Trending Games | The Crew | Elder Scrolls Online | Lichdom: Battlemage | ArcheAge

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,844,672 Users Online:0
Games:732  Posts:6,221,851
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System Req: PC Mac Linux | Out of date info?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!

2 Pages « 1 2 Search
33 posts found
  InsaneMembrane

Apprentice Member

Joined: 9/17/13
Posts: 146

11/02/13 11:49:22 PM#21

A quote from the Devs:

"The combat UI is VERY VERY VERY much a work in progress/prototype and what you saw in the video (especially the icon shuffling) is nowhere close to what we want to ship. Please withhold panic until we show something ready for prime time (or at least 9AM as opposed to the 2:35AM version you saw)."

  Aragon100

Elite Member

Joined: 2/06/08
Posts: 2208

 
OP  4/10/14 5:06:37 AM#22

Here is some wise words from magixredux over at SotA forums that understand what this kind of weak combat system will deliver -

https://shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-way-the-deck-system-should-work.5941/page-10#post-159998

 

This sums up pretty good the SotA magic and combat system -

[quote] Nice try, ignore all of my perfectly constructed and well explained arguments and brush it off as "baseless insults". You remind me of people who go around labeling anyone who disagrees with them as a troll. Sorry, but you are just flat out wrong and just because some one disagrees with you that doesn't mean you can cry fowl and label them a troll.

My points still stand which i will repeat in point form:

Cards are dealt out at random, no player can choose to select which card they desire.
Some cards are more desirable in some scenarios.
Others are much weaker and less useful.

Scenario A:

Two players with the exact same gear, skill level, and time spent playing run in to one another.

Player 1 draws the best possible deck, containing very powerful stuns, nukes, great cc spells ect.

Player 2 draws weaker less ideal spells, something like a slow, poison DoT, ect.

As they proceed to fight, player one stuns, nukes and destroys player 2 before he can really do anything.

He owes his flawless victory not to skill, but to random chance, it was all left up to the roll of a dice.

You pointed out over time everyone has the same odds, but that's really not the issue. We are talking about case by case examples of how a fight would play out. Also there are people who get really unlucky and lose 5 or so games in a row, and vice versa. Learn to address peoples arguments.   [/quote]

A random luckbased combat system will never be fun and challenging. Why even try to progress your PvP skills if the combat is decided by luck? Random cards (skills) decided by the game and not by me is what fundamentally will make this a unskilled game, a game based on randomness and luck out of my control.

Alot of PvE players over at SotA forums defend this combat system and my qualified guess is that a system with little skills and alot of luck and randomness will give them a fair chance, a chance they never would have had against a seasoned, skilled PvP player in a game that actually demanded playerskills. UO took alot of playerskills and it is just amazing that Richard Garriott abandoned the just about best combat system ever created for this horrible crap.

  Maribu

Apprentice Member

Joined: 5/14/14
Posts: 14

5/15/14 4:21:22 PM#23
Originally posted by Aragon100

Here is some wise words from magixredux over at SotA forums that understand what this kind of weak combat system will deliver -

https://shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-way-the-deck-system-should-work.5941/page-10#post-159998

 

This sums up pretty good the SotA magic and combat system -

[quote] Nice try, ignore all of my perfectly constructed and well explained arguments and brush it off as "baseless insults". You remind me of people who go around labeling anyone who disagrees with them as a troll. Sorry, but you are just flat out wrong and just because some one disagrees with you that doesn't mean you can cry fowl and label them a troll.

My points still stand which i will repeat in point form:

Cards are dealt out at random, no player can choose to select which card they desire.
Some cards are more desirable in some scenarios.
Others are much weaker and less useful.

Scenario A:

Two players with the exact same gear, skill level, and time spent playing run in to one another.

Player 1 draws the best possible deck, containing very powerful stuns, nukes, great cc spells ect.

Player 2 draws weaker less ideal spells, something like a slow, poison DoT, ect.

As they proceed to fight, player one stuns, nukes and destroys player 2 before he can really do anything.

He owes his flawless victory not to skill, but to random chance, it was all left up to the roll of a dice.

You pointed out over time everyone has the same odds, but that's really not the issue. We are talking about case by case examples of how a fight would play out. Also there are people who get really unlucky and lose 5 or so games in a row, and vice versa. Learn to address peoples arguments.   [/quote]

A random luckbased combat system will never be fun and challenging. Why even try to progress your PvP skills if the combat is decided by luck? Random cards (skills) decided by the game and not by me is what fundamentally will make this a unskilled game, a game based on randomness and luck out of my control.

Alot of PvE players over at SotA forums defend this combat system and my qualified guess is that a system with little skills and alot of luck and randomness will give them a fair chance, a chance they never would have had against a seasoned, skilled PvP player in a game that actually demanded playerskills. UO took alot of playerskills and it is just amazing that Richard Garriott abandoned the just about best combat system ever created for this horrible crap.

I'm new to this forum, but I'm one who has pledged for this game.  If you have pledged, for whatever reason, then you might want to wait and try the proposed system first and then if it truly is something you don't like, then give some meaningful feedback about it on the official forums for the devs to compile info.  That way you are basing an opinion on actual facts and first-hand knowledge, rather than spamming an outside forum with bile. 

 

I'm sorry, and I don't mean to be rude, but I've seen numerous threads here started by you,bashing the game.  What exactly is your purpose?  At any rate, I would hope that people considering the game will research things for themselves and not listen to a disgruntled person angry that it's not going to be an early UO clone with updated graphics.

  Aragon100

Elite Member

Joined: 2/06/08
Posts: 2208

 
OP  5/15/14 4:46:52 PM#24
Originally posted by Maribu
Originally posted by Aragon100

Here is some wise words from magixredux over at SotA forums that understand what this kind of weak combat system will deliver -

https://shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-way-the-deck-system-should-work.5941/page-10#post-159998

 

This sums up pretty good the SotA magic and combat system -

[quote] Nice try, ignore all of my perfectly constructed and well explained arguments and brush it off as "baseless insults". You remind me of people who go around labeling anyone who disagrees with them as a troll. Sorry, but you are just flat out wrong and just because some one disagrees with you that doesn't mean you can cry fowl and label them a troll.

My points still stand which i will repeat in point form:

Cards are dealt out at random, no player can choose to select which card they desire.
Some cards are more desirable in some scenarios.
Others are much weaker and less useful.

Scenario A:

Two players with the exact same gear, skill level, and time spent playing run in to one another.

Player 1 draws the best possible deck, containing very powerful stuns, nukes, great cc spells ect.

Player 2 draws weaker less ideal spells, something like a slow, poison DoT, ect.

As they proceed to fight, player one stuns, nukes and destroys player 2 before he can really do anything.

He owes his flawless victory not to skill, but to random chance, it was all left up to the roll of a dice.

You pointed out over time everyone has the same odds, but that's really not the issue. We are talking about case by case examples of how a fight would play out. Also there are people who get really unlucky and lose 5 or so games in a row, and vice versa. Learn to address peoples arguments.   [/quote]

A random luckbased combat system will never be fun and challenging. Why even try to progress your PvP skills if the combat is decided by luck? Random cards (skills) decided by the game and not by me is what fundamentally will make this a unskilled game, a game based on randomness and luck out of my control.

Alot of PvE players over at SotA forums defend this combat system and my qualified guess is that a system with little skills and alot of luck and randomness will give them a fair chance, a chance they never would have had against a seasoned, skilled PvP player in a game that actually demanded playerskills. UO took alot of playerskills and it is just amazing that Richard Garriott abandoned the just about best combat system ever created for this horrible crap.

I'm new to this forum, but I'm one who has pledged for this game.  If you have pledged, for whatever reason, then you might want to wait and try the proposed system first and then if it truly is something you don't like, then give some meaningful feedback about it on the official forums for the devs to compile info.  That way you are basing an opinion on actual facts and first-hand knowledge, rather than spamming an outside forum with bile. 

