Trending Games | Guild Wars 2 | World of Warcraft | Elder Scrolls Online | EverQuest

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,905,750 Users Online:0
Games:757  Posts:6,296,271
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System Req: PC Mac Linux | Out of date info?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 « 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 » Last Search
295 posts found
  TheYear1500

Advanced Member

Joined: 4/14/12
Posts: 244

10/07/13 3:36:35 PM#201
Originally posted by Aragon100
Originally posted by TheYear1500
Originally posted by Aragon100
Originally posted by TheYear1500
Originally posted by Aragon100
Originally posted by TheYear1500
Originally posted by Aragon100
Originally posted by TheYear1500
Originally posted by Aragon100
Originally posted by DavisFlight
Originally posted by lizardbones

 


Originally posted by DavisFlight

Originally posted by lizardbones If they don't have full loot "hard core" PvP, it won't matter because there just aren't that many people who care about full loot "hard core" PvP.  
Where does this myth come from? Eve has 500k+ subscribers who beg to differ. You know, the second most subs in the entire genre.


Half or more of those people don't actively participate in PvP.
 

Yet they're playing in a game with FFA PvP, showing that it doesn't automatically make people not play a game. Also, there's no way to be 100% safe from PvP in Eve, so even if they don't shoot other people, they are participating in PvP and the game world itself.

As for 500k "accounts" we can say the same thing about any MMO. "We don't know how many of WoWs couple million western subs are actually unique accounts, let's discount all of it!".

Agree.

Star Citizen a game with open PvP and full loot and all play the same game. They will soon have 21 million $ in pledges.

Guess full loot and open PvP draw players. My guild will play that game, noone is interested in SotA.

Star Citizen is a PVE game with PVP enabled.  Most fights will be PVE.  You can also insure all your stuff to get it back.  You can also stay in safe area's and have very little chance of fighting another player.  

Yes but you can still go to felucca in space and loot every single item the other guy had with him. It's not what all will do but many will. It is just as much a PvP game for the ones that prefer that gamestyle.

Insurance is bad but i guess we cant have it all, it is still very interesting. And insurance dont remove the loot i as the killer get, it just make 2 versions of loot, 1 for me and 1 for the other guy that just died. So it is in practice full loot.

 

Does not really work that way.  It is not as much of a PVP game.  Even in none protected space most of your fights will still be with PVE ships.  And if by full loot you mean when you disable and board another ship, then sure, but that will be very rare.  You will not be able to destroy another ship and loot its weapons or any of its "items".  Even the cargo will mostly be destroyed on ship destruction.  And the fact of the insurance means that people will not be set back when they lose in pvp, this is very different than a FFA fantasy MMO were the lose basically starts over.   The point is that CIG have said over and over again that SC is a PVE game with pvp enabled, SC will not be the hardcore pvp game many people think it is.  

 

CIG are also taking steps to make PVP painful for the attacker and "hopefully" make you think twice before you attack another player.   Have to wait an see if that will happen.   

Wrong you can blow someones ship up and they lose their cargo and ship attachments and some of that will be left for you to scoop up. You can also board someones ship murder them and take the ship for yourself. There will be safer areas for those of you who don't like this, but you will never be completely safe. There will also be areas that are anything goes.

And areas where anything goes will be PvP heaven.

No. 

Yes, you have to read up abit better on how PvP will work in hardcore PvP areas.

Boarding will be easy if you use missiles that dont hurt the ship but only the engine. Voila, easy mode to board a ship and that will happen alot.

Care bears will have a hard time in areas with low security and i will be there with my guild to show you.

LOL, you act like you know how it will work.  We have ZERO information on how Boarding will work other than it will be rare and hard.  We have ZERO information on how missiles will work.  So nice of you to make this stuff up.  

 

SC is not a PVP game, it was never going to be and never will be a PVP game,  If you go into it thinking its a PVP game you are in for a shock.  Let alone a hardcore pvp game.    

Please take your own advice and read up on the game.  You are badly misinformed.   

Just for some info

http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/07/19/stick-and-rudder-extra-chris-roberts-on-star-citizens-persiste/

 

LOL, then there will be alot of followers that already know that SC will have non-consensual PvP that will be very unhappy -

https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/60440/lets-discuss-the-uncomfortable-truth-what-happens-if-this-game-has-non-consensual-pvp/p1

That thread is 30 pages long and just about all in this thread know that the game will allow hard-core PvP for the ones that choose that gamestyle.

Will be fun.

Chris Roberts own words on PvP -

A substantial portion of the sandbox fans in our audience are hungering for a game that doesn't force them to PvP but still features a dynamic, player-driven world, co-op opportunities, and opportunities for both economic conquest and exciting/meaningful PvE. Is Star Citizen the game for those people? 

