takes into account (probably in order) these things: Friends, guildmates, people you've grouped with, people you've interacted with, people you've sent tells to, people who've set their PVP tag and, finally, character power.
 
You just dont get it.

PvP will be infected by the PvE players demand.

If you followed PvP threads you can read all about it.

No risk vs reward and no consequences. That is not what the PvP crowd want but im positive developers will listen to the carebears and give them their version of PvP.

The real PvP:ers have to adapt once again to please the carebears.




If there are so few PvP players that their opinion doesn't matter, then yes, they need to adapt, or quit playing. Developers don't just want to make money, they must make money to survive and if that means listening to their largest audience, then so be it.

However, if you'll read closely what their plan is, there's no reason to not have risk and reward in PvP, because the PvE crowd won't be playing the game with the same people as the PvP crowd. The PvE crowd won't have to worry about full loot and they don't have to worry about getting "ganked". It's just not an issue for them because they will never see a PvP player.

The only scenario where the PvP turns "carebear" is if the PvP is going to die from lack of participation and Portalarium needs more players to participate. That would only happen if there are so few PvP players that PvP can't be supported.

For every large, complex problem, there is a simple, clear solution that also happens to be absolutely wrong.

  Aragon100

Elite Member

Joined: 2/06/08
Posts: 2224

9/26/13 7:46:29 AM#138
Originally posted by InsaneMembrane
Originally posted by Aragon100
Originally posted by lizardbones

 


Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by aRtFuLThinG

Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by aRtFuLThinG

Originally posted by DavisFlight

Originally posted by darker70

Originally posted by Skooma2

Originally posted by flizzer You can have this as long as I get a completely PvE server.   If the only way I can experience this game is with the PvP gank crowd, then I would pass.  
+1
+1 to Infinity   
How about we all stop acting like children and realize that there is a way to have open PvP without their being open gank squads "ruining" the game? Thats just as bad as people who say MMOs with no PvP are useless. At least PvP MMO gamers usually know what they're talking about, but the PvE crowd always seems to speak from total ignorance.
Why force your view on someone else? Some people just don't like the idea at all regardless of justification.   There will always be people who don't like a game with any element of pvp regardless of reason, just like there will always be people who don't like games with pve servers.   Let them be. Freedom of choice.
What wrong with your reasoning is that the PvE crowd want SotA PvP to fit them and not the PvP crowd. So PvP players will leave andseek a game that isnt infected by PvE players demands. They have their open PvE and still they want to destroy what the PvP crowd was hoping for.
  I think that's more to do with whether the developer is willing to stick to their guns or not, not so much the playerbase. If the develop chooses money or inclusionism over their original/intented vision I don't think there is anything any of us can do - and if they choose money first over fun it won't ended up being a good game anyways, regardless of how good the source material is (swtor or Neverwinter anyone?)
It is both. I believe they adapt the SotA PvP game to please the PvE crowd.


SotA is a game, not a PvP game. PvP and PvE players will never see each other. PvE players can't be all up in arms about the PvP game because they'll never participate in it. PvP players can't be all mad that PvE players are participating in PvP because they will never see them. Everyone will get to do what they want. I'm not sure why anyone who's into PvP would have a reason to complain about this.

Here's a description of the Online Play modes available.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-18-garriotts-shroud-of-the-avatar-multiplayer-explained-dragonlance-author-tracy-hickman-added

Here's the relevant text from the article.



Shroud of the Avatar can be played online and offline. Offline you connect once to the game for authorisation and that's it. But your character can only be used offline and you won't see any dynamic changes to the world, nor will you see other player's houses nor their items at auction.

 

Online there are three modes: Single Player Online (SPO), Friends Play Online (FPO) and Open Play Online (OPO).

Single Player Online connects you to the world so you can see the effect other people are having on the world, as well as look at their houses and their items at auction. You won't be visible to other people, though, or be eligible for grouping.

Friends Play Online shows the people you have flagged as friends in the world. It's handy for guilds or role-players who don't want strangers breaking immersion.

Open Play Online is as close as Shroud of the Avatar gets to being an MMO. But you won't see everyone: the server regulates who you see. This is based on a Selevance (social relevance) system that shows people based on "who we believe you will care about", explained tech director Chris Spears in a video update.

It takes into account (probably in order) these things: Friends, guildmates, people you've grouped with, people you've interacted with, people you've sent tells to, people who've set their PVP tag and, finally, character power.



 

You just dont get it.

PvP will be infected by the PvE players demand.

If you followed PvP threads you can read all about it.

No risk vs reward and no consequences. That is not what the PvP crowd want but im positive developers will listen to the carebears and give them their version of PvP.

The real PvP:ers have to adapt once again to please the carebears.

 

What are you missing bro? 

The only thing PvE players demand is the ability to avoid being PKd and PvP. That is accomplished by The magicpvpsliderbarthingy(TM) and problem solved.

PvP will be left for the PvP players to hopefully provide feedback on and structure to their wish.

 

Full loot, a risk vs reward PvP game with consequences.

