Trending Games | Elder Scrolls Online | WildStar | EverQuest | World of Warcraft

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,902,218 Users Online:0
Games:753  Posts:6,275,683
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System Req: PC Mac Linux | Out of date info?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 « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 » Last Search
295 posts found
  Ratero

Hard Core Member

Joined: 5/19/04
Posts: 322

8/25/13 7:50:41 AM#61
Originally posted by stvnkrs10
You guys should really read up on the game before posting. It has been said many times there will be a pvp element for those that want it. the OPO option allows for those in to pvp to only see pvp players and pve players to only see pve players. That way both types get the experience they want in the same world. The way you play the game affects the people you see around you.

Stvnkrs10,

I must have totally missed that when I was reading up on the features of SotA.  I'll head over there shortly and see if I can find that and what ever else I must have overlooked.

Thanks for this information.

 

Ratero.

  User Deleted
9/01/13 1:24:07 PM#62
Originally posted by Shadowguy64

 

I could probably provide an accurate description, but it would certainly get me banned.

  lizardbones

Elite Member

Joined: 6/11/08
Posts: 10924

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

9/01/13 1:39:40 PM#63


Originally posted by Komandor

Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard

Richard Garriott knows from the past (including his own history) that forcing PvP with looting and stealing on people doesn't work. And we already know that this won't happen in this game, you have dimensions for different play styles. It's possible that FFA PvP players will have a dimension on their own so they can happily gank each other, but it will definitely not be forced on everyone, for the greater good of the whole game.

So all this discussion is moot.



 
How doesn't it work? Trammel killed UO. Stupidest mistake in history of gaming.

What's the problem?

PVP with full loot 2hardcor4u?




Your view of history is decidedly skewed. UO's population jumped another 100k people after Trammel was released. The game may have "died" for the people who enjoyed the PvP ruleset, but for the other couple hundred thousand people it breathed new life into the game.

Here's a partial interview with Richard Garriott from 2008.
http://massively.joystiq.com/2010/05/18/the-game-archaeologist-and-the-ultima-prize-richard-garriott/



PKing became a huge issue in the early years of the game -- did the team anticipate it panning out the way it did, or did it get too out of hand?

We definitely did not expect it to pan out the way it did; as it began to unfold we had mixed feelings as how to respond to it. The theory we thought was sound -- we made the towns safe and guarded, you'd leave and have more of a free-for-all. But one day I was GMing as Lord British, and I saw a female character shouting for help. Right as I was talking with her, a thief shows up with macros, steals everything she has and runs away. I teleported ahead of him, froze him to the ground, and told him to cut it out. He promised to do so, but stole from her two more times. When I confronted him about it, he broke character and said, "Of course I'm going to do that, I'm a thief, it's what I do. I'm operating within the rules of your game, and of course I'd lie to the king of the land." I was like, "Damn! You're right!"

Tell us the truth: from your perspective, how'd you react to being PK'd in beta?

What's funny is that normally my character wasn't PKable, but after each beta server wipe, it was important for me to reset the immortality flag on Lord British. I'd been toodling around for weeks assuming that I was immortal, but I wasn't. When Rainz threw a fire field at me, I assumed I was immortal and stepped back into the field and keeled over dead. Days later we had to pour over the server logs to see what happened.

One of our QA guys hurries over to resurrect me, a minute away from the shutdown of the server at the end of beta. At the time, all the players and employees from all over the world had congregated in that one area, and the QA guys didn't know who to punish, so they decided to kill them all. They summoned dragons and demons and shot off fireworks and massacred everyone who was there. We thought it was great fun at the time, but what horrified us later was to learn that many players did not think it was fun -- they got killed and sent away as a ghost so they couldn't be there at the final moment.




The player behaviors that showed up were not the behaviors that they expected, nor behaviors that they wanted. So they changed the rules to allow for both. They made more money than ever.

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

  emperorwings

Hard Core Member

Joined: 12/25/06
Posts: 1384

9/01/13 1:49:19 PM#64
It won't have player looting and stealing since there is an offline mode as well or single player online mode. There are options which only show pvp players to you. Go to the site and have a look.

This isn't a signature, you just think it is.

  Holophonist

Hard Core Member

Joined: 2/15/09
Posts: 2035

9/01/13 2:35:07 PM#65
Originally posted by lizardbones

 


Originally posted by Komandor

Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard

 

Richard Garriott knows from the past (including his own history) that forcing PvP with looting and stealing on people doesn't work. And we already know that this won't happen in this game, you have dimensions for different play styles. It's possible that FFA PvP players will have a dimension on their own so they can happily gank each other, but it will definitely not be forced on everyone, for the greater good of the whole game.