Yes. Star Citizen doesn't shy away from PvP, but we're not building a game around it either. We want experiences for everyone, from loners who do not want to play a multiplayer game at all to large squadrons who want to tangle with each other in major galactic warfare. So you'll have everything from distant stars to be discovered on your own to Vanduul invasions to be fended off. We're creating different experiences for different kinds of players, and then we're wrapping them up together in the same world. My dream is to have both PvE and PvP players in the same persistent universe, with both of them feeling that they inhabit a dynamic living universe with plenty of opportunity and challenge without feeling that they are giving anything up. I kind of see it like a swimming pool with a shallow and deep end: Players can venture out as far as they want, at their own pace. They aren't thrown in the deep end at the start, but they also don't have to stay in the shallow end if they want more of a challenge.


That's the concept of the slider and the different levels of law and order in the various systems. If you want to make a nice steady living being a trader in the heart of the UEE, you don't have to worry about being attacked by other players, but if you're looking for more of a return or score and are willing to take some risks by venturing into unregulated space, we have that for you too. This way the player can choose dynamically during his play session what he's interested in -- it could be a dynamic blend of the two types or just PvE or PvP, but it will be contextual and make sense in the lore of the universe rather than an artificial construct like asking a player whether he wants to be on a PvE world server or a PvP server. 

I choose to do hardcore PvP with a little PvE, what do you choose? =)

From Ben one of the Dev. 

" I don’t know where the claim that this game is all about PvP is coming from. We’re building the universe as a setting for some serious PvE (and PvR) scenarios… the fact that we ‘allow’ PvP isn’t to say that it’s what we want the game to be about.

Our goal, which I think is tripping up a lot of people, is to ALLOW griefing… but to build a game that prevents you from wanting to engage in it. That is, putting the onus on us developers to create a system that punishes people for deciding to break the in-game law instead of a system that just stops you from shooting people. Can we do it? Chris thinks so…

Chris is very against forcing people not to be able to PVP artificially and thinks we can balance the game in such a way that it’s not an issue. Beyond that which we’ve already said, I’m not sure what else we could add to mollify folks… it’s going to be one of those “trust us and we’ll fix it if we screw up” things."

 

So not sure where you are getting your Hard Core pvp from.  

  Aragon100

Advanced Member

Joined: 2/06/08
Posts: 2230

10/07/13 5:08:35 PM#202
Originally posted by TheYear1500
Originally posted by Aragon100
Originally posted by TheYear1500
Originally posted by Aragon100
Originally posted by TheYear1500
Originally posted by Aragon100
Originally posted by TheYear1500
Originally posted by Aragon100
Originally posted by TheYear1500
Originally posted by Aragon100
Originally posted by DavisFlight
Originally posted by lizardbones

 


Originally posted by DavisFlight

Originally posted by lizardbones If they don't have full loot "hard core" PvP, it won't matter because there just aren't that many people who care about full loot "hard core" PvP.  
Where does this myth come from? Eve has 500k+ subscribers who beg to differ. You know, the second most subs in the entire genre.


Half or more of those people don't actively participate in PvP.
 

Yet they're playing in a game with FFA PvP, showing that it doesn't automatically make people not play a game. Also, there's no way to be 100% safe from PvP in Eve, so even if they don't shoot other people, they are participating in PvP and the game world itself.

As for 500k "accounts" we can say the same thing about any MMO. "We don't know how many of WoWs couple million western subs are actually unique accounts, let's discount all of it!".

Agree.

Star Citizen a game with open PvP and full loot and all play the same game. They will soon have 21 million $ in pledges.

Guess full loot and open PvP draw players. My guild will play that game, noone is interested in SotA.

Star Citizen is a PVE game with PVP enabled.  Most fights will be PVE.  You can also insure all your stuff to get it back.  You can also stay in safe area's and have very little chance of fighting another player.  

Yes but you can still go to felucca in space and loot every single item the other guy had with him. It's not what all will do but many will. It is just as much a PvP game for the ones that prefer that gamestyle.

Insurance is bad but i guess we cant have it all, it is still very interesting. And insurance dont remove the loot i as the killer get, it just make 2 versions of loot, 1 for me and 1 for the other guy that just died. So it is in practice full loot.

 

Does not really work that way.  It is not as much of a PVP game.  Even in none protected space most of your fights will still be with PVE ships.  And if by full loot you mean when you disable and board another ship, then sure, but that will be very rare.  You will not be able to destroy another ship and loot its weapons or any of its "items".  Even the cargo will mostly be destroyed on ship destruction.  And the fact of the insurance means that people will not be set back when they lose in pvp, this is very different than a FFA fantasy MMO were the lose basically starts over.   The point is that CIG have said over and over again that SC is a PVE game with pvp enabled, SC will not be the hardcore pvp game many people think it is.  

 

CIG are also taking steps to make PVP painful for the attacker and "hopefully" make you think twice before you attack another player.   Have to wait an see if that will happen.   

Wrong you can blow someones ship up and they lose their cargo and ship attachments and some of that will be left for you to scoop up. You can also board someones ship murder them and take the ship for yourself. There will be safer areas for those of you who don't like this, but you will never be completely safe. There will also be areas that are anything goes.

And areas where anything goes will be PvP heaven.

No. 

