Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

SotA is just another carebear game

Aragon100Aragon100 OsloPosts: 2,224Member Uncommon

Important thread so that my old UO hardcore PvP friends dont misplace their money.

I thought that Richard Garriott would be the guarantee to guide this game towards a less trammel influenced gameplay. 

But i was wrong.

In Shroud of the Avatar there wont be any non-consensual risk vs reward gameplay, no consequences. Full loot seem to be out of the window cause the carebears said so.

PvP will be a cardgame where cards pop up on your screen randomly and you have to choose one of these cards. You cant cast the spell that you wanted to cast. Developers call this a skillful PvP system. I call it giving in to the players that seek easy mode PvP. There is even talk about making PvP turn based.

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/does-anyone-else-hate-the-proposed-card-system.3128/page-4

So if you seek the next hardcore oldschool UO game just move along cause this aint it.

 

 

«13456

Comments

  • Neo_ViperNeo_Viper NotyourbusinessPosts: 598Member

    If it means the game will have less people insulting others with childish appellations like "carebear" just because they have a different play style and preference than their own, then it can only make this game's community better.

    Just saying.

    My computer is better than yours.

  • jesteralwaysjesteralways ChittagongPosts: 1,007Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Aragon100

    Important thread so that my old UO hardcore PvP friends dont misplace their money.

    I thought that Richard Garriott would be the guarantee to guide this game towards a less trammel influenced gameplay. 

    But i was wrong.

    In Shroud of the Avatar there wont be any non-consensual risk vs reward gameplay, no consequences. Full loot seem to be out of the window cause the carebears said so.

    PvP will be a cardgame where cards pop up on your screen randomly and you have to choose one of these cards. You cant cast the spell that you wanted to cast. Developers call this a skillful PvP system. I call it giving in to the players that seek easy mode PvP. There is even talk about making PvP turn based.

    https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/does-anyone-else-hate-the-proposed-card-system.3128/page-4

    So if you seek the next hardcore oldschool UO game just move along cause this aint it.

     

     

    And how is this a news? did you not read the description of the game when it  1st come out on kickstarter? or more importantly can't you still read their kickstarter page? all of those "offline progression", "3 different type of online mode", "deep personal story" - did not give you enough info that it will be pve-centric? i do not believe that there is any moron in this world who would not understand after reading "what is SoTA?" section in kickstarter page that this is a heavily pve-centric game. seriously stop with these posts about pvp and SoTA without knowing what the game really is. and what it is trying to offer

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

  • NinjaGazNinjaGaz MacclesfieldPosts: 53Member Common

    Yeah I thought this game wasn't an MMO at all. Maybe you can rob your friends.

    The fact is, though, that "hardcore" modes are only suited to people who spend their lives in a game. It gives them a distinct advantage over those that do stuff in real life because they are better geared, and it also reduces the cost of death too - because they have plenty of time to get everything back again. That's not intended as a "You have no life" jibe, I've played heavily in the past and don't have the time or interest now. So I have experienced both sides of the coin.

    Can you imagine how crap it would be to have a job, get to play 2-3 hours max a night and find that you're just getting killed by griefers who have been playing all day. Where killing takes no skill because they're 10x more powerful? Hardcore folks like to think that they earn their kills, but it's not often the case. The fight is usually won before its started.

    The best "hardcore" players can hope for is a game that offers a server in hardcore mode. I doubt there will be any popular game which does this fully hardcore mode.

  • RobokappRobokapp Dublin, OHPosts: 5,205Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by NinjaGaz

    Maybe you can rob your friends.

    I have some issues with this statement...

    image

  • Aragon100Aragon100 OsloPosts: 2,224Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by jesteralways
    Originally posted by Aragon100

    Important thread so that my old UO hardcore PvP friends dont misplace their money.

    I thought that Richard Garriott would be the guarantee to guide this game towards a less trammel influenced gameplay. 

    But i was wrong.

    In Shroud of the Avatar there wont be any non-consensual risk vs reward gameplay, no consequences. Full loot seem to be out of the window cause the carebears said so.

    PvP will be a cardgame where cards pop up on your screen randomly and you have to choose one of these cards. You cant cast the spell that you wanted to cast. Developers call this a skillful PvP system. I call it giving in to the players that seek easy mode PvP. There is even talk about making PvP turn based.

    https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/does-anyone-else-hate-the-proposed-card-system.3128/page-4

    So if you seek the next hardcore oldschool UO game just move along cause this aint it.