So all this discussion is moot.



 
How doesn't it work? Trammel killed UO. Stupidest mistake in history of gaming.

 

What's the problem?

PVP with full loot 2hardcor4u?




Your view of history is decidedly skewed. UO's population jumped another 100k people after Trammel was released. The game may have "died" for the people who enjoyed the PvP ruleset, but for the other couple hundred thousand people it breathed new life into the game.

Here's a partial interview with Richard Garriott from 2008.
http://massively.joystiq.com/2010/05/18/the-game-archaeologist-and-the-ultima-prize-richard-garriott/




PKing became a huge issue in the early years of the game -- did the team anticipate it panning out the way it did, or did it get too out of hand?

 

We definitely did not expect it to pan out the way it did; as it began to unfold we had mixed feelings as how to respond to it. The theory we thought was sound -- we made the towns safe and guarded, you'd leave and have more of a free-for-all. But one day I was GMing as Lord British, and I saw a female character shouting for help. Right as I was talking with her, a thief shows up with macros, steals everything she has and runs away. I teleported ahead of him, froze him to the ground, and told him to cut it out. He promised to do so, but stole from her two more times. When I confronted him about it, he broke character and said, "Of course I'm going to do that, I'm a thief, it's what I do. I'm operating within the rules of your game, and of course I'd lie to the king of the land." I was like, "Damn! You're right!"

Tell us the truth: from your perspective, how'd you react to being PK'd in beta?

What's funny is that normally my character wasn't PKable, but after each beta server wipe, it was important for me to reset the immortality flag on Lord British. I'd been toodling around for weeks assuming that I was immortal, but I wasn't. When Rainz threw a fire field at me, I assumed I was immortal and stepped back into the field and keeled over dead. Days later we had to pour over the server logs to see what happened.

One of our QA guys hurries over to resurrect me, a minute away from the shutdown of the server at the end of beta. At the time, all the players and employees from all over the world had congregated in that one area, and the QA guys didn't know who to punish, so they decided to kill them all. They summoned dragons and demons and shot off fireworks and massacred everyone who was there. We thought it was great fun at the time, but what horrified us later was to learn that many players did not think it was fun -- they got killed and sent away as a ghost so they couldn't be there at the final moment.




The player behaviors that showed up were not the behaviors that they expected, nor behaviors that they wanted. So they changed the rules to allow for both. They made more money than ever.

 

Trammel didn't breathe new life into anything. Yes, it increased the subs for about a year and then the game entered a 6 year continuous drop that was only slowed down by AOS being released in 2003.

 

Trammel killed UO in the sense that they were having a problem with too many PKs and instead of dealing with it using more simulation and interesting game mechanics, they tried to fix it with Trammel, and it failed. It's kind of like going to the doctor with an infection and before the doctor can clean out the wound and put you on antibiotics, a witch doctor comes in and says he'd like to do an ancient healing dance and clean out the wound with his own urine or whatever. Maybe the healing dance didn't KILL the patient, but choosing the healing dance over traditional medicine did.

  nerovipus32

Novice Member

Joined: 1/15/11
Posts: 2716

9/01/13 2:38:08 PM#66
Originally posted by Darth-Batman
Because Darkfall is a shining example of a success story? All those open-world-pvp-full-loot games have something in common, they all struggle. All the 'hardcore' players chase away potential customers with their ganking until the community dies off. Players like me are left with nothing to do but hunt noob-hunters, which gets boring after day one and after day two all the 'noobs' have quit due to gankers small penile syndrome. I hope Shroud doesnt follow this pattern because if it does, chances are it'll share the same fate as Mortal Online and DF. 

Most mmo's do struggle and the reason they struggle is because the try to appeal to everyone and end up pleasing no one.

  Jean-Luc_Picard

Elite Member

Joined: 1/10/13
Posts: 2847

There... are... four... lights!

9/02/13 5:08:04 AM#67
Originally posted by Holophonist

 

Trammel didn't breathe new life into anything. Yes, it increased the subs for about a year and then the game entered a 6 year continuous drop that was only slowed down by AOS being released in 2003.

Ah, here comes holophonist and his fake numbers again. Any lie is good to support FFA PvP, right?

UO population peaked in 2003, three years after Trammel release. That's a fact, what you say is the same imaginary things you repeat over and over in each thread talking about UO to try to support FFA PvP.

