I am happy you found a game you enjoy but after looking at this game, the pay for advantage is high enough to turn me away. Good luck in your game play!
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
Pay to win, Pay to advance, blah blah blah. If a game isn't Pay to play only, it's generally pay to win or something very similar. The only games that aren't Pay to win are usually PvE focused games which have zero competitive atmosphere. So, the question is, does SoTA have a competitive atmosphere? Does it have PvP? If so, than anything that gives one player an advantage over another via the cash shop, IS PAY TO WIN.
Nah, there is also pay4looks and pay4convinience. The first is just skins, the second charges for stuff like more bankspace and inventory space.
Anything with any effect on combat no matter how small is pay2win, but there are B2P and F2P games without that. I am not sure about SotA since I havn't played it myself, but I do have heard a lot of people saying it is pay2win.
Does sound good when OP describes it. I like RNG and combat, skills systems as described sound good too. It does sound rather on the p2w side of the tipping point, judging from the info presented by everyone here. How much that interfere with the game is impossible to tell without seeing the "final" version of it. But.. The demo/open beta or whatever it was I tried failed to trigger any curiosity in me to dig deeper. There were no presentation of interesting or well designed concepts or mechanics to wake my interest, and further dulled out by the usual story driven linear "do this, now do that". If there it is a hidden gem, they really really need to work on showing it better the first 4 hours. And not sure what to think about the frequent telethon funding.. it is not my money but.. it feels like the input is producing very little output value.
Aragon, a house is not a win. as well the backers like myself who kickstarted this game did this so that we could being this game to market so others could play. Does it give us an advantage to own a house? not really. A house does not have a function other then storage. and the money spend to get it was to pay for the development and the servers etc. In little over a year I have earned, traded and gained through gameplay. Sure I have spent some money to get a nice looking lamp, as well to get some nicer pavers then what I could craft. but that is all just fluff. it doesn't impact the PVE stuff or the PVP.
So you pay real life currency for a house that gives you extra storage?
Having a house make it easier to be a crafter. Also easier since the whales have their houses in hot spots so they will become really rich. Whales also got to pick houses before the average Joe since they pledged more money.
But the game is pay to win. Even the devs say it's pay to win. The game has so much pay to win that the entire EULA is being redone to allow everything to be RMT. So you can go and buy everything for real money and win.
But that's not the original pay to win, that's just to get around all the time sinks. The gold sinks have real pay to win in the cash shops. Buy a tax free deed, now you don't have to pay taxes. That's pay to win. You can also buy a commission free vendor so you never have to pay fee for selling anything and that's another huge pay to win benefit. But wait, that's not all. You know that $100 sword you bought in RMT? You can go to the cash shop and buy premium currency called COTO and use that to fully repair your sword to max durability, so that's another way for pay to win to happen.
Really glad to hear you like the game and think it's a sleeper hit. Enjoy it while it's around but don't spread misinformation. The game has so much pay to win it leaves people feeling dirty.
As to all the other people check out the game its Free to play and make your own opinion and then take a look back here at the forums and you will see where misinformation is lol,
Misinformation already started at kickstarter when Richard Garriott promised that Shroud of the Avatar was the "spiritual successor to Ultima Online".
That way he got alot of pledges from old UO players that have been looking forward to the next UO.
He lied. He made a promise that was not accurate. In kickstarter there was no decision made how PvP would turn out and that was convenient for Garriott since no old PvP player from old UO would have pledged if they then knew how PvP would turn out to be.
How many of the old UO PvP players that pledged for this game are still arround on your forum? You can count them on 1 hand or worse not one.
I was there and was called Ara on the SotA forum and i made suggestions how PvP should turn out, so did many other old UO PvP players. Were they listened to - no. Developers listened to the one's that made the highest pledges.
Even though the majority wanted more risk vs reward in the game with full loot and consequences developers decided to not listen. That was strange since developers had promised to listen to their community.
What was pretty obvious after a while was that developers listened to the hi pledgers.