Yes, you have to read up abit better on how PvP will work in hardcore PvP areas.

Boarding will be easy if you use missiles that dont hurt the ship but only the engine. Voila, easy mode to board a ship and that will happen alot.

Care bears will have a hard time in areas with low security and i will be there with my guild to show you.

LOL, you act like you know how it will work.  We have ZERO information on how Boarding will work other than it will be rare and hard.  We have ZERO information on how missiles will work.  So nice of you to make this stuff up.  

 

SC is not a PVP game, it was never going to be and never will be a PVP game,  If you go into it thinking its a PVP game you are in for a shock.  Let alone a hardcore pvp game.    

Please take your own advice and read up on the game.  You are badly misinformed.   

Just for some info

http://massively.joystiq.com/2013/07/19/stick-and-rudder-extra-chris-roberts-on-star-citizens-persiste/

 

LOL, then there will be alot of followers that already know that SC will have non-consensual PvP that will be very unhappy -

https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/60440/lets-discuss-the-uncomfortable-truth-what-happens-if-this-game-has-non-consensual-pvp/p1

That thread is 30 pages long and just about all in this thread know that the game will allow hard-core PvP for the ones that choose that gamestyle.

Will be fun.

Chris Roberts own words on PvP -

A substantial portion of the sandbox fans in our audience are hungering for a game that doesn't force them to PvP but still features a dynamic, player-driven world, co-op opportunities, and opportunities for both economic conquest and exciting/meaningful PvE. Is Star Citizen the game for those people? 

Yes. Star Citizen doesn't shy away from PvP, but we're not building a game around it either. We want experiences for everyone, from loners who do not want to play a multiplayer game at all to large squadrons who want to tangle with each other in major galactic warfare. So you'll have everything from distant stars to be discovered on your own to Vanduul invasions to be fended off. We're creating different experiences for different kinds of players, and then we're wrapping them up together in the same world. My dream is to have both PvE and PvP players in the same persistent universe, with both of them feeling that they inhabit a dynamic living universe with plenty of opportunity and challenge without feeling that they are giving anything up. I kind of see it like a swimming pool with a shallow and deep end: Players can venture out as far as they want, at their own pace. They aren't thrown in the deep end at the start, but they also don't have to stay in the shallow end if they want more of a challenge.


That's the concept of the slider and the different levels of law and order in the various systems. If you want to make a nice steady living being a trader in the heart of the UEE, you don't have to worry about being attacked by other players, but if you're looking for more of a return or score and are willing to take some risks by venturing into unregulated space, we have that for you too. This way the player can choose dynamically during his play session what he's interested in -- it could be a dynamic blend of the two types or just PvE or PvP, but it will be contextual and make sense in the lore of the universe rather than an artificial construct like asking a player whether he wants to be on a PvE world server or a PvP server. 

I choose to do hardcore PvP with a little PvE, what do you choose? =)

From Ben one of the Dev. 

" I don’t know where the claim that this game is all about PvP is coming from. We’re building the universe as a setting for some serious PvE (and PvR) scenarios… the fact that we ‘allow’ PvP isn’t to say that it’s what we want the game to be about.

Our goal, which I think is tripping up a lot of people, is to ALLOW griefing… but to build a game that prevents you from wanting to engage in it. That is, putting the onus on us developers to create a system that punishes people for deciding to break the in-game law instead of a system that just stops you from shooting people. Can we do it? Chris thinks so…

Chris is very against forcing people not to be able to PVP artificially and thinks we can balance the game in such a way that it’s not an issue. Beyond that which we’ve already said, I’m not sure what else we could add to mollify folks… it’s going to be one of those “trust us and we’ll fix it if we screw up” things."

 

So not sure where you are getting your Hard Core pvp from.  

If you read my last reply then you understand where i got it. It's all there.

There will be a hard core PvP game in SC. But there will also be a game for others that dont enjoy PvP as much. No safe zones but some are safer. In lawless areas i can attack anyone, even you if you enter my space. Everyone can be attacked everywhere but risk for the attacker is way higher in safer areas. I like risk vs reward games and that is what SC is.

There will also be non-consensual PvP and griefing in SC.

This you cant find in Shroud of the Avatar and thats why i most likely will play Star Citizen instead. I payed for both and will try both but so far Star Citizen seems to be my type of game.

  InsaneMembrane

Apprentice Member

Joined: 9/17/13
Posts: 146

10/08/13 3:19:09 AM#203

I could have swore that I was in a Shroud of the Avatar forum here.

 

  Fusion

Old School

Joined: 5/21/03
Posts: 1385

10/08/13 4:06:27 AM#204
Oh, this thread again, move along.

Currently playing: -

Waiting for: Class4.

Dead and Buried: ESO, NWO, GW2, SWTOR, Darkfall, AO, AC2, Vanguard, CoH/V, EnB, EVE, Neocron, FE, EQ, EQ2, DAoC, FFXI, FFXIV, SWG, WoW, and billions of eastern junks!