 

I'm sorry, and I don't mean to be rude, but I've seen numerous threads here started by you,bashing the game.  What exactly is your purpose?  At any rate, I would hope that people considering the game will research things for themselves and not listen to a disgruntled person angry that it's not going to be an early UO clone with updated graphics.

I dont need to test the proposed system since it will have just about all the flaws i pointed out with quoting magicredux over at SotA forums. My criticism is based on early promises of a more hardcore PvP game and how developers claim they listen to their entire playerbase when they actually just listen to the carebears. Combat system, loot and anything else is just about exactly like what the carebears wanted. 

The hardcore PvP players, me included, have talked to closed developers ears for over a year and it is a good thing this is described on a less bias forum. What i write here would have been removed over at SotA forums.

I dont want any hardcore PvP player get tricked to sponsor a game that is nowhere close to that old UO game when it comes to PvP and as Richard Garriott have claimed from the beginning, a spiritual successor to UO. 

Information is always good even though if some of it might not be entire accurate with the released game. I and others have described the game we know so far. This information is here to describe what players can expect of SotA and who developers prioritated to listen to and that is definetly not the hardcore UO players that pledged for something else. They listen to some very vocal PvE players when they decided combat system and risk vs reward which is just amazing, players that is uninterested taking part in PvP got the developers ear ! 

PvP players that want to take part in a game that reflects their interest and gamestyle were abandoned by developers, all their suggestions and what was important to include to make PvP interesting was excluded by developers. It was some vocal PvE players that actually is very much uninterested taking part in PvP and the SotA developers that together managed to destroy the potentiallt fun PvP game fun for the hardcore PvP players.

Just read up on the SotA forums and you will soon figure out that loads of UO hardcore PvP players have left the game and they are very disapointed over the combat system and how risk vs reward have been handled. 

If you as a developer claim you listen to your community and does not in practice then you will get well deserved criticism.

 

  Maribu

Apprentice Member

Joined: 5/14/14
Posts: 14

5/15/14 7:15:46 PM#25
Originally posted by Aragon100
Originally posted by Maribu
Originally posted by Aragon100

Here is some wise words from magixredux over at SotA forums that understand what this kind of weak combat system will deliver -

https://shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-way-the-deck-system-should-work.5941/page-10#post-159998

 

This sums up pretty good the SotA magic and combat system -

[quote] Nice try, ignore all of my perfectly constructed and well explained arguments and brush it off as "baseless insults". You remind me of people who go around labeling anyone who disagrees with them as a troll. Sorry, but you are just flat out wrong and just because some one disagrees with you that doesn't mean you can cry fowl and label them a troll.

My points still stand which i will repeat in point form:

Cards are dealt out at random, no player can choose to select which card they desire.
Some cards are more desirable in some scenarios.
Others are much weaker and less useful.

Scenario A:

Two players with the exact same gear, skill level, and time spent playing run in to one another.

Player 1 draws the best possible deck, containing very powerful stuns, nukes, great cc spells ect.

Player 2 draws weaker less ideal spells, something like a slow, poison DoT, ect.

As they proceed to fight, player one stuns, nukes and destroys player 2 before he can really do anything.

He owes his flawless victory not to skill, but to random chance, it was all left up to the roll of a dice.

You pointed out over time everyone has the same odds, but that's really not the issue. We are talking about case by case examples of how a fight would play out. Also there are people who get really unlucky and lose 5 or so games in a row, and vice versa. Learn to address peoples arguments.   [/quote]

A random luckbased combat system will never be fun and challenging. Why even try to progress your PvP skills if the combat is decided by luck? Random cards (skills) decided by the game and not by me is what fundamentally will make this a unskilled game, a game based on randomness and luck out of my control.

Alot of PvE players over at SotA forums defend this combat system and my qualified guess is that a system with little skills and alot of luck and randomness will give them a fair chance, a chance they never would have had against a seasoned, skilled PvP player in a game that actually demanded playerskills. UO took alot of playerskills and it is just amazing that Richard Garriott abandoned the just about best combat system ever created for this horrible crap.

I'm new to this forum, but I'm one who has pledged for this game.  If you have pledged, for whatever reason, then you might want to wait and try the proposed system first and then if it truly is something you don't like, then give some meaningful feedback about it on the official forums for the devs to compile info.  That way you are basing an opinion on actual facts and first-hand knowledge, rather than spamming an outside forum with bile. 

 

I'm sorry, and I don't mean to be rude, but I've seen numerous threads here started by you,bashing the game.  What exactly is your purpose?  At any rate, I would hope that people considering the game will research things for themselves and not listen to a disgruntled person angry that it's not going to be an early UO clone with updated graphics.

I dont need to test the proposed system since it will have just about all the flaws i pointed out with quoting magicredux over at SotA forums. My criticism is based on early promises of a more hardcore PvP game and how developers claim they listen to their entire playerbase when they actually just listen to the carebears. Combat system, loot and anything else is just about exactly like what the carebears wanted. 

The hardcore PvP players, me included, have talked to closed developers ears for over a year and it is a good thing this is described on a less bias forum. What i write here would have been removed over at SotA forums.

I dont want any hardcore PvP player get tricked to sponsor a game that is nowhere close to that old UO game when it comes to PvP and as Richard Garriott have claimed from the beginning, a spiritual successor to UO. 

Information is always good even though if some of it might not be entire accurate with the released game. I and others have described the game we know so far. This information is here to describe what players can expect of SotA and who developers prioritated to listen to and that is definetly not the hardcore UO players that pledged for something else. They listen to some very vocal PvE players when they decided combat system and risk vs reward which is just amazing, players that is uninterested taking part in PvP got the developers ear ! 

PvP players that want to take part in a game that reflects their interest and gamestyle were abandoned by developers, all their suggestions and what was important to include to make PvP interesting was excluded by developers. It was some vocal PvE players that actually is very much uninterested taking part in PvP and the SotA developers that together managed to destroy the potentiallt fun PvP game fun for the hardcore PvP players.

Just read up on the SotA forums and you will soon figure out that loads of UO hardcore PvP players have left the game and they are very disapointed over the combat system and how risk vs reward have been handled. 

If you as a developer claim you listen to your community and does not in practice then you will get well deserved criticism.

 

You said: "My criticism is based on early promises of a more hardcore PvP game and how developers claim they listen to their entire playerbase when they actually just listen to the carebears. Combat system, loot and anything else is just about exactly like what the carebears wanted."

I don't suppose the thought has occurred to you that any of the people who gave input on the system could possibly be anything but  "carebears," unless they were agreeing with you?  Are you saying that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a "carebear?"  Or has it occurred to you that maybe the suggestions they went with represented a majority of players?  Or maybe because what they've decided to go with represents a compromise?  Or that, *gasp*, maybe your wants are so extreme they would effectively exclude the majority of the potential players they want in the game?

 

You said: "I dont want any hardcore PvP player get tricked to sponsor a game that is nowhere close to that old UO game when it comes to PvP and as Richard Garriott have claimed from the beginning, a spiritual successor to UO. "

 

Inaccurate.  He said it was intended to be the spiritual successor to the Ultima franchise.  UO was the spiritual successor to the Ultima franchise as well.  Yes he mentions UO, but the only time he specifically refers to early pre-trammel UO is when he's talking about the unintended consequences of the rules they'd failed to put in place and how they had to rethink the whole thing.  To assume that he meant a spiritual successor to a portion of  UO that only truly existed for 2 out of the 17 years of the game's duration, sounds to me like nothing more than wishful thinking and hearing what you want to hear.  But you can't blame Richard Garriot for your own failings.

 

The rest of your post is basically just saying you're upset that they're not changing the game's focus to accommodate a group of players who are unhappy that people who like to play any other play style are not going to be forced to play their way. 

 

The current "proposed" system, while not set in stone, is NOT a betrayal of anything like you keep trying to tell people here.  It was never promised to be a full blown pvp-centric game. RG has said right from day 1, that it is a role playing game.  Spiritual successor to the Ultima franchise.  Have you played any of those games?  Or are you just fixated on the 2 out of 17 years of UO?  And even if he had said it was a full on sequal to UO, which part?  Why would that automatically mean those first two miserable years?  Maybe he really meant after Trammel.  lol.   Yes I was there from day one.