 

Most PvE players on SotA that might take part in PvP want above taken out of the game. They want SotA PvP to fit there carebear version of PvP.

  Aragon100

Elite Member

Joined: 2/06/08
Posts: 2224

9/26/13 7:52:57 AM#139
Originally posted by lizardbones

 


Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by lizardbones  

Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by aRtFuLThinG

Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by aRtFuLThinG

Originally posted by DavisFlight

Originally posted by darker70

Originally posted by Skooma2

Originally posted by flizzer You can have this as long as I get a completely PvE server.   If the only way I can experience this game is with the PvP gank crowd, then I would pass.   +1
+1 to Infinity   
How about we all stop acting like children and realize that there is a way to have open PvP without their being open gank squads "ruining" the game? Thats just as bad as people who say MMOs with no PvP are useless. At least PvP MMO gamers usually know what they're talking about, but the PvE crowd always seems to speak from total ignorance.
Why force your view on someone else? Some people just don't like the idea at all regardless of justification.   There will always be people who don't like a game with any element of pvp regardless of reason, just like there will always be people who don't like games with pve servers.   Let them be. Freedom of choice.
What wrong with your reasoning is that the PvE crowd want SotA PvP to fit them and not the PvP crowd. So PvP players will leave andseek a game that isnt infected by PvE players demands. They have their open PvE and still they want to destroy what the PvP crowd was hoping for.
  I think that's more to do with whether the developer is willing to stick to their guns or not, not so much the playerbase. If the develop chooses money or inclusionism over their original/intented vision I don't think there is anything any of us can do - and if they choose money first over fun it won't ended up being a good game anyways, regardless of how good the source material is (swtor or Neverwinter anyone?)
It is both. I believe they adapt the SotA PvP game to please the PvE crowd.
SotA is a game, not a PvP game. PvP and PvE players will never see each other. PvE players can't be all up in arms about the PvP game because they'll never participate in it. PvP players can't be all mad that PvE players are participating in PvP because they will never see them. Everyone will get to do what they want. I'm not sure why anyone who's into PvP would have a reason to complain about this. Here's a description of the Online Play modes available. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-18-garriotts-shroud-of-the-avatar-multiplayer-explained-dragonlance-author-tracy-hickman-added Here's the relevant text from the article. Shroud of the Avatar can be played online and offline. Offline you connect once to the game for authorisation and that's it. But your character can only be used offline and you won't see any dynamic changes to the world, nor will you see other player's houses nor their items at auction.   Online there are three modes: Single Player Online (SPO), Friends Play Online (FPO) and Open Play Online (OPO). Single Player Online connects you to the world so you can see the effect other people are having on the world, as well as look at their houses and their items at auction. You won't be visible to other people, though, or be eligible for grouping. Friends Play Online shows the people you have flagged as friends in the world. It's handy for guilds or role-players who don't want strangers breaking immersion. Open Play Online is as close as Shroud of the Avatar gets to being an MMO. But you won't see everyone: the server regulates who you see. This is based on a Selevance (social relevance) system that shows people based on "who we believe you will care about", explained tech director Chris Spears in a video update. It takes into account (probably in order) these things: Friends, guildmates, people you've grouped with, people you've interacted with, people you've sent tells to, people who've set their PVP tag and, finally, character power.
 
You just dont get it.

 

PvP will be infected by the PvE players demand.

If you followed PvP threads you can read all about it.

No risk vs reward and no consequences. That is not what the PvP crowd want but im positive developers will listen to the carebears and give them their version of PvP.

The real PvP:ers have to adapt once again to please the carebears.




If there are so few PvP players that their opinion doesn't matter, then yes, they need to adapt, or quit playing. Developers don't just want to make money, they must make money to survive and if that means listening to their largest audience, then so be it.

However, if you'll read closely what their plan is, there's no reason to not have risk and reward in PvP, because the PvE crowd won't be playing the game with the same people as the PvP crowd. The PvE crowd won't have to worry about full loot and they don't have to worry about getting "ganked". It's just not an issue for them because they will never see a PvP player.

The only scenario where the PvP turns "carebear" is if the PvP is going to die from lack of participation and Portalarium needs more players to participate. That would only happen if there are so few PvP players that PvP can't be supported.

 

Many of the PvP players that wanted a new UO have realized SotA will be a game with a carebear version of PvP. No risk vs reward and no consequences. Full loot that is essential for consequences is most likely out of the game cause the carebears feel it is to harsh penalty for dying.

There is very few active players on SotA forum and very few of them are PvP oldschool UO players. They isnt arround anymore.

Magic system seem to be really retarded, a cardgame where cards (spells) randomly pop up on your screen and you have to select one spell from those cards, you dont decide yourself what spell to throw. Pathetic.

Hardcore PvP players have left the game since it is going carebear. I will wait until we get information on the PvP first and then decide if i want to take part. As it looks today i will not play this game.