     

     

    And how is this a news? did you not read the description of the game when it  1st come out on kickstarter? or more importantly can't you still read their kickstarter page? all of those "offline progression", "3 different type of online mode", "deep personal story" - did not give you enough info that it will be pve-centric? i do not believe that there is any moron in this world who would not understand after reading "what is SoTA?" section in kickstarter page that this is a heavily pve-centric game. seriously stop with these posts about pvp and SoTA without knowing what the game really is. and what it is trying to offer

    So you that know so much, describe exactly how SotA PvP will turn out. And if you cant then why did you seem so confident on what SotA will deliver?

    Here you have Richard talking about PvP, he even mention non-consensual PvP as he did in kickstarter and i quote- 

    http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-26-richard-garriotts-shroud-of-the-avatar-whats-the-big-idea

    Player versus Player (PVP)

    In the early days of Ultima Online there were relatively few restrictions on PVP. There was a very real risk of being killed while you were adventuring and having your equipment taken by your killer. It was exciting. But it wasn't for everyone.

    Garriott hasn't decided how PVP and death will work in Shroud of the Avatar yet. He's got backers on Kickstarter arguing from both ends of the spectrum. But he doesn't want to do either extreme.

    "We actually felt that UO was a bit too open," he said, "in that what would generally happen was the PKers (player-killers) were often preying on literal newbies. And as much fun as that might have been for some, it also ran off a huge fraction of the market.

    "We really just can't afford to create a game that has the level of preying on beginners that UO did. We don't intend to go down that path so much."

    Opt-in style PVP that's common in many MMOs today also isn't to his liking.

    "You can't always do what everyone claims they want, because everybody would always want it to be easier," he considered. "But if you make it too easy, and the challenge goes away, then people aren't compelled to start either. It's very difficult to interpret player desire, player statements, player action with what you really probably should do for the health of the community and even the enjoyment of that one individual."

    Shroud of the Avatar will try to do story-driven PVP. "We're building a game that will start you in a condition of relative safety, but that as you progress through the game, encourages - if not forces you - to accept danger, especially if you want to explore certain areas of plot threads or you want to deal with the most valuable resource opportunities."

    You might be approached by an NPC offering you a cash-rich quest to deliver a package, but that package will be contraband. If you accept, other people will be told to try and stop you. "We literally will inform other people that, 'Hey, by the way, somebody has elected to make this run of contraband,' and someone else is given a mission to stop you."

    There will be geographical hot-spots rich in resources where the rewards are as great as the dangers, too, and statistic-based player-titles like Dread Lord - handed out in Ultima Online after killing a lot of blue (good) players - will be present in Shroud of the Avatar as well. They won't, however, be exactly the same." - end quote.

    So it is easy to get confused when he talk about non-consensual PvP here and developers over at SotA forum inform us that the game in no way will have non-consensual PvP. Close to fraud if you ask me.

    And again, it is important to warn anyone that dont like carebear games not to waste their money.

    I seen many that pledged like me believing the game would have a interesting PvP for us oldschool UO players.

    So much of this game havent been revealed and nothing is as developers say set in stone and with these terms players can easily be fooled into a game they believe was something it never was. PvP for example have not been fully described. It is very disturbing pledgers still cant be 100% sure what this game will deliver. 

     

     

     

  • Swedish_ChefSwedish_Chef of heroes, MSPosts: 213Member

    Uhh, Richard Garriott was never a big PvP guy. It's a well known fact that he never intended for pre-Trammel UO to become the ridiculously anarchic mess which it did. That's why he and EA created Trammel, which was in spite of what some people think, a huge success.

    Not that it matters much. Given how property is being handled, the game will probably go pay-to-win anyway.

  • Aragon100Aragon100 OsloPosts: 2,224Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Neo_Viper

    If it means the game will have less people insulting others with childish appellations like "carebear" just because they have a different play style and preference than their own, then it can only make this game's community better.

    Just saying.

    Care bear is my opinion on players that want a risk free game with no risk vs reward and no consequences. And it is a fully accepted term in the MMO community.

    SotA moderators that also want to please the carebears have forbidden the use of this term which is of course wrong. 