 

They are giving pvpers as much freedom as possible without infringing on the freedoms of others. With the sorting system, you probably won't ever see  unflagged players.  You can frag fest to your heart's content.  Just not with anyone who isn't interested.  I don't understand why that's not enough for you.  And whether you like it or not, an early UO clone would do nothing but turn SotA into a niche game with no more players than the current player run UO servers.  That would be a terrible business decision.

  Aragon100

Elite Member

Joined: 2/06/08
Posts: 2208

 
OP  5/15/14 8:18:49 PM#26
Originally posted by Maribu
Originally posted by Aragon100
Originally posted by Maribu
Originally posted by Aragon100

Here is some wise words from magixredux over at SotA forums that understand what this kind of weak combat system will deliver -

https://shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-way-the-deck-system-should-work.5941/page-10#post-159998

 

This sums up pretty good the SotA magic and combat system -

[quote] Nice try, ignore all of my perfectly constructed and well explained arguments and brush it off as "baseless insults". You remind me of people who go around labeling anyone who disagrees with them as a troll. Sorry, but you are just flat out wrong and just because some one disagrees with you that doesn't mean you can cry fowl and label them a troll.

My points still stand which i will repeat in point form:

Cards are dealt out at random, no player can choose to select which card they desire.
Some cards are more desirable in some scenarios.
Others are much weaker and less useful.

Scenario A:

Two players with the exact same gear, skill level, and time spent playing run in to one another.

Player 1 draws the best possible deck, containing very powerful stuns, nukes, great cc spells ect.

Player 2 draws weaker less ideal spells, something like a slow, poison DoT, ect.

As they proceed to fight, player one stuns, nukes and destroys player 2 before he can really do anything.

He owes his flawless victory not to skill, but to random chance, it was all left up to the roll of a dice.

You pointed out over time everyone has the same odds, but that's really not the issue. We are talking about case by case examples of how a fight would play out. Also there are people who get really unlucky and lose 5 or so games in a row, and vice versa. Learn to address peoples arguments.   [/quote]

A random luckbased combat system will never be fun and challenging. Why even try to progress your PvP skills if the combat is decided by luck? Random cards (skills) decided by the game and not by me is what fundamentally will make this a unskilled game, a game based on randomness and luck out of my control.

Alot of PvE players over at SotA forums defend this combat system and my qualified guess is that a system with little skills and alot of luck and randomness will give them a fair chance, a chance they never would have had against a seasoned, skilled PvP player in a game that actually demanded playerskills. UO took alot of playerskills and it is just amazing that Richard Garriott abandoned the just about best combat system ever created for this horrible crap.

I'm new to this forum, but I'm one who has pledged for this game.  If you have pledged, for whatever reason, then you might want to wait and try the proposed system first and then if it truly is something you don't like, then give some meaningful feedback about it on the official forums for the devs to compile info.  That way you are basing an opinion on actual facts and first-hand knowledge, rather than spamming an outside forum with bile. 

 

I'm sorry, and I don't mean to be rude, but I've seen numerous threads here started by you,bashing the game.  What exactly is your purpose?  At any rate, I would hope that people considering the game will research things for themselves and not listen to a disgruntled person angry that it's not going to be an early UO clone with updated graphics.

I dont need to test the proposed system since it will have just about all the flaws i pointed out with quoting magicredux over at SotA forums. My criticism is based on early promises of a more hardcore PvP game and how developers claim they listen to their entire playerbase when they actually just listen to the carebears. Combat system, loot and anything else is just about exactly like what the carebears wanted. 

The hardcore PvP players, me included, have talked to closed developers ears for over a year and it is a good thing this is described on a less bias forum. What i write here would have been removed over at SotA forums.

I dont want any hardcore PvP player get tricked to sponsor a game that is nowhere close to that old UO game when it comes to PvP and as Richard Garriott have claimed from the beginning, a spiritual successor to UO. 

Information is always good even though if some of it might not be entire accurate with the released game. I and others have described the game we know so far. This information is here to describe what players can expect of SotA and who developers prioritated to listen to and that is definetly not the hardcore UO players that pledged for something else. They listen to some very vocal PvE players when they decided combat system and risk vs reward which is just amazing, players that is uninterested taking part in PvP got the developers ear ! 

PvP players that want to take part in a game that reflects their interest and gamestyle were abandoned by developers, all their suggestions and what was important to include to make PvP interesting was excluded by developers. It was some vocal PvE players that actually is very much uninterested taking part in PvP and the SotA developers that together managed to destroy the potentiallt fun PvP game fun for the hardcore PvP players.

Just read up on the SotA forums and you will soon figure out that loads of UO hardcore PvP players have left the game and they are very disapointed over the combat system and how risk vs reward have been handled. 

If you as a developer claim you listen to your community and does not in practice then you will get well deserved criticism.

 

You said: "My criticism is based on early promises of a more hardcore PvP game and how developers claim they listen to their entire playerbase when they actually just listen to the carebears. Combat system, loot and anything else is just about exactly like what the carebears wanted."

I don't suppose the thought has occurred to you that any of the people who gave input on the system could possibly be anything but  "carebears," unless they were agreeing with you?  Are you saying that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a "carebear?"  Or has it occurred to you that maybe the suggestions they went with represented a majority of players?  Or maybe because what they've decided to go with represents a compromise?  Or that, *gasp*, maybe your wants are so extreme they would effectively exclude the majority of the potential players they want in the game?

 

You said: "I dont want any hardcore PvP player get tricked to sponsor a game that is nowhere close to that old UO game when it comes to PvP and as Richard Garriott have claimed from the beginning, a spiritual successor to UO. "

 

Inaccurate.  He said it was intended to be the spiritual successor to the Ultima franchise.  UO was the spiritual successor to the Ultima franchise as well.  Yes he mentions UO, but the only time he specifically refers to early pre-trammel UO is when he's talking about the unintended consequences of the rules they'd failed to put in place and how they had to rethink the whole thing.  To assume that he meant a spiritual successor to a portion of  UO that only truly existed for 2 out of the 17 years of the game's duration, sounds to me like nothing more than wishful thinking and hearing what you want to hear.  But you can't blame Richard Garriot for your own failings.

 

The rest of your post is basically just saying you're upset that they're not changing the game's focus to accommodate a group of players who are unhappy that people who like to play any other play style are not going to be forced to play their way. 

 

The current "proposed" system, while not set in stone, is NOT a betrayal of anything like you keep trying to tell people here.  It was never promised to be a full blown pvp-centric game. RG has said right from day 1, that it is a role playing game.  Spiritual successor to the Ultima franchise.  Have you played any of those games?  Or are you just fixated on the 2 out of 17 years of UO?  And even if he had said it was a full on sequal to UO, which part?  Why would that automatically mean those first two miserable years?  Maybe he really meant after Trammel.  lol.   Yes I was there from day one.

 

They are giving pvpers as much freedom as possible without infringing on the freedoms of others. With the sorting system, you probably won't ever see  unflagged players.  You can frag fest to your heart's content.  Just not with anyone who isn't interested.  I don't understand why that's not enough for you.  And whether you like it or not, an early UO clone would do nothing but turn SotA into a niche game with no more players than the current player run UO servers.  That would be a terrible business decision.

Do you even know how the game will work?

Players that dont want to meet each other wont meet each other ingame. Thats how the game will work.

PvE players that want a peace and quit game doing their PvE stuff wont interact with the PvP players. They have a choice since PvP will be consensual and players with same interests will be matched together.

So there is actually no need whatsoever to make a compromise. And today of course there is a wast majority of carebears following this game since just about all hardcore PvP players left the game in disapointment when developers revealed the PvP system. But you know what, begore they left all votes on for example full loot or not have been in favor of full loot. So the PvP interested players wanted a way more hardcore PvP with risk vs reward and harsh consequences as full loot. This was denied us by the developers. They didnt listen for 5 cent on all suggestions the PvP oriented players had. Nothing they wanted to see in the game is in the PvP game, nothing. 