  Bitshift

Novice Member

Joined: 12/15/11
Posts: 31

10/08/13 11:24:52 AM#205

Full Loot does not make PvP more immersive nor "better", it will in fact reduce the amount of PvP, and here are the reasons why:

1 - Full Loot just supports ganking and griefing

A full loot system will only support group griefing. You won't find fair 1 vs 1 (2 vs 2 etc.) situations in a full loot world, which will end up with the bad ol' counter argument "Then go play in a guild bi**ch", which won't work either, because you force players in certain roles, that the greater amount of peope will not like.

2 - Loosing your Gear due to point 1 prevents 'casual' people from taking part in PvP encounters

Because the don't have the backup from a guild constantly re-equipping them when they die. That means extremly boring crafting and reequipment times, that simply will stop the player from taking part in PvP or even make him quit.

3 - Due to 2, "Casual" Players don't will seek combat actively

The much liked "Sheriff" playstyle or simply an initiative to fight a possibly stronger opponent gets completely annoying.

 

Those points are often combined with silly gameplay decisions, that will increment the frustration of players:

- Due to full loot, Equipment must be rather fast replaceable, which means that gear has no meaning or representive purpose anymore, everyone playing in a guild will have the same cooky butter gear, the casuals will have low tier stuff which will disadvantage them even more.

- Due to full loot combined with perma-death of mounts, the reequipment process gets even worse. Your mount is nothing but a fire and forget way to just move through the world, bye bye immersion or personality.

- Due to shared Skill points, alternate chars / twinks etc. loose the ability to put enough points into combat, which makes them pure victims in the wilderness (see 1)

- many more issues here, like to much gear dependent advantages, too much alts per account etc. etc.

 

The solution would be to replace the dull player ganking with game mechanics that are TRULY immersive and valuable, like meaningfull territory control of rare points of interests, to get rid of frustrating points like i stated above and to add mechanics, that will make simple ganking uninteresting. Then you got meaningfull PvP, but I have the feeling, that most of the "hardcore" flicks out there don't want that, because the like to be the gankers themselfes.

Oh, and if you are asking: A perfect example of not doing it right is Mortal Online.

  Souleater42069

Novice Member

Joined: 10/06/13
Posts: 7

10/08/13 11:32:24 AM#206
Originally posted by VikingGamer
UO as originally released proved exactly the opposite. Try again.

 

Not really, if they did not switch it up to tram, and all the rest the game would be long dead. Just look at the free shards that have like 300 people. Full loot pvp games, always dont last long, unless the pvp is wanted by both sides. Those games, besides one have the worst people imaginable playing. The only people that end up staying, are lonely grumpy men, and their wives, or young kids. All they do all day, is complain about their lives, and then complain about the lives in the game.
  Aragon100

Advanced Member

Joined: 2/06/08
Posts: 2230

10/11/13 3:26:10 PM#207
Originally posted by VikingGamer
UO as originally released proved exactly the opposite. Try again.

Yeah UO felucca was blooming even after trammel and that showed the potential full loot non-consensual games have. There are so many players that would love to play a new UO.

SotA would be more successful and have more followers if they like Star Citizen went full loot and had non-consensual PvP. 

 

  Aragon100

Advanced Member

Joined: 2/06/08
Posts: 2230

10/11/13 3:38:05 PM#208
Originally posted by Souleater42069
Originally posted by VikingGamer
UO as originally released proved exactly the opposite. Try again.

 

Full loot pvp games, always dont last long, unless the pvp is wanted by both sides. 

UO that was the only AAA fantasy online MMO game with non-consensual PvP and full loot prove you wrong. EA destroyed UO with Age of Shadows, made UO a WoW-game. The game continued on freeshards successfully for +5 years. All felucca freeshards together had more followers then the original game.

Largest freeshard had +150 000 members another had +100 000 members. 

The market for a non-consensual full loot game is out there, just need a AAA developer make one.

Star Citicen is going the right way and thats why they are so much more successful then Shroud of the Avatar.

  TiamatRoar

Elite Member

Joined: 8/05/10
Posts: 788

10/11/13 3:57:27 PM#209
SoTA was made by the same guy that made UO.  If UO really does prove that full loot pvp is the way to go, then Richard Garriot probably will have full loot PvP.  If it didn't and eveyrones' mistaken due to whatever possible fault, then he probably won't.
  niceguy3978

Elite Member

Joined: 6/14/06
Posts: 2011

10/11/13 4:03:48 PM#210
Originally posted by VikingGamer
UO as originally released proved exactly the opposite. Try again.

Well, until Everquest came out and there was an actual choice.  Once there was a place to go that didn't have ffa full loot pvp, people went.  

Edit:  It isn't a coincidence that in 2000, a year after EQ launched, the UO: Renaissance expansion added Trammel which gave those who didn't want a ffa experience a place to go.  It also isn't coincidence that the population peaked 2 years later, so it was at its highest when there was an option to avoid ffa pvp.