Here is a thread i started where i asked Garriott about this and how disapointed i was with him and the other developers -
I have to ask you, what similarities do Shroud of the Avatar PvP have with that old Ultima Online game when it comes to PvP?
Do SotA have risk vs reward in PvP? What we know so far it dont.
Do SotA have consequences in PvP? It have insurance that give the winning player some gold, no gear loot whatsoever if the looser have gold in his bank.
Do SotA have a skill based combat system as old UO had? What we know so far is that SotA have a random and luckbased cardgame as combat system which is nothing remotely close to that old UO game that had the so far most skill based combat system seen in any MMORPG.
Why are there no similarities with SotA and that old UO game when it comes to PvP if this is the spiritual successor to that old UO game?
My problem with you telling us old UO veterans that this will be the spiritual successor to UO is that you lied to us. Shroud of the Avatar is more like WoW when it comes to PvP, it is no spiritual successor to UO when it comes to PvP. No full loot and no risk vs reward and no consequences. It would have been better if you would have informed us old UO PvP veterans at kickstarter level that Shroud of Avatar PvP will be more of a WoW PvP game then a spiritual successor to that old UO game. I must say i am very disaponted at you.
I pledged for your game on your promise and i feel you tricked me. Dont worry though i wont go for a reclaim of my pledge, so you can keep my money but i want you to remember the way you managed to get it.
And why didnt you inform all of us old UO PvP veterans at kickstarter time how the PvP will turn out? That would have been fair towards all that feel like me today. Saying it will be the spiritual successor to UO gave alot of us hope that we will play that old UO game again. Saying that it will be the spiritual successor to UO at kickstarter and very little about how exactly PvP will turn out in SotA must have given you alot of pledges from those old UO veterans. Sad you broke your promise though, well you broke the promise it would be a spiritual successor to UO PvP that many of us hoped it would be.
Can you explain to us old UO PvP veterans what we have to look forward to when it comes to PvP? What similarities are there btw SotA and UO PvP?
Originally posted by Maribu Originally posted by Aragon100 Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard How awful, griefers won't be playing this game... you know, the less than 1% of gamers who only play games where they can ruin other player's day. SotA is DOOMED, it only has the 99% remaining player base as potential customer...I think Richard is just fine, and he has actually shown that he learned from past mistakes and understood why Trammel had to be added to UO for the game to survive.
Aragon100 -
Really? That's why their is an uproar over at SotA forums where old UO PvP players feel they hane been betrayed. Developers gave the game to the PvE players and every suggestion the PvP crowd had was sidestepped by developers. I suggest you inform yourself. And you claiming it is only griefers complaining is laughable at best.
SotA have lost loads of hardcore PvP players. Why should they play a game that only take interest in PvE players or casual PvP players? - end quote
Maribu -
Really? I don't see any uproar over there. What I see is the majority of pvp players willing to give the system a chance, and a very small group of whiners throwing a tantrum because they saw what they wanted to see rather than what was actually said.
There will be pvp in the game, it will be open pvp but only with those who also want it, and with the sorting system, you will hardly ever see the people who have opted out of pvp. Is that the problem? This attitude reminds me so much of all the whining that went on from those who were griefers (not the rational pvpers), after all their "victims' moved to Trammel. - end quote
You wish, I have seen loads of old forum followers disappearing when the PvP system was revealed. So the ones you see today over there is mainly casual PvP players, the old UO players have left the game in disapointment and dont interact anymore. They have given up on the game.
This will be very much revealed when the game goes live and everyone ask where are all the players?
Originally posted by Maribu Originally posted by Aragon100 Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard How awful, griefers won't be playing this game... you know, the less than 1% of gamers who only play games where they can ruin other player's day. SotA is DOOMED, it only has the 99% remaining player base as potential customer...I think Richard is just fine, and he has actually shown that he learned from past mistakes and understood why Trammel had to be added to UO for the game to survive.