Trammel killed UO in the sense that they were having a problem with too many PKs and instead of dealing with it using more simulation and interesting game mechanics, they tried to fix it with Trammel, and it failed.

No it didn't. It made people come back and new people play who would never have played otherwise. It stopped players hemoraging to EQ and to AC1, games which offered PvE servers. Without trammel, which is basically a PvE server, UO would have died with the influx of new games that offered options to their players instead of forcing them into a gank fest.

It's kind of like going to the doctor with an infection and before the doctor can clean out the wound and put you on antibiotics, a witch doctor comes in and says he'd like to do an ancient healing dance and clean out the wound with his own urine or whatever. Maybe the healing dance didn't KILL the patient, but choosing the healing dance over traditional medicine did.

A really stupid analogy.

 

And it appears that Lord British learned from the past, since this game won't be FFA PvP but will offer play style choices. That's all what matters to me, it may actually become a good game, and not another failure like darkfall or mortal online.

Choice wins, forced play style loses, as it should be.

Playing now: WoW, Landmark, GW2

Got a refund: Archeage. First refund since I started MMOs.

Top 3 MMORPGs played: UO, AC1 and WoW

Honorable mentions: AO, LotRO and GW2.

"The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn. After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that neither does the ability to write.

  Benedikt

Tipster

Joined: 12/12/04
Posts: 1354

We live for The One, we die for The One.

9/02/13 7:26:21 AM#68

i started to read the thread, then i got to OP stating

"Carebears don't count anyway."

that tells me everything i need to know, no reason to pay any attentions to OP's posts anymore. moving on. have a nice day.

  Holophonist

Hard Core Member

Joined: 2/15/09
Posts: 2035

9/02/13 7:33:23 AM#69
Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard
Originally posted by Holophonist

 

Trammel didn't breathe new life into anything. Yes, it increased the subs for about a year and then the game entered a 6 year continuous drop that was only slowed down by AOS being released in 2003.

Ah, here comes holophonist and his fake numbers again. Any lie is good to support FFA PvP, right?

UO population peaked in 2003, three years after Trammel release. That's a fact, what you say is the same imaginary things you repeat over and over in each thread talking about UO to try to support FFA PvP.

What's imaginary about what I said? Saying it peaked in 2003 is totally irrelevant. Yes, Trammel gave a boost to subs. That was like the first thing I said. But the overall trend from trammel was downward for 6 years except when they released AOS as yet another temporary shot in the arm. Again, what was fake about what I said?

Trammel killed UO in the sense that they were having a problem with too many PKs and instead of dealing with it using more simulation and interesting game mechanics, they tried to fix it with Trammel, and it failed.

No it didn't. It made people come back and new people play who would never have played otherwise. It stopped players hemoraging to EQ and to AC1, games which offered PvE servers. Without trammel, which is basically a PvE server, UO would have died with the influx of new games that offered options to their players instead of forcing them into a gank fest.

So why are you ignoring other possibilities for dealing with PKs? You're basically saying they had a problem and Trammel was literally the only solution. NO, it was the one they tried. And it didn't work. It increased subs for a year and then it fell for 6 years except after AOS was released. 

It's kind of like going to the doctor with an infection and before the doctor can clean out the wound and put you on antibiotics, a witch doctor comes in and says he'd like to do an ancient healing dance and clean out the wound with his own urine or whatever. Maybe the healing dance didn't KILL the patient, but choosing the healing dance over traditional medicine did.

A really stupid analogy.

Why? Are we really going to get into another of these pointless debates where you just say things with nothing to back it up and when you're tired of me pointing out how ridiculous you sound you just ignore me until you pop up again in some other thread? WHY IS IT A STUPID ANALOGY? Goodness... grow up.

 

And it appears that Lord British learned from the past, since this game won't be FFA PvP but will offer play style choices. That's all what matters to me, it may actually become a good game, and not another failure like darkfall or mortal online.

Choice wins, forced play style loses, as it should be.

I don't know anything about Shroud of the Avatar so claiming what it will be or won't be means nothing to me. And I've pointed out the problems with Darkall and MO online. Saying other games have failed is basically just an infantile way of arguing.

  Skooma2

Apprentice Member

Joined: 3/05/08
Posts: 685

9/02/13 7:37:07 AM#70
Originally posted by flizzer
You can have this as long as I get a completely PvE server.   If the only way I can experience this game is with the PvP gank crowd, then I would pass.  

+1

Hedonismbot: Your latest performance was as delectable as dipping my bottom over and over into a bath of the silkiest oils and creams.