  InsaneMembrane

Apprentice Member

Joined: 9/17/13
Posts: 146

9/26/13 9:56:23 AM#140
Originally posted by Aragon100
Originally posted by lizardbones

 


Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by lizardbones  

Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by aRtFuLThinG

Originally posted by Aragon100

Originally posted by aRtFuLThinG

Originally posted by DavisFlight

Originally posted by darker70

Originally posted by Skooma2

Originally posted by flizzer You can have this as long as I get a completely PvE server.   If the only way I can experience this game is with the PvP gank crowd, then I would pass.   +1
+1 to Infinity   
How about we all stop acting like children and realize that there is a way to have open PvP without their being open gank squads "ruining" the game? Thats just as bad as people who say MMOs with no PvP are useless. At least PvP MMO gamers usually know what they're talking about, but the PvE crowd always seems to speak from total ignorance.
Why force your view on someone else? Some people just don't like the idea at all regardless of justification.   There will always be people who don't like a game with any element of pvp regardless of reason, just like there will always be people who don't like games with pve servers.   Let them be. Freedom of choice.
What wrong with your reasoning is that the PvE crowd want SotA PvP to fit them and not the PvP crowd. So PvP players will leave andseek a game that isnt infected by PvE players demands. They have their open PvE and still they want to destroy what the PvP crowd was hoping for.
  I think that's more to do with whether the developer is willing to stick to their guns or not, not so much the playerbase. If the develop chooses money or inclusionism over their original/intented vision I don't think there is anything any of us can do - and if they choose money first over fun it won't ended up being a good game anyways, regardless of how good the source material is (swtor or Neverwinter anyone?)
It is both. I believe they adapt the SotA PvP game to please the PvE crowd.
SotA is a game, not a PvP game. PvP and PvE players will never see each other. PvE players can't be all up in arms about the PvP game because they'll never participate in it. PvP players can't be all mad that PvE players are participating in PvP because they will never see them. Everyone will get to do what they want. I'm not sure why anyone who's into PvP would have a reason to complain about this. Here's a description of the Online Play modes available. http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-18-garriotts-shroud-of-the-avatar-multiplayer-explained-dragonlance-author-tracy-hickman-added Here's the relevant text from the article. Shroud of the Avatar can be played online and offline. Offline you connect once to the game for authorisation and that's it. But your character can only be used offline and you won't see any dynamic changes to the world, nor will you see other player's houses nor their items at auction.   Online there are three modes: Single Player Online (SPO), Friends Play Online (FPO) and Open Play Online (OPO). Single Player Online connects you to the world so you can see the effect other people are having on the world, as well as look at their houses and their items at auction. You won't be visible to other people, though, or be eligible for grouping. Friends Play Online shows the people you have flagged as friends in the world. It's handy for guilds or role-players who don't want strangers breaking immersion. Open Play Online is as close as Shroud of the Avatar gets to being an MMO. But you won't see everyone: the server regulates who you see. This is based on a Selevance (social relevance) system that shows people based on "who we believe you will care about", explained tech director Chris Spears in a video update. It takes into account (probably in order) these things: Friends, guildmates, people you've grouped with, people you've interacted with, people you've sent tells to, people who've set their PVP tag and, finally, character power.
 
You just dont get it.

 

PvP will be infected by the PvE players demand.

If you followed PvP threads you can read all about it.

No risk vs reward and no consequences. That is not what the PvP crowd want but im positive developers will listen to the carebears and give them their version of PvP.

The real PvP:ers have to adapt once again to please the carebears.




If there are so few PvP players that their opinion doesn't matter, then yes, they need to adapt, or quit playing. Developers don't just want to make money, they must make money to survive and if that means listening to their largest audience, then so be it.

However, if you'll read closely what their plan is, there's no reason to not have risk and reward in PvP, because the PvE crowd won't be playing the game with the same people as the PvP crowd. The PvE crowd won't have to worry about full loot and they don't have to worry about getting "ganked". It's just not an issue for them because they will never see a PvP player.

The only scenario where the PvP turns "carebear" is if the PvP is going to die from lack of participation and Portalarium needs more players to participate. That would only happen if there are so few PvP players that PvP can't be supported.

 

Many of the PvP players that wanted a new UO have realized SotA will be a game with a carebear version of PvP. No risk vs reward and no consequences. Full loot that is essential for consequences is most likely out of the game cause the carebears feel it is to harsh penalty for dying.

There is very few active players on SotA forum and very few of them are PvP oldschool UO players. They isnt arround anymore.

Magic system seem to be really retarded, a cardgame where cards (spells) randomly pop up on your screen and you have to select one spell from those cards, you dont decide yourself what spell to throw. Pathetic.

Hardcore PvP players have left the game since it is going carebear. I will wait until we get information on the PvP first and then decide if i want to take part. As it looks today i will not play this game.

 

"many" "most likely" "feel" 

Yeah, you need to stop thinking and just wait. you are woefully uninformed about SotA and you require more study of it and its community. I have seen one, maybe just two people on that forum claim they would quit if the game offers anything else other than full loot carebear killing for the PKs, and they were just trolls, and one of them was myself.

 

15 Pages First « 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 » Last Search