Aragon100 -
Really? That's why their is an uproar over at SotA forums where old UO PvP players feel they hane been betrayed. Developers gave the game to the PvE players and every suggestion the PvP crowd had was sidestepped by developers. I suggest you inform yourself. And you claiming it is only griefers complaining is laughable at best.
SotA have lost loads of hardcore PvP players. Why should they play a game that only take interest in PvE players or casual PvP players? - end quote
Maribu -
Really? I don't see any uproar over there. What I see is the majority of pvp players willing to give the system a chance, and a very small group of whiners throwing a tantrum because they saw what they wanted to see rather than what was actually said.
There will be pvp in the game, it will be open pvp but only with those who also want it, and with the sorting system, you will hardly ever see the people who have opted out of pvp. Is that the problem? This attitude reminds me so much of all the whining that went on from those who were griefers (not the rational pvpers), after all their "victims' moved to Trammel. - end quote
You wish, I have seen loads of old forum followers disappearing when the PvP system was revealed. So the ones you see today over there is mainly casual PvP players, the old UO players have left the game in disapointment and dont interact anymore. They have given up on the game.
This will be very much revealed when the game goes live and everyone ask where are all the players?
If anyone has been following the game and the Q&A sessions, and Dev talks, telethons they will know that the core PVP stuff is not in yet and will be implemented in Chapter 2. They put a basic system in place that allows flagging on / off via oracle, they put a random ransom system in place which is controlled but the Oracle where it picks loot at random and if the person who failed cant pay they loose it.
Darkstar is commited to bringing in more system for PVP, the few zones that are PVP they plan to make them places that even non pvp people will want to go by having specific materials and things in those zones. as well they have the castle siege system coming which sounds like it could be similar to DAOC rvr where owning the castle gives a benefit of some sort. With chapter 2 we also have naval combat which is another interesting system which sounds like what other games planned like vanguard which never was completed.
As to UO players being that I played UO, I think that every patch that comes we see more and more UO like stuff. The core of the system is very similar, and I truly believe that the developers do plan to make this the successor. Will it be exactly the same no, as they mentioned there were systems in UO that were never meant to be and they learned from these things to improve on it and or not create some of the issues presented long term in UO.
As to players, I think many underestimate how many are in the game. I do agree many places are empty like player towns and NPC towns. Market places are always busy, dungeons always have people running around in them. I do think instancing has hurt the game this way as most places are solo/group instanced so one never really runs into other parties with the exception of open zones. This alone makes things seem empty as groups are all on their own private adventures.
Only time will tell if the game populations expands fast or not, and if the game shapes up to be a sleeper. Every friend that I have asked to come play is still playing, and enjoying it. so it can't be that bad
I have read things written by others and I am not convinced OP. I do wish you good luck with the game but I won't buy or support it.
Personally I try games myself. Everyone has different ideas on games and different perceptions. the only true way to know if a game is good or not is to try imo. Just like movies, I never listen to critics or rotten To. There are more people that like the game then complainers. Even if one looked at SOTA forums which is moderated you will see a lot of activity from a lot of players some good some bad, but there are far more good then bad.
out side sota if you look at most of the core complaints they are from only a handful of people. Look at Steams SOTA forums. There was a hate thread with lots of people complaining. There was one there that called out that out of half those in the thread didn't even own the game, or have not played it in the last year. they based their whole comments on things that have been fixed. People figure that when they buy into an alpha, or beta that it should be polished and have all the features now. then they write garbage based on that snapshot of the beta.
until the game is completed reviews should be taken lightly as the systems were not even competed, just like the quests there were not in a year ago now there are more quests then I can keep up with. One can't judge a games completeness until release I think its ok thought to request to the devs constructively for changes. This is the first game I have played where as a player I can ask for any idea that pops in my head during a QA and have them comment on it and decide if its something of interest. Its the players that are influencing the systems at this point in time, just like last patch we wanted the combat to be more reactive and we now have it with instant cast blocks, parry etc which now work the way we expect. makes things more about skill then just hitting a button to keep a buff on.