  Havekk

Hard Core Member

Joined: 7/14/08
Posts: 1374

9/02/13 7:38:58 AM#71


Originally posted by Myrdynn what I dont get is the fascination with full loot.  Why hasnt a game come up with a method of rewarding the killer greatly, while not punishing the dieing party so extreme. why isnt there a game, where like for example (just rough numbers) the highest level mob drops 1000 gold (insert random currency or craft resource) but the player kills drop 10000 gold or some really useful crafting resource.  It would encourage pvp, and more those of  us (myself) more inclined to get involved. The reason alot of us "carebears" hate full loot is cause a lot of times if you join a game late you are screwed, and there is such a stigma of corpse camping, that it just isnt worth the hassle  
 Can't agree with you here... The same thing you complain about makes the game fun for me. In Shadowbane, which was full loot and open world pvp, when you were killed, your stuff was gone. Not what was equipped, but your inventory. It was a little more difficult for players who came later, but they weren't "screwed". You needed to find a guild and get protection. Once you joined a guild, we would take players out and help them level and get runes they needed to progress their characters. It actually was a ton of fun providing protection as people f'd with lower characters all the time lol.

  User Deleted
9/02/13 7:39:04 AM#72
Originally posted by Darth-Batman
Because Darkfall is a shining example of a success story? All those open-world-pvp-full-loot games have something in common, they all struggle. All the 'hardcore' players chase away potential customers with their ganking until the community dies off. Players like me are left with nothing to do but hunt noob-hunters, which gets boring after day one and after day two all the 'noobs' have quit due to gankers small penile syndrome. I hope Shroud doesnt follow this pattern because if it does, chances are it'll share the same fate as Mortal Online and DF. 

Or if they make it complex and fun to play (unlike darkfall), itll succeed, much like EVE. Theres plenty of carebear games to play, and very few good hardcore ones. So theres no need to try and cater to both. Theres a couple hundred thousand EVE players that are potential customers of another hardcore game.

  User Deleted
9/02/13 7:39:53 AM#73
Originally posted by Benedikt

i started to read the thread, then i got to OP stating

"Carebears don't count anyway."

that tells me everything i need to know, no reason to pay any attentions to OP's posts anymore. moving on. have a nice day.

Thanks for letting us know!

  User Deleted
9/02/13 7:42:47 AM#74
Originally posted by Mavek
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.

I think the hardcore crowd is <5% of those who play mmo's so why again would this be done?

Because 99.9% of games aren't hardcore. That means theres a bunch of customers who aren't being sold to. We have money, we have nothing to spend it on. If a game could get 5% of the market, it would be huge.

  tordurbar

Advanced Member

Joined: 5/02/10
Posts: 408

9/02/13 7:44:51 AM#75

"EVE ONLINE

And they aren't homelivers also. They are mostly 25+ employed professionals who enjoy an intellectual challenge and some of dat dere cortisol"

The strength of Eve is that, even with the extreme pvp focus it still has a good sized subscriber base. The game is so fascinating that even pve carebears like me continue to try it. Look at the stats provided by CCP - most players stay in high sec space.

Eve is a success but it could have 3 times the sub base if it had a pve sector/location/server. CCP is adamant that this will never happen. I respect that but it just means that game will never be a "overwhelming success". CCP is fine with their numbers and would rather stay true to their philosophy than go for WOW like numbers. You have to admire that.

Back to the topic. As has been mentioned by many posters - pure, open world, full loot pvp games are niche games. However, that is in the West. In Asia it is much different. Lineage, Lineage II, and a number of these games are very popular.  

  Jean-Luc_Picard

Elite Member

Joined: 1/10/13
Posts: 2847

There... are... four... lights!

9/02/13 7:52:26 AM#76
Originally posted by Holophonist

Why? Are we really going to get into another of these pointless debates where you just say things with nothing to back it up and when you're tired of me pointing out how ridiculous you sound you just ignore me until you pop up again in some other thread? WHY IS IT A STUPID ANALOGY? Goodness... grow up.

If you don't know why that analogy is stupid, explaining it to you wont help, as shown in previous "debates" you were part of. The analogy isn't even related to the discussion at hand, it makes absolutely no sense... how can you explain something that makes no sense?

I don't know anything about Shroud of the Avatar so claiming what it will be or won't be means nothing to me. And I've pointed out the problems with Darkall and MO online. Saying other games have failed is basically just an infantile way of arguing.