Sp dont come here talking about compromises when everything went in favor for the carebears. And they wont even see the PvP players, that is the most amazing part of all this. Developers made a PvP game the PvP players didnt want.

You have to read up, he have said it was the spiritual successor of UO, i even have a quote of that in one of my replies on this forums, look it up if youre interested, That he never said those exact words is what the carebears dont want to come out. There have been many carebears over at SotA forums that try to claim that Richard Garriott never said those exact words.

It is of course the part of UO when he was in control of the game which means the old hardcore game. Why would he claim it was a spiritual successor of a UO game he had no part in?

 

  stevebombsquad

Elite Member

Joined: 3/20/13
Posts: 605

5/15/14 8:32:48 PM#27
Originally posted by Maribu
Originally posted by Aragon100
Originally posted by Maribu
Originally posted by Aragon100

Here is some wise words from magixredux over at SotA forums that understand what this kind of weak combat system will deliver -

https://shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-way-the-deck-system-should-work.5941/page-10#post-159998

 

This sums up pretty good the SotA magic and combat system -

[quote] Nice try, ignore all of my perfectly constructed and well explained arguments and brush it off as "baseless insults". You remind me of people who go around labeling anyone who disagrees with them as a troll. Sorry, but you are just flat out wrong and just because some one disagrees with you that doesn't mean you can cry fowl and label them a troll.

My points still stand which i will repeat in point form:

Cards are dealt out at random, no player can choose to select which card they desire.
Some cards are more desirable in some scenarios.
Others are much weaker and less useful.

Scenario A:

Two players with the exact same gear, skill level, and time spent playing run in to one another.

Player 1 draws the best possible deck, containing very powerful stuns, nukes, great cc spells ect.

Player 2 draws weaker less ideal spells, something like a slow, poison DoT, ect.

As they proceed to fight, player one stuns, nukes and destroys player 2 before he can really do anything.

He owes his flawless victory not to skill, but to random chance, it was all left up to the roll of a dice.

You pointed out over time everyone has the same odds, but that's really not the issue. We are talking about case by case examples of how a fight would play out. Also there are people who get really unlucky and lose 5 or so games in a row, and vice versa. Learn to address peoples arguments.   [/quote]

A random luckbased combat system will never be fun and challenging. Why even try to progress your PvP skills if the combat is decided by luck? Random cards (skills) decided by the game and not by me is what fundamentally will make this a unskilled game, a game based on randomness and luck out of my control.

Alot of PvE players over at SotA forums defend this combat system and my qualified guess is that a system with little skills and alot of luck and randomness will give them a fair chance, a chance they never would have had against a seasoned, skilled PvP player in a game that actually demanded playerskills. UO took alot of playerskills and it is just amazing that Richard Garriott abandoned the just about best combat system ever created for this horrible crap.

I'm new to this forum, but I'm one who has pledged for this game.  If you have pledged, for whatever reason, then you might want to wait and try the proposed system first and then if it truly is something you don't like, then give some meaningful feedback about it on the official forums for the devs to compile info.  That way you are basing an opinion on actual facts and first-hand knowledge, rather than spamming an outside forum with bile. 

 

I'm sorry, and I don't mean to be rude, but I've seen numerous threads here started by you,bashing the game.  What exactly is your purpose?  At any rate, I would hope that people considering the game will research things for themselves and not listen to a disgruntled person angry that it's not going to be an early UO clone with updated graphics.

I dont need to test the proposed system since it will have just about all the flaws i pointed out with quoting magicredux over at SotA forums. My criticism is based on early promises of a more hardcore PvP game and how developers claim they listen to their entire playerbase when they actually just listen to the carebears. Combat system, loot and anything else is just about exactly like what the carebears wanted. 

The hardcore PvP players, me included, have talked to closed developers ears for over a year and it is a good thing this is described on a less bias forum. What i write here would have been removed over at SotA forums.

I dont want any hardcore PvP player get tricked to sponsor a game that is nowhere close to that old UO game when it comes to PvP and as Richard Garriott have claimed from the beginning, a spiritual successor to UO. 

Information is always good even though if some of it might not be entire accurate with the released game. I and others have described the game we know so far. This information is here to describe what players can expect of SotA and who developers prioritated to listen to and that is definetly not the hardcore UO players that pledged for something else. They listen to some very vocal PvE players when they decided combat system and risk vs reward which is just amazing, players that is uninterested taking part in PvP got the developers ear ! 

PvP players that want to take part in a game that reflects their interest and gamestyle were abandoned by developers, all their suggestions and what was important to include to make PvP interesting was excluded by developers. It was some vocal PvE players that actually is very much uninterested taking part in PvP and the SotA developers that together managed to destroy the potentiallt fun PvP game fun for the hardcore PvP players.

Just read up on the SotA forums and you will soon figure out that loads of UO hardcore PvP players have left the game and they are very disapointed over the combat system and how risk vs reward have been handled. 

If you as a developer claim you listen to your community and does not in practice then you will get well deserved criticism.

 

You said: "My criticism is based on early promises of a more hardcore PvP game and how developers claim they listen to their entire playerbase when they actually just listen to the carebears. Combat system, loot and anything else is just about exactly like what the carebears wanted."

I don't suppose the thought has occurred to you that any of the people who gave input on the system could possibly be anything but  "carebears," unless they were agreeing with you?  Are you saying that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a "carebear?"  Or has it occurred to you that maybe the suggestions they went with represented a majority of players?  Or maybe because what they've decided to go with represents a compromise?  Or that, *gasp*, maybe your wants are so extreme they would effectively exclude the majority of the potential players they want in the game?

 

You said: "I dont want any hardcore PvP player get tricked to sponsor a game that is nowhere close to that old UO game when it comes to PvP and as Richard Garriott have claimed from the beginning, a spiritual successor to UO. "

 

Inaccurate.  He said it was intended to be the spiritual successor to the Ultima franchise.  UO was the spiritual successor to the Ultima franchise as well.  Yes he mentions UO, but the only time he specifically refers to early pre-trammel UO is when he's talking about the unintended consequences of the rules they'd failed to put in place and how they had to rethink the whole thing.  To assume that he meant a spiritual successor to a portion of  UO that only truly existed for 2 out of the 17 years of the game's duration, sounds to me like nothing more than wishful thinking and hearing what you want to hear.  But you can't blame Richard Garriot for your own failings.

 

The rest of your post is basically just saying you're upset that they're not changing the game's focus to accommodate a group of players who are unhappy that people who like to play any other play style are not going to be forced to play their way. 

 

The current "proposed" system, while not set in stone, is NOT a betrayal of anything like you keep trying to tell people here.  It was never promised to be a full blown pvp-centric game. RG has said right from day 1, that it is a role playing game.  Spiritual successor to the Ultima franchise.  Have you played any of those games?  Or are you just fixated on the 2 out of 17 years of UO?  And even if he had said it was a full on sequal to UO, which part?  Why would that automatically mean those first two miserable years?  Maybe he really meant after Trammel.  lol.   Yes I was there from day one.

 

They are giving pvpers as much freedom as possible without infringing on the freedoms of others. With the sorting system, you probably won't ever see  unflagged players.  You can frag fest to your heart's content.  Just not with anyone who isn't interested.  I don't understand why that's not enough for you.  And whether you like it or not, an early UO clone would do nothing but turn SotA into a niche game with no more players than the current player run UO servers.  That would be a terrible business decision.

+1  Great post. Some people just can't understand that the majority of the players are not hardcore players and do not want to play a free for all PvP game. They get angry at devs for not bending to their will and making the game their way. They fail to understand the need to compromise.

James T. Kirk: All she's got isn't good enough! What else ya got?

  Aragon100

Elite Member

Joined: 2/06/08
Posts: 2208

 
OP  5/15/14 8:36:11 PM#28
Originally posted by stevebombsquad
Originally posted by Maribu
Originally posted by Aragon100
Originally posted by Maribu
Originally posted by Aragon100

Here is some wise words from magixredux over at SotA forums that understand what this kind of weak combat system will deliver -

https://shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-way-the-deck-system-should-work.5941/page-10#post-159998

 

This sums up pretty good the SotA magic and combat system -

[quote] Nice try, ignore all of my perfectly constructed and well explained arguments and brush it off as "baseless insults". You remind me of people who go around labeling anyone who disagrees with them as a troll. Sorry, but you are just flat out wrong and just because some one disagrees with you that doesn't mean you can cry fowl and label them a troll.