  Aragon100

Advanced Member

Joined: 2/06/08
Posts: 2230

10/11/13 4:41:58 PM#211
Originally posted by TiamatRoar
SoTA was made by the same guy that made UO.  If UO really does prove that full loot pvp is the way to go, then Richard Garriot probably will have full loot PvP.  If it didn't and eveyrones' mistaken due to whatever possible fault, then he probably won't.

He have made a mistake when he decided to go for making just another carebear game, there is so many other out there.

Look at Star Citizen with full loot and non-consensual PvP, they have 10 times as many pledgers. I wonder why?

  Aragon100

Advanced Member

Joined: 2/06/08
Posts: 2230

10/11/13 4:46:13 PM#212
Originally posted by niceguy3978
Originally posted by VikingGamer
UO as originally released proved exactly the opposite. Try again.

Well, until Everquest came out and there was an actual choice.  Once there was a place to go that didn't have ffa full loot pvp, people went.  

Edit:  It isn't a coincidence that in 2000, a year after EQ launched, the UO: Renaissance expansion added Trammel which gave those who didn't want a ffa experience a place to go.  It also isn't coincidence that the population peaked 2 years later, so it was at its highest when there was an option to avoid ffa pvp.

It was also at it's highest when it still had non-consensual PvP with full loot in felucca, the real UO. 

Europe server felucca was just as crowded as trammel was february 2003 when EA destroyed UO with Age of Shadows.

After UO became a carebear game it went downhill with subscribers, had nothing to do with felucca, full loot or non-consensual PvP.

  Komandor

Apprentice Member

Joined: 1/17/09
Posts: 260

 
OP  10/11/13 4:57:36 PM#213

Also, why would ANYONE prefer SOTA to minecraft anarchy server?

In Minecraft you can craft and build.

You can explore.

You play a role.

You can kill other players, steal their loot and rob their house in anarchy servers.

SOTA - something fail this way comes

Not enough shiny for carebaars

Not enough hardcore for hardcore crowd

Keep on rockin'!

  Komandor

Apprentice Member

Joined: 1/17/09
Posts: 260

 
OP  10/11/13 5:02:35 PM#214
Originally posted by Creslin321

1.  You get ganked by someone much higher level/character-skill than you, and you get absolutely destroyed with no chance of victory whatsoever.  Which is frustrating.

or

2.  You gank someone much lower level than you, which gives you no real challenge or satisfaction at all, because you know the other guy never had a chance.

That's why modern MMO's are stupid.

Of course levels are autist tier and simply grinding your level to get better stats and then gank lower players is very retarded.

This is why Garrott should instead make it so player skill matters first and foremost.

In UO you could be a newb and still trick some more experienced players and get their stuff.

You could place traps, hide, poison food, etc...

This is the smart way to implement PvP.

Will Garrott do this? No, because developers HATE FUN! 

They HATE fun, HATE innovation, HATE challenges and LOVE carebarism.

That's what's wrong with the world today.

Keep on rockin'!

  Komandor

Apprentice Member

Joined: 1/17/09
Posts: 260

 
OP  10/11/13 5:15:01 PM#215

 


Originally posted by Hariken Originally posted by Komandor The only thing that could really attract the hardcore crowd in this game is some good old, realistic PVP.   If they go the carebare way and limit player looting and stealing from other players, this game will flop.   They basically need to make a better Darkfall. Your way or the highway right? Why aren't all you hardcore players playing Eve? I get a kick out of these kind of post. Game companies want to make money. Your type of game fails at that. But you do have Eve. Although Eve been around for more than 10 years and has never broke 500k subs. Be thankful that CCP is a small company and its one game is still around. I do wish someone would have the guts to make the game you guys want. Then we would see less post like this or maybe not. You guys seem to get bored of the game after 2 or 3 months and start posting again. EVE is a perfect game and I love it, but it's just too depressive for me. I don't like space ships, I like wood and seas and nice medieval townies like UO had. UO is the best fantasy MMO in history, because it's the most realistic one. EVE is the best sci-fi MMO in history. There are literally no other competitors.      Originally posted by ThomasN7 Yes the #1 game feature in everyone's mmo is player looting and stealing! #sarcasm!
It is. It makes the game most realistic and fun. It's fun, because it produces real cortisol and dopamine in your and also the rewards give more pleasure as you are actually taking away something from another person. It's much better to just "grind mobs". That can be done in single player games. It's really awful that devs are so ignorant and there are so few full pvp, player looting games around. There is Minecraft,  but only some servers. And minecraft is insanely popular. Proof that sandbox and anarchy = good.   

  There are PvE carebears that will take part PvP in the ONLY existing version of online SotA PvP. These PvE carebears wont accept the rules of UO felucca. These PvE carebears wont accept full loot, they want to be able to entirely block players (ignore isnt enough) that kill them more then 1 time cause they are griefers in the eyes of the carebears. PvE carebears wanted a less skill demanding PvP game so the developers gave them a card game as magic system, cards will randomly pop up on my screen which i have to choose from, i cant choose the spell i wanted to cast. So no risk vs reward in SotA, no consequences, not skillbased PvP, being able to block players out from PvP is what we will see in SotA carebear PvP.