    Care Bear

    1. Lightly derogatory term for an MMO player who avoids PVPcombat, heavily preferring cooperative or solo PVE combat, chatting, or developing tradeskills/running quests. Depending on the game and the individual, this PVP avoidance can show up in several ways: by playing on strict non-PVP servers; by avoiding PVP areas or declining duels; or, by avoiding or condemning PVP players. Philosophically, they often cite unbalanced combat systems, overpowered guilds, ebayed characters, and gankingas reasons to prefer less aggressive play. The mindset can be self-sustaining in several ways: high-level "care bears" may have avatars that are tailored for PVE, not PVP; they may notnetwork with skilled PVP players; or, they may morally refuse to learn aggressive PVP tactics. As an insult, the term applies less to players who merely prefer PVE to PVP and more to individuals who question the basic legitimacy of PVP or who greatly overreact to their avatars' deaths. Bear in mind that it is strictly incorrect to refer to the victims of heavy exploiters as Care Bears.

    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Care%20Bear&defid=2377513

     

     
  • ste2000ste2000 londonPosts: 4,699Member Uncommon

    UO PvP is not gonna work today (I used to like it in 2000).

    FFA PvP and Full loot are guarantee of player exodus, there is so much people can lose before quitting the game.

    I am happy with SOTA direction and I just bought a Pledge Package

     

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,643Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Neo_Viper

    If it means the game will have less people insulting others with childish appellations like "carebear" just because they have a different play style and preference than their own, then it can only make this game's community better.

    Just saying.

     

    Agreed. From what I've read, it seems he's looking to insulate the new player from the PVP but isn't looking to remove it as it will be part of the elder gameplay. I don't see this as carebear, rather as a way to allow people to get started and engaged in the game without having to suffer repeated unnecessary defeats at the hands of bored high level players.

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • Aragon100Aragon100 OsloPosts: 2,224Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by ste2000

    FFA PvP and Full loot are guarantee of player exodus, there is so much people can lose before quitting the game.

    You mean like this game?

    https://robertsspaceindustries.com/

    Star Citizen with FFA PvP and full loot seem to do pretty well, dont you agree?

    There will be non-consensual PvP and full loot in Star Citizen and it seem to do alot better then Shroud of the Avatar.

    How could that be?

     

  • ste2000ste2000 londonPosts: 4,699Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Aragon100
    Originally posted by ste2000

    FFA PvP and Full loot are guarantee of player exodus, there is so much people can lose before quitting the game.

    You mean like this game?

    https://robertsspaceindustries.com/

    Star Citizen with FFA PvP and full loot seem to do pretty well, dont you agree?

    There will be non-consensual PvP and full loot in Star Citizen and it seem to do alot better then Shroud of the Avatar.

    How could that be?

     

    Yes in fact I bought a $65 package few days ago, I am not alergic to PvP.............

    But if you know about the game, you know that there are solid counter weights to its PvP, you don't lose your ship, you can insure all your equipment and cargo.............. and there are safe zones.

    PvP in SC is similar to EvE which I played for 2 years.

    Both EvE and SC PvP fall under the Carebear tag based on your standards.

    You want the Full PvP with no rules and no safeguards (UO pre-Trammel and Darkfall)..........that is never going to work on a large scale, that's very niche.

     

  • Aragon100Aragon100 OsloPosts: 2,224Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by ste2000
    Originally posted by Aragon100
    Originally posted by ste2000

    FFA PvP and Full loot are guarantee of player exodus, there is so much people can lose before quitting the game.

    You mean like this game?

    https://robertsspaceindustries.com/

    Star Citizen with FFA PvP and full loot seem to do pretty well, dont you agree?

    There will be non-consensual PvP and full loot in Star Citizen and it seem to do alot better then Shroud of the Avatar.

    How could that be?

     

    Yes in fact I bought a $65 package few days ago, I am not alergic to PvP.............

    But if you know about the game, you know that there are solid counter weights to its PvP, you don't lose your ship, you can insure all your equipment and cargo.............. and there are safe zones.

    PvP in SC is similar to EvE which I played for 2 years.

    Both EvE and SC PvP fall under the Carebear tag based on your standards.

    You want the Full PvP with no rules and no safeguards (UO pre-Trammel and Darkfall)..........that is never going to work on a large scale, that's very niche.

     

    Yes insurance and full loot. You can board and kill the crew and steal there ship and cargo.

    There are no complete safe zones just some that are safer then others.

    Full loot and non-consensual PvP is good enough for me. That is something we will never see in SotA.

     

  • iridescenceiridescence Elliot Lake, ONPosts: 1,486Member

    Personally, while I usually don't seek out PvP in games. I'm fine with it existing in certain zones where there is a lore appropriate reason for people to kill each other (i.e. there is a war going on). I think FFA PvP over the whole world is kind of dumb  and game-ruining though . I don't really understand how much "skill" it takes to hang around outside the starter zone and gank noobs.