My points still stand which i will repeat in point form:

Cards are dealt out at random, no player can choose to select which card they desire.
Some cards are more desirable in some scenarios.
Others are much weaker and less useful.

Scenario A:

Two players with the exact same gear, skill level, and time spent playing run in to one another.

Player 1 draws the best possible deck, containing very powerful stuns, nukes, great cc spells ect.

Player 2 draws weaker less ideal spells, something like a slow, poison DoT, ect.

As they proceed to fight, player one stuns, nukes and destroys player 2 before he can really do anything.

He owes his flawless victory not to skill, but to random chance, it was all left up to the roll of a dice.

You pointed out over time everyone has the same odds, but that's really not the issue. We are talking about case by case examples of how a fight would play out. Also there are people who get really unlucky and lose 5 or so games in a row, and vice versa. Learn to address peoples arguments.   [/quote]

A random luckbased combat system will never be fun and challenging. Why even try to progress your PvP skills if the combat is decided by luck? Random cards (skills) decided by the game and not by me is what fundamentally will make this a unskilled game, a game based on randomness and luck out of my control.

Alot of PvE players over at SotA forums defend this combat system and my qualified guess is that a system with little skills and alot of luck and randomness will give them a fair chance, a chance they never would have had against a seasoned, skilled PvP player in a game that actually demanded playerskills. UO took alot of playerskills and it is just amazing that Richard Garriott abandoned the just about best combat system ever created for this horrible crap.

I'm new to this forum, but I'm one who has pledged for this game.  If you have pledged, for whatever reason, then you might want to wait and try the proposed system first and then if it truly is something you don't like, then give some meaningful feedback about it on the official forums for the devs to compile info.  That way you are basing an opinion on actual facts and first-hand knowledge, rather than spamming an outside forum with bile. 

 

I'm sorry, and I don't mean to be rude, but I've seen numerous threads here started by you,bashing the game.  What exactly is your purpose?  At any rate, I would hope that people considering the game will research things for themselves and not listen to a disgruntled person angry that it's not going to be an early UO clone with updated graphics.

I dont need to test the proposed system since it will have just about all the flaws i pointed out with quoting magicredux over at SotA forums. My criticism is based on early promises of a more hardcore PvP game and how developers claim they listen to their entire playerbase when they actually just listen to the carebears. Combat system, loot and anything else is just about exactly like what the carebears wanted. 

The hardcore PvP players, me included, have talked to closed developers ears for over a year and it is a good thing this is described on a less bias forum. What i write here would have been removed over at SotA forums.

I dont want any hardcore PvP player get tricked to sponsor a game that is nowhere close to that old UO game when it comes to PvP and as Richard Garriott have claimed from the beginning, a spiritual successor to UO. 

Information is always good even though if some of it might not be entire accurate with the released game. I and others have described the game we know so far. This information is here to describe what players can expect of SotA and who developers prioritated to listen to and that is definetly not the hardcore UO players that pledged for something else. They listen to some very vocal PvE players when they decided combat system and risk vs reward which is just amazing, players that is uninterested taking part in PvP got the developers ear ! 

PvP players that want to take part in a game that reflects their interest and gamestyle were abandoned by developers, all their suggestions and what was important to include to make PvP interesting was excluded by developers. It was some vocal PvE players that actually is very much uninterested taking part in PvP and the SotA developers that together managed to destroy the potentiallt fun PvP game fun for the hardcore PvP players.

Just read up on the SotA forums and you will soon figure out that loads of UO hardcore PvP players have left the game and they are very disapointed over the combat system and how risk vs reward have been handled. 

If you as a developer claim you listen to your community and does not in practice then you will get well deserved criticism.

 

You said: "My criticism is based on early promises of a more hardcore PvP game and how developers claim they listen to their entire playerbase when they actually just listen to the carebears. Combat system, loot and anything else is just about exactly like what the carebears wanted."

I don't suppose the thought has occurred to you that any of the people who gave input on the system could possibly be anything but  "carebears," unless they were agreeing with you?  Are you saying that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a "carebear?"  Or has it occurred to you that maybe the suggestions they went with represented a majority of players?  Or maybe because what they've decided to go with represents a compromise?  Or that, *gasp*, maybe your wants are so extreme they would effectively exclude the majority of the potential players they want in the game?

 

You said: "I dont want any hardcore PvP player get tricked to sponsor a game that is nowhere close to that old UO game when it comes to PvP and as Richard Garriott have claimed from the beginning, a spiritual successor to UO. "

 

Inaccurate.  He said it was intended to be the spiritual successor to the Ultima franchise.  UO was the spiritual successor to the Ultima franchise as well.  Yes he mentions UO, but the only time he specifically refers to early pre-trammel UO is when he's talking about the unintended consequences of the rules they'd failed to put in place and how they had to rethink the whole thing.  To assume that he meant a spiritual successor to a portion of  UO that only truly existed for 2 out of the 17 years of the game's duration, sounds to me like nothing more than wishful thinking and hearing what you want to hear.  But you can't blame Richard Garriot for your own failings.

 

The rest of your post is basically just saying you're upset that they're not changing the game's focus to accommodate a group of players who are unhappy that people who like to play any other play style are not going to be forced to play their way. 

 

The current "proposed" system, while not set in stone, is NOT a betrayal of anything like you keep trying to tell people here.  It was never promised to be a full blown pvp-centric game. RG has said right from day 1, that it is a role playing game.  Spiritual successor to the Ultima franchise.  Have you played any of those games?  Or are you just fixated on the 2 out of 17 years of UO?  And even if he had said it was a full on sequal to UO, which part?  Why would that automatically mean those first two miserable years?  Maybe he really meant after Trammel.  lol.   Yes I was there from day one.

 

They are giving pvpers as much freedom as possible without infringing on the freedoms of others. With the sorting system, you probably won't ever see  unflagged players.  You can frag fest to your heart's content.  Just not with anyone who isn't interested.  I don't understand why that's not enough for you.  And whether you like it or not, an early UO clone would do nothing but turn SotA into a niche game with no more players than the current player run UO servers.  That would be a terrible business decision.

+1  Great post. Some people just can't understand that the majority of the players are not hardcore players and do not want to play a free for all PvP game. They get angry at devs for not bending to their will and making the game their way. They fail to understand the need to compromise.

Players that isnt interested in PvP wont interact with the PvP crowd. You need to read up on how the game will work. There is no need whatsoever to make a compromise. All could have their way of playing satisfied, more or less anyway. 

The hardcore PvP players could have their full loot and a risk vs reward game cause they will only meet other players that accepted that playstyle.

 

  stevebombsquad

Elite Member

Joined: 3/20/13
Posts: 605

5/15/14 8:47:07 PM#29
Originally posted by Aragon100
Originally posted by stevebombsquad
Originally posted by Maribu
Originally posted by Aragon100
Originally posted by Maribu
Originally posted by Aragon100

Here is some wise words from magixredux over at SotA forums that understand what this kind of weak combat system will deliver -

https://shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-way-the-deck-system-should-work.5941/page-10#post-159998

 

This sums up pretty good the SotA magic and combat system -

[quote] Nice try, ignore all of my perfectly constructed and well explained arguments and brush it off as "baseless insults". You remind me of people who go around labeling anyone who disagrees with them as a troll. Sorry, but you are just flat out wrong and just because some one disagrees with you that doesn't mean you can cry fowl and label them a troll.

My points still stand which i will repeat in point form:

Cards are dealt out at random, no player can choose to select which card they desire.
Some cards are more desirable in some scenarios.
Others are much weaker and less useful.

Scenario A:

Two players with the exact same gear, skill level, and time spent playing run in to one another.

Player 1 draws the best possible deck, containing very powerful stuns, nukes, great cc spells ect.