But the game is pay to win. Even the devs say it's pay to win. The game has so much pay to win that the entire EULA is being redone to allow everything to be RMT. So you can go and buy everything for real money and win.
But that's not the original pay to win, that's just to get around all the time sinks. The gold sinks have real pay to win in the cash shops. Buy a tax free deed, now you don't have to pay taxes. That's pay to win. You can also buy a commission free vendor so you never have to pay fee for selling anything and that's another huge pay to win benefit. But wait, that's not all. You know that $100 sword you bought in RMT? You can go to the cash shop and buy premium currency called COTO and use that to fully repair your sword to max durability, so that's another way for pay to win to happen.
Really glad to hear you like the game and think it's a sleeper hit. Enjoy it while it's around but don't spread misinformation. The game has so much pay to win it leaves people feeling dirty.
You're on a very slippery slope here. See, the thing is that you don't describe how the house is "win". The fact I don't have to pay taxes by purchasing this tax-free deed means I get a house. That house is seriously downplayed almost everywhere I could find. So without completely discounting your entire argument, tell people WHY the house is "winning". Where the slippery slope comes in is that if the house acts as storage and that's the only real purpose of it, the we're now saying that extra storage is "winning", but extra storage is something that's long been accepted by the MMORPG community as an acceptable purchase, and there are a host of games that do it.
Secondly, you go on to talk about a $100 sword that someone bought with real money. Ok! Now we're getting somewhere! Maybe you should have led with that. On top of that, you can repair it with real money, so that's another great point. HOWEVER! You should also explain how this RMT Sword either isn't available in the game or isn't attainable through reasonable means. Sames goes for the repair. If I can repair my sword with a reasonable amount of effort to earn money, then it's simply paying for a convenience.
So I think that there are a few opinion pieces that probably need to be filled in before you go around branding others as spreading misinformation. I'm not saying you ARE, but you haven't really given any good examples of how these things you're talking about ARE p2w and why. I mean if I can run a raid and get a much better sword than the $100 RMT sword, that's not p2w, that's like paying for a cosmetic item that's going to sit on the mantle at my walk-in storage unit.
I'm looking forward to some more insight into these mechanics.
The user and all related content has been deleted.
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
In a nutshell, when you are able to explain to me how one player can win over another in a predominantly PvE based game, then we can begin discussing its P2W status.
I can explain it but i won't write a book,you'll have to figure it out on your own if i am not making it clear. Again without going into many examples i'll use just a few that pissed me off with Vanguard.I was liek any legit player going out and working my ass off in the harvesting/crafting aspect.Immediately i saw a ridiculous amount of rares+rare crafts being sold by same players.What i found out is they were buying via RMT,so NO EFFORT,simply use real money then sell them in game before anyone else.
I used a keyword already "BEFORE".markets and game economy are volatile,once a product is flooding the market,value goes WAY down.While legit players are out playing the game legit,trying to sell their wares,cheats can rmt and get way ahead in the game to start already on the next tiers of crafts/bosses whatever has in game value.
CHEATING,example seen in in pretty much EVERY single game but worse when pvp is involved,Healing bots,so multi account,walk around ganking and owning with your heal and or dps bots.
I could go on and on,the scope is HUGE,i would think anyone having played any mmorpg for at least a few months would "get it".I was figuring out hidden cheats in these games in my first few months,even to the point i was one the first to spot rmt activity when they were running level 1 accounts,doing cheap easy quests for gold then deleting and making new accounts ,rinse/repeat.
There is a big world out there in real life and inside games,people need to get out from under that rock and wake up.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
What you are describing is more akin to P2L (pay to lose) than P2W. What those players are doing is cheating themselves from experiencing the enjoyment of achievement in an MMORPG. Which, along with progression, is undoubtedly one of the predominant joys, if not the only goal, of playing an MMORPG.