    Meaningful PvP, on the other hand with consequences to both the slayer and the slain adds a lot to a game. Very interested in Pathfinder Online, which is allowing PvP but trying not to make it total anarchy and encouraging massive settlement vs. settlement conflict. Kind of like null sec in EVE only hopefully a little less intimidating for newer players.

     

    Does that make me a carebear?:)

     

      

  • cheeseheadscheeseheads beloit, WIPosts: 56Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Aragon100
    Originally posted by ste2000

    FFA PvP and Full loot are guarantee of player exodus, there is so much people can lose before quitting the game.

    You mean like this game?

    https://robertsspaceindustries.com/

    Star Citizen with FFA PvP and full loot seem to do pretty well, dont you agree?

    There will be non-consensual PvP and full loot in Star Citizen and it seem to do alot better then Shroud of the Avatar.

    How could that be?

     

    im sure Star Citizen is so hardcore with the offline mode.  ya keep telling youself

  • tom_goretom_gore TamperePosts: 1,796Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Aragon100
    Originally posted by ste2000
    Originally posted by Aragon100
    Originally posted by ste2000

    FFA PvP and Full loot are guarantee of player exodus, there is so much people can lose before quitting the game.

    You mean like this game?

    https://robertsspaceindustries.com/

    Star Citizen with FFA PvP and full loot seem to do pretty well, dont you agree?

    There will be non-consensual PvP and full loot in Star Citizen and it seem to do alot better then Shroud of the Avatar.

    How could that be?

     

    Yes in fact I bought a $65 package few days ago, I am not alergic to PvP.............

    But if you know about the game, you know that there are solid counter weights to its PvP, you don't lose your ship, you can insure all your equipment and cargo.............. and there are safe zones.

    PvP in SC is similar to EvE which I played for 2 years.

    Both EvE and SC PvP fall under the Carebear tag based on your standards.

    You want the Full PvP with no rules and no safeguards (UO pre-Trammel and Darkfall)..........that is never going to work on a large scale, that's very niche.

     

    Yes insurance and full loot. You can board and kill the crew and steal there ship and cargo.

    There are no complete safe zones just some that are safer then others.

    Full loot and non-consensual PvP is good enough for me. That is something we will never see in SotA.

     

    There are no safe zones in EVE either, yet if you are careful you will practically never get into PvP if you don't want to. I expect it to work pretty much the same in SC. But yeah, at least the risk vs. reward will probably be there in SC, in that the most lucrative areas are also less safe, and vice versa.

    We don't know yet how PvP will be handled in SotA, but it's fairly safe assumption it will not be like UO used to be (small safe zones, risk everything beyond those). I'd like to see some form of risk vs. reward implemented, but players who don't like PvP should never be forced to be PvP. The might be encouraged to risk PvP, but not forced. It just doesn't work.

    You should realize that pre-trammel UO doesn't work anymore. In fact, looking at what happened to Felucca after Trammel was introduced pretty much should tell you straight away what the majority of people want. They want to be able to decide when and where to PvP, including not at all, if that's their preference.

    EDIT: I'd also like to point out that when you speak of risk vs. reward, you're requesting for features that allow you to attack completely unprepared opponents, therefore reducing your own risk to a minimum. Who's the carebear here? :)

     

  • Aragon100Aragon100 OsloPosts: 2,224Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by tom_gore
    Originally posted by Aragon100
    Originally posted by ste2000
    Originally posted by Aragon100
    Originally posted by ste2000

    FFA PvP and Full loot are guarantee of player exodus, there is so much people can lose before quitting the game.

    You mean like this game?

    https://robertsspaceindustries.com/

    Star Citizen with FFA PvP and full loot seem to do pretty well, dont you agree?

    There will be non-consensual PvP and full loot in Star Citizen and it seem to do alot better then Shroud of the Avatar.

    How could that be?

     

    Yes in fact I bought a $65 package few days ago, I am not alergic to PvP.............

    But if you know about the game, you know that there are solid counter weights to its PvP, you don't lose your ship, you can insure all your equipment and cargo.............. and there are safe zones.

    PvP in SC is similar to EvE which I played for 2 years.

    Both EvE and SC PvP fall under the Carebear tag based on your standards.

    You want the Full PvP with no rules and no safeguards (UO pre-Trammel and Darkfall)..........that is never going to work on a large scale, that's very niche.