Player 2 draws weaker less ideal spells, something like a slow, poison DoT, ect.

As they proceed to fight, player one stuns, nukes and destroys player 2 before he can really do anything.

He owes his flawless victory not to skill, but to random chance, it was all left up to the roll of a dice.

You pointed out over time everyone has the same odds, but that's really not the issue. We are talking about case by case examples of how a fight would play out. Also there are people who get really unlucky and lose 5 or so games in a row, and vice versa. Learn to address peoples arguments.   [/quote]

A random luckbased combat system will never be fun and challenging. Why even try to progress your PvP skills if the combat is decided by luck? Random cards (skills) decided by the game and not by me is what fundamentally will make this a unskilled game, a game based on randomness and luck out of my control.

Alot of PvE players over at SotA forums defend this combat system and my qualified guess is that a system with little skills and alot of luck and randomness will give them a fair chance, a chance they never would have had against a seasoned, skilled PvP player in a game that actually demanded playerskills. UO took alot of playerskills and it is just amazing that Richard Garriott abandoned the just about best combat system ever created for this horrible crap.

I'm new to this forum, but I'm one who has pledged for this game.  If you have pledged, for whatever reason, then you might want to wait and try the proposed system first and then if it truly is something you don't like, then give some meaningful feedback about it on the official forums for the devs to compile info.  That way you are basing an opinion on actual facts and first-hand knowledge, rather than spamming an outside forum with bile. 

 

I'm sorry, and I don't mean to be rude, but I've seen numerous threads here started by you,bashing the game.  What exactly is your purpose?  At any rate, I would hope that people considering the game will research things for themselves and not listen to a disgruntled person angry that it's not going to be an early UO clone with updated graphics.

I dont need to test the proposed system since it will have just about all the flaws i pointed out with quoting magicredux over at SotA forums. My criticism is based on early promises of a more hardcore PvP game and how developers claim they listen to their entire playerbase when they actually just listen to the carebears. Combat system, loot and anything else is just about exactly like what the carebears wanted. 

The hardcore PvP players, me included, have talked to closed developers ears for over a year and it is a good thing this is described on a less bias forum. What i write here would have been removed over at SotA forums.

I dont want any hardcore PvP player get tricked to sponsor a game that is nowhere close to that old UO game when it comes to PvP and as Richard Garriott have claimed from the beginning, a spiritual successor to UO. 

Information is always good even though if some of it might not be entire accurate with the released game. I and others have described the game we know so far. This information is here to describe what players can expect of SotA and who developers prioritated to listen to and that is definetly not the hardcore UO players that pledged for something else. They listen to some very vocal PvE players when they decided combat system and risk vs reward which is just amazing, players that is uninterested taking part in PvP got the developers ear ! 

PvP players that want to take part in a game that reflects their interest and gamestyle were abandoned by developers, all their suggestions and what was important to include to make PvP interesting was excluded by developers. It was some vocal PvE players that actually is very much uninterested taking part in PvP and the SotA developers that together managed to destroy the potentiallt fun PvP game fun for the hardcore PvP players.

Just read up on the SotA forums and you will soon figure out that loads of UO hardcore PvP players have left the game and they are very disapointed over the combat system and how risk vs reward have been handled. 

If you as a developer claim you listen to your community and does not in practice then you will get well deserved criticism.

 

You said: "My criticism is based on early promises of a more hardcore PvP game and how developers claim they listen to their entire playerbase when they actually just listen to the carebears. Combat system, loot and anything else is just about exactly like what the carebears wanted."

I don't suppose the thought has occurred to you that any of the people who gave input on the system could possibly be anything but  "carebears," unless they were agreeing with you?  Are you saying that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a "carebear?"  Or has it occurred to you that maybe the suggestions they went with represented a majority of players?  Or maybe because what they've decided to go with represents a compromise?  Or that, *gasp*, maybe your wants are so extreme they would effectively exclude the majority of the potential players they want in the game?

 

You said: "I dont want any hardcore PvP player get tricked to sponsor a game that is nowhere close to that old UO game when it comes to PvP and as Richard Garriott have claimed from the beginning, a spiritual successor to UO. "

 

Inaccurate.  He said it was intended to be the spiritual successor to the Ultima franchise.  UO was the spiritual successor to the Ultima franchise as well.  Yes he mentions UO, but the only time he specifically refers to early pre-trammel UO is when he's talking about the unintended consequences of the rules they'd failed to put in place and how they had to rethink the whole thing.  To assume that he meant a spiritual successor to a portion of  UO that only truly existed for 2 out of the 17 years of the game's duration, sounds to me like nothing more than wishful thinking and hearing what you want to hear.  But you can't blame Richard Garriot for your own failings.

 

The rest of your post is basically just saying you're upset that they're not changing the game's focus to accommodate a group of players who are unhappy that people who like to play any other play style are not going to be forced to play their way. 

 

The current "proposed" system, while not set in stone, is NOT a betrayal of anything like you keep trying to tell people here.  It was never promised to be a full blown pvp-centric game. RG has said right from day 1, that it is a role playing game.  Spiritual successor to the Ultima franchise.  Have you played any of those games?  Or are you just fixated on the 2 out of 17 years of UO?  And even if he had said it was a full on sequal to UO, which part?  Why would that automatically mean those first two miserable years?  Maybe he really meant after Trammel.  lol.   Yes I was there from day one.

 

They are giving pvpers as much freedom as possible without infringing on the freedoms of others. With the sorting system, you probably won't ever see  unflagged players.  You can frag fest to your heart's content.  Just not with anyone who isn't interested.  I don't understand why that's not enough for you.  And whether you like it or not, an early UO clone would do nothing but turn SotA into a niche game with no more players than the current player run UO servers.  That would be a terrible business decision.

+1  Great post. Some people just can't understand that the majority of the players are not hardcore players and do not want to play a free for all PvP game. They get angry at devs for not bending to their will and making the game their way. They fail to understand the need to compromise.

Players that isnt interested in PvP wont interact with the PvP crowd. You need to read up on how the game will work. There is no need whatsoever to make a compromise. All could have their way of playing satisfied, more or less anyway. 

The hardcore PvP players could have their full loot and a risk vs reward game cause they will only meet other players that accepted that playstyle.

 

You make no sense. Why would you make a combat system that favors the minority? You wouldn't. You are in the minority. You basically have stated that they need a combat system that caters to PvP. The majority of the players are interested in PvE and roleplaying. You would best be served by waiting for something like Camelot Unchained. Face it, few people are looking for the game that you want, and even few developers are going to cater to such a niche crowd. 

James T. Kirk: All she's got isn't good enough! What else ya got?

  Aragon100

Elite Member

Joined: 2/06/08
Posts: 2208

 
OP  5/16/14 12:48:15 PM#30
Originally posted by stevebombsquad
Originally posted by Aragon100
Originally posted by stevebombsquad
Originally posted by Maribu
Originally posted by Aragon100
Originally posted by Maribu
Originally posted by Aragon100

Here is some wise words from magixredux over at SotA forums that understand what this kind of weak combat system will deliver -

https://shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-way-the-deck-system-should-work.5941/page-10#post-159998

 

This sums up pretty good the SotA magic and combat system -

[quote] Nice try, ignore all of my perfectly constructed and well explained arguments and brush it off as "baseless insults". You remind me of people who go around labeling anyone who disagrees with them as a troll. Sorry, but you are just flat out wrong and just because some one disagrees with you that doesn't mean you can cry fowl and label them a troll.

My points still stand which i will repeat in point form:

Cards are dealt out at random, no player can choose to select which card they desire.
Some cards are more desirable in some scenarios.
Others are much weaker and less useful.

Scenario A:

Two players with the exact same gear, skill level, and time spent playing run in to one another.

Player 1 draws the best possible deck, containing very powerful stuns, nukes, great cc spells ect.

Player 2 draws weaker less ideal spells, something like a slow, poison DoT, ect.

As they proceed to fight, player one stuns, nukes and destroys player 2 before he can really do anything.