It's quite funny, you are the one pretending to be "grown up" and you can't argue without insulting your opponent. The "grow up" argument is always funny when it comes from a guy who wasn't even old enough to pay for an Internet access when UO was first released, by the way, when I was there and witnessed the whole thing first hand playing the game since early beta.

And you are the one coming up with things with nothing to back them up (Trammel killed UO... waiting for proofs). Nice attempt to turn the situation in your favor (as usual), but any reader will see that it doesn't work, just as saying the white horse in the field is black won't convince any semi-intelligent human being who is not blind.

Case closed for me, I don't intend to go into another pointless debate with someone making things up to prove his "point", I just called out the misinformation you always use and that's it.

Playing now: WoW, Landmark, GW2

Got a refund: Archeage. First refund since I started MMOs.

Top 3 MMORPGs played: UO, AC1 and WoW

Honorable mentions: AO, LotRO and GW2.

"The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn. After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that neither does the ability to write.

  JasonJ

Apprentice Member

Joined: 3/19/13
Posts: 414

9/02/13 7:56:32 AM#77
Originally posted by Komandor

The only thing that could really attract the hardcore crowd in this game is some good old, realistic PVP.

 They don't want the hardcore crowd and THAT is why it will do well.

He isn't trying to remake UO before it got trashed by Koster, nor is he trying to remake the trash Koster turned it into. SotA is going to be a completely different type of MMO.

  Icewhite

Made History

Joined: 7/11/11
Posts: 6495

Pink, it's like red but not quite.

9/02/13 8:05:31 AM#78

Games should be more than simple power fantasies.

Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.

  syntax42

Hard Core Member

Joined: 3/30/07
Posts: 1163

9/02/13 8:20:06 AM#79

Almost every MMO with PvP has the same issue that makes me hate the Call of Duty series:  they reward the "winners" with more winning.  Call of Duty adds devastating abilities like helicopters that kill other players for you after you have reached a certain number of kills.  When I last played WoW and WAR (years ago), both of those games had a point system which led to better PvP gear which you could only obtain by killing other players in PvP.  

These kinds of systems produce a very imbalanced power curve and only serve to make the "losers" want to stop playing.  When that happens, nobody wins.  You end up with something like Darkfall, where only the gankers get to play.  In games like WoW, one guild (or a few) ends up with the best gear and everyone else is just there to be "farmed" for points.

Instead of creating an imbalanced power curve, I would like to see a game that keeps everyone within a statistical bell-curve.  The rewards for winning should not be more winning.  Instead, increasing the player-skill required as you win more would help keep the game fun, and increase the challenge for the truly skilled players.  Creating such a system would be the hard part.  

  Jean-Luc_Picard

Elite Member

Joined: 1/10/13
Posts: 2847

There... are... four... lights!

9/02/13 8:28:25 AM#80
Originally posted by syntax42

These kinds of systems produce a very imbalanced power curve and only serve to make the "losers" want to stop playing. 

It's not so much about the losers, but about new players. That's the main reason why PvP servers remain niches. A good example would be DAoC Mordred, which failed for that very reason... once a core became max level, it was basically impossible to level a new character on that server... and people stopped trying, and the server died. Other example is the already mentioned UO move to Trammel.

A game that permits a tiny minority of players to almost completely discourage new player influx will remain a niche game, if it even survives.

A MMORPG survives and thrives thanks to a constant renewal of its player base over the years. If new players can't play properly, they won't stay. That's of course even worse with things like full loot... new player logs in, goes in the forest get some crafting resources to get started, and gets ganked by some high level asshat he has no chance against when returning to town, and gets looted dry. Add some asshattery like corpse camping and repeated killing, and what the result of this scenario 99% of the times? Cancel account, bye bye, you won't get that person's money. There's a good reason why the Darkfall games never had a trial... the devs know most trials would never buy the game.

The one game which works is EvE... for a good reason. Security levels. And CCP's own data says that the vast majority of the players stay mostly in high-sec. If that isn't a clue... they permit playstyles that aren't restricted to PvP ganking, and they permit the new players to get used to the game without being killed and looted dry as soon as they try to do something.

Playing now: WoW, Landmark, GW2

Got a refund: Archeage. First refund since I started MMOs.

Top 3 MMORPGs played: UO, AC1 and WoW

Honorable mentions: AO, LotRO and GW2.

"The ability to speak doesn't make you intelligent" - Qui-gon Jinn. After many years of reading Internet forums, there's no doubt that neither does the ability to write.

15 Pages « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 » Last Search