     

    Yes insurance and full loot. You can board and kill the crew and steal there ship and cargo.

    There are no complete safe zones just some that are safer then others.

    Full loot and non-consensual PvP is good enough for me. That is something we will never see in SotA.

     

    There are no safe zones in EVE either, yet if you are careful you will practically never get into PvP if you don't want to. I expect it to work pretty much the same in SC. But yeah, at least the risk vs. reward will probably be there in SC, in that the most lucrative areas are also less safe, and vice versa.

    We don't know yet how PvP will be handled in SotA, but it's fairly safe assumption it will not be like UO used to be (small safe zones, risk everything beyond those). I'd like to see some form of risk vs. reward implemented, but players who don't like PvP should never be forced to be PvP. The might be encouraged to risk PvP, but not forced. It just doesn't work.

    You should realize that pre-trammel UO doesn't work anymore. In fact, looking at what happened to Felucca after Trammel was introduced pretty much should tell you straight away what the majority of people want. They want to be able to decide when and where to PvP, including not at all, if that's their preference.

    EDIT: I'd also like to point out that when you speak of risk vs. reward, you're requesting for features that allow you to attack completely unprepared opponents, therefore reducing your own risk to a minimum. Who's the carebear here? :)

     

    If you enter zones that isnt safe you better be prepared. 

    I played UO from beta and just about all other MMO games with non-consensual PvP in one of the most PvP successful guilds of all time and we usually fight outnumbered so dont put labels on someone you dont know.

    And for the 1000 time, trammel didnt ruin felucca, at least on Europe shard, it was just as good if not better after trammel was introduced. Whta ruined UO was Age of Shadows that turned UO into a WoW game, yes it was not the PK:s that destroyed UO it was making UO a themepark game. Pk:s living under statloss was a minor problem cause they were very few cause these harsh penalties.

     

  • tom_goretom_gore TamperePosts: 1,796Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Aragon100
    Originally posted by tom_gore
    Originally posted by Aragon100
    Originally posted by ste2000
    Originally posted by Aragon100
    Originally posted by ste2000

    FFA PvP and Full loot are guarantee of player exodus, there is so much people can lose before quitting the game.

    You mean like this game?

    https://robertsspaceindustries.com/

    Star Citizen with FFA PvP and full loot seem to do pretty well, dont you agree?

    There will be non-consensual PvP and full loot in Star Citizen and it seem to do alot better then Shroud of the Avatar.

    How could that be?

     

    Yes in fact I bought a $65 package few days ago, I am not alergic to PvP.............

    But if you know about the game, you know that there are solid counter weights to its PvP, you don't lose your ship, you can insure all your equipment and cargo.............. and there are safe zones.

    PvP in SC is similar to EvE which I played for 2 years.

    Both EvE and SC PvP fall under the Carebear tag based on your standards.

    You want the Full PvP with no rules and no safeguards (UO pre-Trammel and Darkfall)..........that is never going to work on a large scale, that's very niche.

     

    Yes insurance and full loot. You can board and kill the crew and steal there ship and cargo.

    There are no complete safe zones just some that are safer then others.

    Full loot and non-consensual PvP is good enough for me. That is something we will never see in SotA.

     

    There are no safe zones in EVE either, yet if you are careful you will practically never get into PvP if you don't want to. I expect it to work pretty much the same in SC. But yeah, at least the risk vs. reward will probably be there in SC, in that the most lucrative areas are also less safe, and vice versa.

    We don't know yet how PvP will be handled in SotA, but it's fairly safe assumption it will not be like UO used to be (small safe zones, risk everything beyond those). I'd like to see some form of risk vs. reward implemented, but players who don't like PvP should never be forced to be PvP. The might be encouraged to risk PvP, but not forced. It just doesn't work.

    You should realize that pre-trammel UO doesn't work anymore. In fact, looking at what happened to Felucca after Trammel was introduced pretty much should tell you straight away what the majority of people want. They want to be able to decide when and where to PvP, including not at all, if that's their preference.

    EDIT: I'd also like to point out that when you speak of risk vs. reward, you're requesting for features that allow you to attack completely unprepared opponents, therefore reducing your own risk to a minimum. Who's the carebear here? :)

     

    If you enter zones that isnt safe you better be prepared. 

    I played UO from beta and just about all other MMO games with non-consensual PvP in one of the most PvP successful guilds of all time and we usually fight outnumbered so dont put labels on someone you dont know.