He owes his flawless victory not to skill, but to random chance, it was all left up to the roll of a dice.

You pointed out over time everyone has the same odds, but that's really not the issue. We are talking about case by case examples of how a fight would play out. Also there are people who get really unlucky and lose 5 or so games in a row, and vice versa. Learn to address peoples arguments.   [/quote]

A random luckbased combat system will never be fun and challenging. Why even try to progress your PvP skills if the combat is decided by luck? Random cards (skills) decided by the game and not by me is what fundamentally will make this a unskilled game, a game based on randomness and luck out of my control.

Alot of PvE players over at SotA forums defend this combat system and my qualified guess is that a system with little skills and alot of luck and randomness will give them a fair chance, a chance they never would have had against a seasoned, skilled PvP player in a game that actually demanded playerskills. UO took alot of playerskills and it is just amazing that Richard Garriott abandoned the just about best combat system ever created for this horrible crap.

I'm new to this forum, but I'm one who has pledged for this game.  If you have pledged, for whatever reason, then you might want to wait and try the proposed system first and then if it truly is something you don't like, then give some meaningful feedback about it on the official forums for the devs to compile info.  That way you are basing an opinion on actual facts and first-hand knowledge, rather than spamming an outside forum with bile. 

 

I'm sorry, and I don't mean to be rude, but I've seen numerous threads here started by you,bashing the game.  What exactly is your purpose?  At any rate, I would hope that people considering the game will research things for themselves and not listen to a disgruntled person angry that it's not going to be an early UO clone with updated graphics.

I dont need to test the proposed system since it will have just about all the flaws i pointed out with quoting magicredux over at SotA forums. My criticism is based on early promises of a more hardcore PvP game and how developers claim they listen to their entire playerbase when they actually just listen to the carebears. Combat system, loot and anything else is just about exactly like what the carebears wanted. 

The hardcore PvP players, me included, have talked to closed developers ears for over a year and it is a good thing this is described on a less bias forum. What i write here would have been removed over at SotA forums.

I dont want any hardcore PvP player get tricked to sponsor a game that is nowhere close to that old UO game when it comes to PvP and as Richard Garriott have claimed from the beginning, a spiritual successor to UO. 

Information is always good even though if some of it might not be entire accurate with the released game. I and others have described the game we know so far. This information is here to describe what players can expect of SotA and who developers prioritated to listen to and that is definetly not the hardcore UO players that pledged for something else. They listen to some very vocal PvE players when they decided combat system and risk vs reward which is just amazing, players that is uninterested taking part in PvP got the developers ear ! 

PvP players that want to take part in a game that reflects their interest and gamestyle were abandoned by developers, all their suggestions and what was important to include to make PvP interesting was excluded by developers. It was some vocal PvE players that actually is very much uninterested taking part in PvP and the SotA developers that together managed to destroy the potentiallt fun PvP game fun for the hardcore PvP players.

Just read up on the SotA forums and you will soon figure out that loads of UO hardcore PvP players have left the game and they are very disapointed over the combat system and how risk vs reward have been handled. 

If you as a developer claim you listen to your community and does not in practice then you will get well deserved criticism.

 

You said: "My criticism is based on early promises of a more hardcore PvP game and how developers claim they listen to their entire playerbase when they actually just listen to the carebears. Combat system, loot and anything else is just about exactly like what the carebears wanted."

I don't suppose the thought has occurred to you that any of the people who gave input on the system could possibly be anything but  "carebears," unless they were agreeing with you?  Are you saying that anyone who doesn't agree with you is a "carebear?"  Or has it occurred to you that maybe the suggestions they went with represented a majority of players?  Or maybe because what they've decided to go with represents a compromise?  Or that, *gasp*, maybe your wants are so extreme they would effectively exclude the majority of the potential players they want in the game?

 

You said: "I dont want any hardcore PvP player get tricked to sponsor a game that is nowhere close to that old UO game when it comes to PvP and as Richard Garriott have claimed from the beginning, a spiritual successor to UO. "

 

Inaccurate.  He said it was intended to be the spiritual successor to the Ultima franchise.  UO was the spiritual successor to the Ultima franchise as well.  Yes he mentions UO, but the only time he specifically refers to early pre-trammel UO is when he's talking about the unintended consequences of the rules they'd failed to put in place and how they had to rethink the whole thing.  To assume that he meant a spiritual successor to a portion of  UO that only truly existed for 2 out of the 17 years of the game's duration, sounds to me like nothing more than wishful thinking and hearing what you want to hear.  But you can't blame Richard Garriot for your own failings.

 

The rest of your post is basically just saying you're upset that they're not changing the game's focus to accommodate a group of players who are unhappy that people who like to play any other play style are not going to be forced to play their way. 

 

The current "proposed" system, while not set in stone, is NOT a betrayal of anything like you keep trying to tell people here.  It was never promised to be a full blown pvp-centric game. RG has said right from day 1, that it is a role playing game.  Spiritual successor to the Ultima franchise.  Have you played any of those games?  Or are you just fixated on the 2 out of 17 years of UO?  And even if he had said it was a full on sequal to UO, which part?  Why would that automatically mean those first two miserable years?  Maybe he really meant after Trammel.  lol.   Yes I was there from day one.

 

They are giving pvpers as much freedom as possible without infringing on the freedoms of others. With the sorting system, you probably won't ever see  unflagged players.  You can frag fest to your heart's content.  Just not with anyone who isn't interested.  I don't understand why that's not enough for you.  And whether you like it or not, an early UO clone would do nothing but turn SotA into a niche game with no more players than the current player run UO servers.  That would be a terrible business decision.

+1  Great post. Some people just can't understand that the majority of the players are not hardcore players and do not want to play a free for all PvP game. They get angry at devs for not bending to their will and making the game their way. They fail to understand the need to compromise.

Players that isnt interested in PvP wont interact with the PvP crowd. You need to read up on how the game will work. There is no need whatsoever to make a compromise. All could have their way of playing satisfied, more or less anyway. 

The hardcore PvP players could have their full loot and a risk vs reward game cause they will only meet other players that accepted that playstyle.

 

You make no sense. Why would you make a combat system that favors the minority? You wouldn't. You are in the minority. You basically have stated that they need a combat system that caters to PvP. The majority of the players are interested in PvE and roleplaying. You would best be served by waiting for something like Camelot Unchained. Face it, few people are looking for the game that you want, and even few developers are going to cater to such a niche crowd. 

The ones that was interested in a PvP game that i and loads of other PvP players that pledged for SotA wanted was actually a huge majority of the PvP players. There is loads of polls over at SotA forums that back that statement. 

Developers of SotA have claimed they listen to their community but instead of going with the majority of the PvP interested players suggestions they decided to go with the suggestions the PvP uninterested PvE players presented. These vocal PvE players that were trying to derail every PvP thread were a huge minority as every poll informed us. 

So listening to the majority and presenting a PvP game the majority wanted was just a big lie. 

Claims like this will be a spiritual successor to UO that Richard Garriott told us was another lie.

He managed to trick alot of old UO players to invest in this game with those words. Very smart and fraudful of him.

 

  stevebombsquad

Elite Member

Joined: 3/20/13
Posts: 605

5/16/14 12:56:04 PM#31

 

You make no sense. Why would you make a combat system that favors the minority? You wouldn't. You are in the minority. You basically have stated that they need a combat system that caters to PvP. The majority of the players are interested in PvE and roleplaying. You would best be served by waiting for something like Camelot Unchained. Face it, few people are looking for the game that you want, and even few developers are going to cater to such a niche crowd. 

The ones that was interested in a PvP game that i and loads of other PvP players that pledged for SotA wanted was actually a huge majority of the PvP players. There is loads of polls over at SotA forums that back that statement. 

Developers of SotA have claimed they listen to their community but instead of going with the majority of the PvP interested players suggestions they decided to go with the suggestions the PvP uninterested PvE players presented. These vocal PvE players that were trying to derail every PvP thread were a huge minority as every poll informed us. 

So listening to the majority and presenting a PvP game the majority wanted was just a big lie. 