 Wow...just wow...this game is dead   

 


If the idea would be executed properly, they both would've been a 10/10 title [mod edit] ...and that you know because your crystal ball told you?
Because it's logic. Idea of Mortal Online - realistic, first person, skill based, full pvp, full loot RPG. It's a PERFECT setup. AAA title. Execution - bug ridden piece of manure. Result = fail. If Blizzard did this, it would be best MMO ever. 

   


Right, because all those hardcore full loot PvP games are kicking ass and taking names..
 

They are. UO is taking names and kicking ass for 10 years now (well, Trammel and AoS carebare land ruined a lot), EVE online as well. Darkfall and Mortal Online failed because of technical newbism. And Minecraft is also taking names (yes, it's a full loot pvp, because on anarchy servers you can kill players, steal their stuff, ruin their homes, etc...it doesn't get more hardcore than that)

 

   


Yeah, I find those kinds of statements very very funny. The "hardcore crowd" is probably about 1% of the gamers out there, and the fact that it is always said that if a game doesn't cater for 1% of its audience, it will flop. 
 

How do you know what % it is? It's logic that this game will flop because it doesn't cater neither to hardcores, neither to carebare plebs. It's nothing really.

 


We're creating different experiences for different kinds of players, and then we're wrapping them up together in the same world. My dream is to have both PvE and PvP players in the same persistent universe, with both of them feeling that they inhabit a dynamic living universe with plenty of opportunity and challenge without feeling that they are giving anything up. I kind of see it like a swimming pool with a shallow and deep end: Players can venture out as far as they want, at their own pace. They aren't thrown in the deep end at the start, but they also don't have to stay in the shallow end if they want more of a challenge.

Sounds like something 15 year olds come up with. "Itw ill have umm lasers ,and MINING and Dragons and Player VS Player and PVE, And treasure hunting, and and ANd!"
 When you try to design something for everyone, you fail. Either the game is hardcore, or it isn't. Trying to find something in the middle will just make both types of players hate the game.


1 - Full Loot just supports ganking and griefing

Then pay someone protection money. What... 2real4u?


2 - Loosing your Gear due to point 1 prevents 'casual' people from taking part in PvP encounters

Then they shouldn't leave their safe little city dwelling where the wild things roam (and pks)! 2stressful4u?


Due to full loot, Equipment must be rather fast replaceable, which means that gear has no meaning or representive purpose anymore, everyone playing in a guild will have the same cooky butter gear, the casuals will have low tier stuff which will disadvantage them even more.

That's great! Maybe actually it's time when PLAYER SILLS STARTS MATTERING?


A perfect example of not doing it right is Mortal Online.

The only reason MO failed is because sloppy programming and bugs. The game was intended perfectly otherwise.

Keep on rockin'!

  Aragon100

Advanced Member

Joined: 2/06/08
Posts: 2230

10/11/13 5:56:59 PM#216
Originally posted by Komandor
Originally posted by Creslin321

1.  You get ganked by someone much higher level/character-skill than you, and you get absolutely destroyed with no chance of victory whatsoever.  Which is frustrating.

or

2.  You gank someone much lower level than you, which gives you no real challenge or satisfaction at all, because you know the other guy never had a chance.

That's why modern MMO's are stupid.

Of course levels are autist tier and simply grinding your level to get better stats and then gank lower players is very retarded.

This is why Garrott should instead make it so player skill matters first and foremost.

In UO you could be a newb and still trick some more experienced players and get their stuff.

You could place traps, hide, poison food, etc...

This is the smart way to implement PvP.

Will Garrott do this? No, because developers HATE FUN! 

They HATE fun, HATE innovation, HATE challenges and LOVE carebarism.

That's what's wrong with the world today.

+1

  lizardbones

Elite Member

Joined: 6/11/08
Posts: 10942

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

10/11/13 5:57:33 PM#217


Originally posted by Komandor
 

Originally posted by Hariken

Originally posted by Komandor The only thing that could really attract the hardcore crowd in this game is some good old, realistic PVP.   If they go the carebare way and limit player looting and stealing from other players, this game will flop.   They basically need to make a better Darkfall. Your way or the highway right? Why aren't all you hardcore players playing Eve? I get a kick out of these kind of post. Game companies want to make money. Your type of game fails at that. But you do have Eve. Although Eve been around for more than 10 years and has never broke 500k subs. Be thankful that CCP is a small company and its one game is still around. I do wish someone would have the guts to make the game you guys want. Then we would see less post like this or maybe not. You guys seem to get bored of the game after 2 or 3 months and start posting again. EVE is a perfect game and I love it, but it's just too depressive for me. I don't like space ships, I like wood and seas and nice medieval townies like UO had. UO is the best fantasy MMO in history, because it's the most realistic one. EVE is the best sci-fi MMO in history. There are literally no other competitors.      Originally posted by ThomasN7 Yes the #1 game feature in everyone's mmo is player looting and stealing! #sarcasm! It is. It makes the game most realistic and fun. It's fun, because it produces real cortisol in your and also the rewards give more pleasure as you are actually taking away something from another person. It's much better to just "grind mobs". That can be done in single player games. It's really awful that devs are so ignorant and there are so few full pvp, player looting games around. There is Minecraft,  but only some servers. And minecraft is insanely popular. Proof that sandbox and anarchy = good.      There are PvE carebears that will take part PvP in the ONLY existing version of online SotA PvP. These PvE carebears wont accept the rules of UO felucca. These PvE carebears wont accept full loot, they want to be able to entirely block players (ignore isnt enough) that kill them more then 1 time cause they are griefers in the eyes of the carebears. PvE carebears wanted a less skill demanding PvP game so the developers gave them a card game as magic system, cards will randomly pop up on my screen which i have to choose from, i cant choose the spell i wanted to cast. So no risk vs reward in SotA, no consequences, not skillbased PvP, being able to block players out from PvP is what we will see in SotA carebear PvP.  Wow...just wow...this game is dead   