    And for the 1000 time, trammel didnt ruin felucca, at least on Europe shard, it was just as good if not better after trammel was introduced. Whta ruined UO was Age of Shadows that turned UO into a WoW game, yes it was not the PK:s that destroyed UO it was making UO a themepark game. Pk:s living under statloss was a minor problem cause they were very few cause these harsh penalties.

     

    No I don't know you, but neither do you know me and yet you keep flinging that carebear name around. Trammel cleared Felucca from all the sheep and only the wolves were left. It was a graveyard compared to what it was pre-trammel. I'm glad that you could still find your enjoyment there, against other players who were also prepared to PvP. I know a ton of people who were absolutely pissed by the fact their easy prey was gone.

    I also agree that Age of Shadows destroyed UO. PK's did not destroy UO, but I'm willing to bet they would have, eventually, if Trammel was not introduced. Guess we will never know for sure, but I think the numbers speak for themselves. How many successfull FFA full loot games have we got since UO?

     

  • XAleX360XAleX360 PescaraPosts: 397Member
    Originally posted by Aragon100

    Important thread so that my old UO hardcore PvP friends dont misplace their money.

    I thought that Richard Garriott would be the guarantee to guide this game towards a less trammel influenced gameplay. 

    But i was wrong.

    In Shroud of the Avatar there wont be any non-consensual risk vs reward gameplay, no consequences. Full loot seem to be out of the window cause the carebears said so.

    PvP will be a cardgame where cards pop up on your screen randomly and you have to choose one of these cards. You cant cast the spell that you wanted to cast. Developers call this a skillful PvP system. I call it giving in to the players that seek easy mode PvP. There is even talk about making PvP turn based.

    https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/does-anyone-else-hate-the-proposed-card-system.3128/page-4

    So if you seek the next hardcore oldschool UO game just move along cause this aint it.

     

     

    Cardgame? Good lord.

    Founder, CEO & Editor in Chief of Worlds Factory, a brand new videogame and entertainment online publication.

  • charlizdcharlizd sydneyPosts: 922Member

    So what exactly is the problem here? because the game is not catering to the OP's needs it needs to have a pointless thread stating it is carebear because again it is not catering to there needs? People who have backed this game know what they are backing and if they don't then they need to learn to read.

    Personally i think SC is doing so well not because it has some risk to PvP but because it is a damn nice looking game, it will have it's crowd of ppl who like it just like SotA.

    Again tho i am unsure what the goal of this thread is, is it to try and derail ppl for wanting to play it? is it to try and enlighten peopl eot the fact that it is not a FFA PVP game? what is the point. If people want to know what it is about i am sure they can get off there fat asses and go check for themselves without the OP seemingly just trolling the game.

    image

  • InsaneMembraneInsaneMembrane SydneyPosts: 130Member
    Originally posted by charlizd

    So what exactly is the problem here? because the game is not catering to the OP's needs it needs to have a pointless thread stating it is carebear because again it is not catering to there needs? People who have backed this game know what they are backing and if they don't then they need to learn to read.

    Personally i think SC is doing so well not because it has some risk to PvP but because it is a damn nice looking game, it will have it's crowd of ppl who like it just like SotA.

    Again tho i am unsure what the goal of this thread is, is it to try and derail ppl for wanting to play it? is it to try and enlighten peopl eot the fact that it is not a FFA PVP game? what is the point. If people want to know what it is about i am sure they can get off there fat asses and go check for themselves without the OP seemingly just trolling the game.

    I believe it is the OP just, what you said begins with T word cos if I say it, I get banned for 48hrs. Thats all.

  • Aragon100Aragon100 OsloPosts: 2,224Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by tom_gore
    Originally posted by Aragon100
    Originally posted by tom_gore
    Originally posted by Aragon100
    Originally posted by ste2000
    Originally posted by Aragon100
    Originally posted by ste2000

    FFA PvP and Full loot are guarantee of player exodus, there is so much people can lose before quitting the game.

    You mean like this game?

    https://robertsspaceindustries.com/

    Star Citizen with FFA PvP and full loot seem to do pretty well, dont you agree?

    There will be non-consensual PvP and full loot in Star Citizen and it seem to do alot better then Shroud of the Avatar.

    How could that be?

     

    Yes in fact I bought a $65 package few days ago, I am not alergic to PvP.............

    But if you know about the game, you know that there are solid counter weights to its PvP, you don't lose your ship, you can insure all your equipment and cargo.............. and there are safe zones.