Claims like this will be a spiritual successor to UO that Richard Garriott told us was another lie.

He managed to trick alot of old UO players to invest in this game with those words. Very smart and fraudful of him.

 

You keep stating that hardcore PVP players are the majority. THEY AREN'T. Few people want a free for all full loot PvP game. There is a reason that there are only a few of those around that exist primarily on life support.... 

James T. Kirk: All she's got isn't good enough! What else ya got?

  Aragon100

Elite Member

Joined: 2/06/08
Posts: 2208

 
OP  5/16/14 1:26:33 PM#32
Originally posted by stevebombsquad

 

You make no sense. Why would you make a combat system that favors the minority? You wouldn't. You are in the minority. You basically have stated that they need a combat system that caters to PvP. The majority of the players are interested in PvE and roleplaying. You would best be served by waiting for something like Camelot Unchained. Face it, few people are looking for the game that you want, and even few developers are going to cater to such a niche crowd. 

The ones that was interested in a PvP game that i and loads of other PvP players that pledged for SotA wanted was actually a huge majority of the PvP players. There is loads of polls over at SotA forums that back that statement. 

Developers of SotA have claimed they listen to their community but instead of going with the majority of the PvP interested players suggestions they decided to go with the suggestions the PvP uninterested PvE players presented. These vocal PvE players that were trying to derail every PvP thread were a huge minority as every poll informed us. 

So listening to the majority and presenting a PvP game the majority wanted was just a big lie. 

Claims like this will be a spiritual successor to UO that Richard Garriott told us was another lie.

He managed to trick alot of old UO players to invest in this game with those words. Very smart and fraudful of him.

 

You keep stating that hardcore PVP players are the majority. THEY AREN'T. Few people want a free for all full loot PvP game. There is a reason that there are only a few of those around that exist primarily on life support.... 

What you claim is very far from the truth. We that want a realistic and harsh PvP game with full loot and a risk vs reward PvP game with consequences was a majority of the PvP players that pledged for SotA. How many the uninterested of PvP PvE players were is totally uninteresting here since they wont take part in the SotA PvP game. They wont interact with the PvP players.

Just take games like Rust and Day-Z and you might get an idea of how many there is out there that prefer a less carebear PvP game, a game like old UO.

And dont get me wrong it can be consensual, i am very much ok with that.

Problem with SotA is that Richard Garriott presented the game as a successor to UO and delivered a PvP carebear game.

UO means different things to different people. Not informing in detail how SotA PvP will work out during kickstarter time was smart of Richard Garriott, being vague about PvP tricked alot of old UO PvP veterans to pledge for a game that became even more carebear then WoW PvP.

That is a kickstarter problem that need to be solved. Developers should have to present a detailed feature list before accepting money from players that believed the game to be something else then it turned out to be.

It is close to fraud.

  Aragon100

Elite Member

Joined: 2/06/08
Posts: 2208

 
OP  5/17/14 10:53:20 PM#33
Originally posted by Maribu
Originally posted by Aragon100
Originally posted by Maribu
Originally posted by Aragon100

Here is some wise words from magixredux over at SotA forums that understand what this kind of weak combat system will deliver -

https://shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-way-the-deck-system-should-work.5941/page-10#post-159998

 

This sums up pretty good the SotA magic and combat system -

[quote] Nice try, ignore all of my perfectly constructed and well explained arguments and brush it off as "baseless insults". You remind me of people who go around labeling anyone who disagrees with them as a troll. Sorry, but you are just flat out wrong and just because some one disagrees with you that doesn't mean you can cry fowl and label them a troll.

My points still stand which i will repeat in point form:

Cards are dealt out at random, no player can choose to select which card they desire.
Some cards are more desirable in some scenarios.
Others are much weaker and less useful.

Scenario A:

Two players with the exact same gear, skill level, and time spent playing run in to one another.

Player 1 draws the best possible deck, containing very powerful stuns, nukes, great cc spells ect.

Player 2 draws weaker less ideal spells, something like a slow, poison DoT, ect.

As they proceed to fight, player one stuns, nukes and destroys player 2 before he can really do anything.

He owes his flawless victory not to skill, but to random chance, it was all left up to the roll of a dice.

You pointed out over time everyone has the same odds, but that's really not the issue. We are talking about case by case examples of how a fight would play out. Also there are people who get really unlucky and lose 5 or so games in a row, and vice versa. Learn to address peoples arguments.   [/quote]

A random luckbased combat system will never be fun and challenging. Why even try to progress your PvP skills if the combat is decided by luck? Random cards (skills) decided by the game and not by me is what fundamentally will make this a unskilled game, a game based on randomness and luck out of my control.

Alot of PvE players over at SotA forums defend this combat system and my qualified guess is that a system with little skills and alot of luck and randomness will give them a fair chance, a chance they never would have had against a seasoned, skilled PvP player in a game that actually demanded playerskills. UO took alot of playerskills and it is just amazing that Richard Garriott abandoned the just about best combat system ever created for this horrible crap.

I'm new to this forum, but I'm one who has pledged for this game.  If you have pledged, for whatever reason, then you might want to wait and try the proposed system first and then if it truly is something you don't like, then give some meaningful feedback about it on the official forums for the devs to compile info.  That way you are basing an opinion on actual facts and first-hand knowledge, rather than spamming an outside forum with bile. 

 

I'm sorry, and I don't mean to be rude, but I've seen numerous threads here started by you,bashing the game.  What exactly is your purpose?  At any rate, I would hope that people considering the game will research things for themselves and not listen to a disgruntled person angry that it's not going to be an early UO clone with updated graphics.

I dont need to test the proposed system since it will have just about all the flaws i pointed out with quoting magicredux over at SotA forums. My criticism is based on early promises of a more hardcore PvP game and how developers claim they listen to their entire playerbase when they actually just listen to the carebears. Combat system, loot and anything else is just about exactly like what the carebears wanted. 

The hardcore PvP players, me included, have talked to closed developers ears for over a year and it is a good thing this is described on a less bias forum. What i write here would have been removed over at SotA forums.

I dont want any hardcore PvP player get tricked to sponsor a game that is nowhere close to that old UO game when it comes to PvP and as Richard Garriott have claimed from the beginning, a spiritual successor to UO. 

Information is always good even though if some of it might not be entire accurate with the released game. I and others have described the game we know so far. This information is here to describe what players can expect of SotA and who developers prioritated to listen to and that is definetly not the hardcore UO players that pledged for something else. They listen to some very vocal PvE players when they decided combat system and risk vs reward which is just amazing, players that is uninterested taking part in PvP got the developers ear ! 

PvP players that want to take part in a game that reflects their interest and gamestyle were abandoned by developers, all their suggestions and what was important to include to make PvP interesting was excluded by developers. It was some vocal PvE players that actually is very much uninterested taking part in PvP and the SotA developers that together managed to destroy the potentiallt fun PvP game fun for the hardcore PvP players.

Just read up on the SotA forums and you will soon figure out that loads of UO hardcore PvP players have left the game and they are very disapointed over the combat system and how risk vs reward have been handled. 

If you as a developer claim you listen to your community and does not in practice then you will get well deserved criticism.

 

 

 You said: "I dont want any hardcore PvP player get tricked to sponsor a game that is nowhere close to that old UO game when it comes to PvP and as Richard Garriott have claimed from the beginning, a spiritual successor to UO. "

 

Inaccurate.  He said it was intended to be the spiritual successor to the Ultima franchise.  UO was the spiritual successor to the Ultima franchise as well.  Yes he mentions UO, but the only time he specifically refers to early pre-trammel UO is when he's talking about the unintended consequences of the rules they'd failed to put in place and how they had to rethink the whole thing.  To assume that he meant a spiritual successor to a portion of  UO that only truly existed for 2 out of the 17 years of the game's duration, sounds to me like nothing more than wishful thinking and hearing what you want to hear.  But you can't blame Richard Garriot for your own failings.

 

 

Here is the quote Richard Garriott made -

http://i.imgur.com/e5BgsFm.png

He call SotA a spiritual successor to Ultima Online.

2 Pages « 1 2 Search