 


If the idea would be executed properly, they both would've been a 10/10 title [mod edit] ...and that you know because your crystal ball told you?
Because it's logic. Idea of Mortal Online - realistic, first person, skill based, full pvp, full loot RPG. It's a PERFECT setup. AAA title. Execution - bug ridden piece of manure. Result = fail. If Blizzard did this, it would be best MMO ever. 

  Right, because all those hardcore full loot PvP games are kicking ass and taking names..


 

They are. UO is taking names and kicking ass for 10 years now (well, Trammel and AoS carebare land ruined a lot), EVE online as well. Darkfall and Mortal Online failed because of technical newbism. And Minecraft is also taking names (yes, it's a full loot pvp, because on anarchy servers you can kill players, steal their stuff, ruin their homes, etc...it doesn't get more hardcore than that)

 

  Yeah, I find those kinds of statements very very funny. The "hardcore crowd" is probably about 1% of the gamers out there, and the fact that it is always said that if a game doesn't cater for 1% of its audience, it will flop. 


 

How do you know what % it is? It's logic that this game will flop because it doesn't cater neither to hardcores, neither to carebare plebs. It's nothing really.

 

 

 




WoW started off as one of the most bug ridden pieces of software ever. They dumped tons of development into the game post release because so many people showed up to play. "So many people" did not show up to play Mortal Online prior to everyone realizing the game was so poorly written.

I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  Aragon100

Advanced Member

Joined: 2/06/08
Posts: 2230

10/12/13 4:22:25 AM#218
Originally posted by lizardbones

 


Originally posted by Komandor
 

Originally posted by Hariken

Originally posted by Komandor The only thing that could really attract the hardcore crowd in this game is some good old, realistic PVP.   If they go the carebare way and limit player looting and stealing from other players, this game will flop.   They basically need to make a better Darkfall. Your way or the highway right? Why aren't all you hardcore players playing Eve? I get a kick out of these kind of post. Game companies want to make money. Your type of game fails at that. But you do have Eve. Although Eve been around for more than 10 years and has never broke 500k subs. Be thankful that CCP is a small company and its one game is still around. I do wish someone would have the guts to make the game you guys want. Then we would see less post like this or maybe not. You guys seem to get bored of the game after 2 or 3 months and start posting again. EVE is a perfect game and I love it, but it's just too depressive for me. I don't like space ships, I like wood and seas and nice medieval townies like UO had. UO is the best fantasy MMO in history, because it's the most realistic one. EVE is the best sci-fi MMO in history. There are literally no other competitors.      Originally posted by ThomasN7 Yes the #1 game feature in everyone's mmo is player looting and stealing! #sarcasm! It is. It makes the game most realistic and fun. It's fun, because it produces real cortisol in your and also the rewards give more pleasure as you are actually taking away something from another person. It's much better to just "grind mobs". That can be done in single player games. It's really awful that devs are so ignorant and there are so few full pvp, player looting games around. There is Minecraft,  but only some servers. And minecraft is insanely popular. Proof that sandbox and anarchy = good.      There are PvE carebears that will take part PvP in the ONLY existing version of online SotA PvP. These PvE carebears wont accept the rules of UO felucca. These PvE carebears wont accept full loot, they want to be able to entirely block players (ignore isnt enough) that kill them more then 1 time cause they are griefers in the eyes of the carebears. PvE carebears wanted a less skill demanding PvP game so the developers gave them a card game as magic system, cards will randomly pop up on my screen which i have to choose from, i cant choose the spell i wanted to cast. So no risk vs reward in SotA, no consequences, not skillbased PvP, being able to block players out from PvP is what we will see in SotA carebear PvP.  Wow...just wow...this game is dead   

 

 


If the idea would be executed properly, they both would've been a 10/10 title [mod edit] ...and that you know because your crystal ball told you?
Because it's logic. Idea of Mortal Online - realistic, first person, skill based, full pvp, full loot RPG. It's a PERFECT setup. AAA title. Execution - bug ridden piece of manure. Result = fail. If Blizzard did this, it would be best MMO ever. 