    PvP in SC is similar to EvE which I played for 2 years.

    Both EvE and SC PvP fall under the Carebear tag based on your standards.

    You want the Full PvP with no rules and no safeguards (UO pre-Trammel and Darkfall)..........that is never going to work on a large scale, that's very niche.

     

    Yes insurance and full loot. You can board and kill the crew and steal there ship and cargo.

    There are no complete safe zones just some that are safer then others.

    Full loot and non-consensual PvP is good enough for me. That is something we will never see in SotA.

     

    There are no safe zones in EVE either, yet if you are careful you will practically never get into PvP if you don't want to. I expect it to work pretty much the same in SC. But yeah, at least the risk vs. reward will probably be there in SC, in that the most lucrative areas are also less safe, and vice versa.

    We don't know yet how PvP will be handled in SotA, but it's fairly safe assumption it will not be like UO used to be (small safe zones, risk everything beyond those). I'd like to see some form of risk vs. reward implemented, but players who don't like PvP should never be forced to be PvP. The might be encouraged to risk PvP, but not forced. It just doesn't work.

    You should realize that pre-trammel UO doesn't work anymore. In fact, looking at what happened to Felucca after Trammel was introduced pretty much should tell you straight away what the majority of people want. They want to be able to decide when and where to PvP, including not at all, if that's their preference.

    EDIT: I'd also like to point out that when you speak of risk vs. reward, you're requesting for features that allow you to attack completely unprepared opponents, therefore reducing your own risk to a minimum. Who's the carebear here? :)

     

    If you enter zones that isnt safe you better be prepared. 

    I played UO from beta and just about all other MMO games with non-consensual PvP in one of the most PvP successful guilds of all time and we usually fight outnumbered so dont put labels on someone you dont know.

    And for the 1000 time, trammel didnt ruin felucca, at least on Europe shard, it was just as good if not better after trammel was introduced. Whta ruined UO was Age of Shadows that turned UO into a WoW game, yes it was not the PK:s that destroyed UO it was making UO a themepark game. Pk:s living under statloss was a minor problem cause they were very few cause these harsh penalties.

     

    No I don't know you, but neither do you know me and yet you keep flinging that carebear name around. Trammel cleared Felucca from all the sheep and only the wolves were left. It was a graveyard compared to what it was pre-trammel. I'm glad that you could still find your enjoyment there, against other players who were also prepared to PvP. I know a ton of people who were absolutely pissed by the fact their easy prey was gone.

    I also agree that Age of Shadows destroyed UO. PK's did not destroy UO, but I'm willing to bet they would have, eventually, if Trammel was not introduced. Guess we will never know for sure, but I think the numbers speak for themselves. How many successfull FFA full loot games have we got since UO?

     

    Carebear is a good name for all PvE players.

    You called me a carebear without knowing me nor my playstyle, huge difference, you made it personal.

    I played felluca after trammel and it was nothing like a graveyard, it was more populated then before trammel, I was there.  Were you there? 

    That felucca was so unpopulated after trammel is a common lie carebears uses to point finger on how unsuccessful UO was during the non-consensual era and that trammel saved the game. Trammel didnt destroy anything in felucca, the Europe server was more populated then ever and it was actually the best time i had in UO. 

    My guild were fighting similar players in chaos/order/factions or we killed PK:s. We often helped new players out when we had the time since we knew that would be good for the game in the long run. So you see i were never the griefing asshole so many carebears fear getting into their game. I really despise the kind of players that seek out the weak, it only make themself weak. We gave them some playerjustice and often it worked very well when they realized there is some better players arround that wont accept my griefing playstyle.

    Playerjustice is better then doing it like SotA are doing it. Consensual PvP will remove alot of potential players from the game.

    I never saw PK:s as a hard problem after statloss was introduced. They could have made the penalties even worse but instead developers chickened out and created trammel and a split population.

  • Aragon100Aragon100 OsloPosts: 2,224Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by charlizd

    So what exactly is the problem here? because the game is not catering to the OP's needs it needs to have a pointless thread stating it is carebear because again it is not catering to there needs? People who have backed this game know what they are backing and if they don't then they need to learn to read.

    Personally i think SC is doing so well not because it has some risk to PvP but because it is a damn nice looking game, it will have it's crowd of ppl who like it just like SotA.

    Again tho i am unsure what the goal of this thread is, is it to try and derail ppl for wanting to play it? is it to try and enlighten peopl eot the fact that it is not a FFA PVP game? what is the point. If people want to know what it is about i am sure they can get off there fat asses and go check for themselves without the OP seemingly just trolling the game.

    Very little were known about the PvP during kickstarter. Non-consensual PvP for example were mentioned. I believed that PvP would be close to UO when i read up on the game during kickstarter.

    Today that is out of the question and reason for that is carebears over at SotA forums jump every PvP thread and want to make consequences less harsh, playerskill less demanding, no full loot and on and on and on. No risk vs reward.

    Since PvP isnt set in stone many will try to influence developers to create a game that fit them like a glove.

    That is what is happening with SotA, it is going more and more carebear as i see it. PvP will most likely be a carebear version of PvP. If im wrong then i gladly take back the carebear status i have given the game.

    Here is a thread where carebear players do their best to influence developers not to give the hardcore PvP players what they want even though they already have their gamestyle in the game secured -

    https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-glass-is-half-empty-a-look-inside-why-people-are-opposed-to-open-pvp-and-full-loot.3140/page-12

     

  • InsaneMembraneInsaneMembrane SydneyPosts: 130Member
    Originally posted by Aragon100
    Originally posted by charlizd

    So what exactly is the problem here? because the game is not catering to the OP's needs it needs to have a pointless thread stating it is carebear because again it is not catering to there needs? People who have backed this game know what they are backing and if they don't then they need to learn to read.

    Personally i think SC is doing so well not because it has some risk to PvP but because it is a damn nice looking game, it will have it's crowd of ppl who like it just like SotA.

    Again tho i am unsure what the goal of this thread is, is it to try and derail ppl for wanting to play it? is it to try and enlighten peopl eot the fact that it is not a FFA PVP game? what is the point. If people want to know what it is about i am sure they can get off there fat asses and go check for themselves without the OP seemingly just trolling the game.

    Very little were known about the PvP during kickstarter. Non-consensual PvP for example were mentioned. I believed that PvP would be close to UO when i read up on the game during kickstarter.

    Today that is out of the question and reason for that is carebears over at SotA forums jump every PvP thread and want to make consequences less harsh, playerskill less demanding, no full loot and on and on and on. No risk vs reward.

    Since PvP isnt set in stone many will try to influence developers to create a game that fit them like a glove.

    That is what is happening with SotA, it is going more and more carebear as i see it. PvP will most likely be a carebear version of PvP. If im wrong then i gladly take back the carebear status i have given the game.

    Here is a thread where carebear players do their best to influence developers not to give the hardcore PvP players what they want even though they already have their gamestyle in the game secured -

    https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/the-glass-is-half-empty-a-look-inside-why-people-are-opposed-to-open-pvp-and-full-loot.3140/page-12

     

     

    Yeah, you should go back and read that thread now also. It has already cleared up some of what you are speaking of. The person who you quoted before has actually said that when people use The magicpvpsliderbarthingy(tm) to get PvP then they should be ready for the harsh results.

    You have to remember, not everyone has the free time or the will to deal with a high volume of forum posting. Things can be lost in translation as well, as with MagiK's post being taken out of context.

    More of the PvP players there are understanding of the effects of PvP after using the The magicpvpsliderbarthingy(tm) to initiate the PvP than you think. 

    Though, I still dont know why you just don't post over there, rather than bringing all your SotA issues here. It isnt going to help here, go over to that thread and post your ideas / concerns man. Unless you already are, I dont knwo what your SotA nick is. CaptainJackSparrow?

     

  • ZajjarZajjar København NPosts: 54Member

    There is an awful stink of carebears in here...

     

    We try so hard to incorporate reallife and realism into mmorpgs, yet, the thing the entire earth is evolving around is PVP.

    I praise the day, we get an adventure mmo, where u claim what u kill. God would that game put ppl on their nerves and yet, excite them all. Atleast u can ressurect in a game.

  • TiamatRoarTiamatRoar Potomac, MDPosts: 1,015Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Zajjar

    We try so hard to incorporate reallife and realism into mmorpgs, yet, the thing the entire earth is evolving around is PVP.

    I praise the day, we get an adventure mmo, where u claim what u kill.

    Incorporate real life and the entire earth is evolving around PvP, and claiming what you kill is realistic? I dunno, I haven't PVP'd a person in real life in like, 16 years, so I wouldn't say my real life revolves around real PvP.  And certainly I never killed anyone in real life, either.  I hear you can go to jail for life or worse for that sort of thing.

«13456
Sign In or Register to comment.