 

  Right, because all those hardcore full loot PvP games are kicking ass and taking names..


 

 

They are. UO is taking names and kicking ass for 10 years now (well, Trammel and AoS carebare land ruined a lot), EVE online as well. Darkfall and Mortal Online failed because of technical newbism. And Minecraft is also taking names (yes, it's a full loot pvp, because on anarchy servers you can kill players, steal their stuff, ruin their homes, etc...it doesn't get more hardcore than that)

 

  Yeah, I find those kinds of statements very very funny. The "hardcore crowd" is probably about 1% of the gamers out there, and the fact that it is always said that if a game doesn't cater for 1% of its audience, it will flop. 


 

 

How do you know what % it is? It's logic that this game will flop because it doesn't cater neither to hardcores, neither to carebare plebs. It's nothing really.

 

 

 




WoW started off as one of the most bug ridden pieces of software ever. They dumped tons of development into the game post release because so many people showed up to play. "So many people" did not show up to play Mortal Online prior to everyone realizing the game was so poorly written.

 

How you can compare a AAA company as Blizzard with one of the smallest indy companies Star Vault is beyond me.

Dont you see the difference?

Just about all oldschool UO players that pledged cause they were looking forward to the next UO will not show up on release day when they finally realize that Shroud of the Avatar is just another carebear game. A game where developers do all they can to please the carebear crowd. Even PvP is developed to please the less skilled PvE player.

This game is probably the game i as a hardcore PvP gamer feel most disapointed in, ever. It could have to do with the fact that Richard Garriott is behind it, i never thought he could sell out as he did. What could have been the next UO game is turning out to be just another carebear trammel game.

And these oldschool UO gamers is not 1% of the playerbase, the guy that claimed that have no clue whatsoever. It's not a coincidence that the hardcore PvP players instead for SotA will play Star Citizen, a game with non-consensual PvP and full loot. We that have developed our gameplay dont like the trammel gameplay, we want risk vs reward and consequences. So SC having 10 times more pledgers tell me that the PvP crowd is almost as big if not bigger in Star Citizen. 

If you read up on Star Citizen in threads that have with non-consensual PvP and full loot you will see that a large majority in these threads prefer that and not consensual PvP? with no risk vs reward and consequences.

SotA could have been so much bigger if developers had allowed non-consensual PvP and full loot. Risk vs reward and consequences. But instead they chickened out and took the trammel road. 

Just my guild would have delivered +50 pledgers but now it seem all they get from us is my misplaced pledge i will never use. I and my guildfriends will play Star Citizen instead.

SotA is not the next UO, it is a fullblown carebear game.

 

  Souleater42069

Novice Member

Joined: 10/06/13
Posts: 7

10/12/13 7:28:35 AM#219

Sorry to brake it to you, but people who enjoy running around killing people who cant defend them selves and stealing there stuff are a minority. Mortal Online has like 500 people that play, dark fall has around 1000, uo full loot pvp shards have less then 300, wizardry online has no one lol, and all the rest failed. With free to play being the major kind of game, this makes pvp where you lose all your stuff even less attractive, considering no one wants to lose their money to some one who is a higher level. The people who want full loot pvp, and a game where some ones always trying to murder you, are people who can just sit around and play mmorpgs all day long every day, with no chance of distraction. Some one with a family for instance doesnt want to play that, because at any moment they may have to leave the game. In those games you just cant go afk in the middle of what you were doing. Also in all those games, the people in the game just sit around and look how to take advantage of in game bugs, and grief every one.  They just grief every one in till every one quits the game. Yep thats a reat idea for mmos. Make a game that breeds hate, and contempt for the other players, so they will all leave, but the elite ass holes.

And as far as uo, even when uo was a the only mmorpg, there still wasent many people playing it. Uo never had a player base compared to everquest or wow. No one wants to spend in a game 20 hours grinding out stuff to say get a boat or a house, and then has some one who can spent more time then them on a game take it from them. Most people want to relax and have a good time, not be stressed out every time they log in, wondering if some one is gonna steal all their stuff.

  jesteralways

Hard Core Member

Joined: 3/17/13
Posts: 682

10/12/13 7:34:43 AM#220
Originally posted by Komandor

Also, why would ANYONE prefer SOTA to minecraft anarchy server?

In Minecraft you can craft and build.

You can explore.

You play a role.

You can kill other players, steal their loot and rob their house in anarchy servers.

SOTA - something fail this way comes

Not enough shiny for carebaars

Not enough hardcore for hardcore crowd

Maybe because there are people who don't want to punch tree to get wood to build cabin?

i want an open world, no phasing, no instancing.i want meaningful owpvp.i want player driven economy.i want meaningful crafting.i want awesome exploration, a sense of thrill.i want ow housing with a meaningful effect on my entire gameplay experience, not just some instanced crap.i want all of these free of cost, i don't wanna pay you a cent, game devs can eat grass and continue developing game for me.
Seems like that is the current consensus of western mmo players.

15 Pages First « 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 » Last Search