I don't know about you, but I derive no enjoyment from taking shortcuts and buying my achievements. AFAIC, that is not the definition of winning, it is the definition of losing. When I am made aware that any one player has "bought" his/her achievements, be that by buying armor or convenience, I lose all respect for that player. There is no admiration or respect, in my eyes, for a player who achieves under those circumstances. Any player who engages in this practice in an MMORPG is not achieving, on the contrary, he/she is underachieving.
As far as how it affects that players peers, they are only losing if they allow themselves to allow their game play to be negatively affected by their action. In this regard, you are merely succumbing to your own jealousy and the need to feed your self esteem, or lack thereof, because you allow yourself to feel inferior to the achievement of others, particularly when that achievement has been gained via false achievement and circumstance.
In short, the above dynamic is better defined as P2L, not P2W. For under the above false method of achievement, we all lose because it undermines the achievement of those who gained it through honest hard work, effort and determination rather than the casual and lazy swipe of a credit card.
The only winners are those who gain their achievements through hard work, effort, resiliency and determination. And as long as YOU know that YOU gained your achievement via this method, you should feel proud and fulfilled. As long as you alone know this, you are indeed a "winner" irrespective of any external or surrounding circumstances.
Pay to win, Pay to advance, blah blah blah. If a game isn't Pay to play only, it's generally pay to win or something very similar. The only games that aren't Pay to win are usually PvE focused games which have zero competitive atmosphere. So, the question is, does SoTA have a competitive atmosphere? Does it have PvP? If so, than anything that gives one player an advantage over another via the cash shop, IS PAY TO WIN.
Nah, there is also pay4looks and pay4convinience. The first is just skins, the second charges for stuff like more bankspace and inventory space.
Anything with any effect on combat no matter how small is pay2win, but there are B2P and F2P games without that. I am not sure about SotA since I havn't played it myself, but I do have heard a lot of people saying it is pay2win.
Yours is one of the few more reasonable definitions which properly distinquishes between the terms advantage, convenience, and win.
I care nothing about cosmetics, only concerned about advantage when it intrudes severely into my gameplay and I'm a bit more flexible than most on that last term and definitely rate it on basis of degree.
Perhaps it's because I am willing to pay a bit extra to improve my experience.
I started EVE buying a few billion ISK to make those early ship losses and skill trains less painful. Never had to after that, have only paid sub fees which were a decent amount when I had 6 accounts though I did pay annually.
If I were to play BDO I can easily see myself buying a full complement of gathering pets, that new $50 tent, a few costumes perhaps and paying the sub, but not much more.
I don't worry much about the advantage others have as in most games it rarely impacts my ganeplay. But in all fairness, I don't solo or small group PVP much so I can appeciate how cash shop sales would concern those folks more.
I'v found in every MMO due to my lifestyle, many will have an advantage over me which I will never overcome, because they have more time, skill or cash than I'm willing to spend so what does it really matter?
In this game its not the monetization model at all which keeps me away, nor even the performance complaints as I find many are overly concerned with that as well.
Biggest issues for me is low population and popularity, major reasons I play MMOs is for social opportunities.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Originally posted by Maribu Originally posted by Aragon100 Originally posted by Jean-Luc_Picard How awful, griefers won't be playing this game... you know, the less than 1% of gamers who only play games where they can ruin other player's day. SotA is DOOMED, it only has the 99% remaining player base as potential customer...I think Richard is just fine, and he has actually shown that he learned from past mistakes and understood why Trammel had to be added to UO for the game to survive.
Aragon100 -
Really? That's why their is an uproar over at SotA forums where old UO PvP players feel they hane been betrayed. Developers gave the game to the PvE players and every suggestion the PvP crowd had was sidestepped by developers. I suggest you inform yourself. And you claiming it is only griefers complaining is laughable at best.
SotA have lost loads of hardcore PvP players. Why should they play a game that only take interest in PvE players or casual PvP players? - end quote
Maribu -
Really? I don't see any uproar over there. What I see is the majority of pvp players willing to give the system a chance, and a very small group of whiners throwing a tantrum because they saw what they wanted to see rather than what was actually said.
There will be pvp in the game, it will be open pvp but only with those who also want it, and with the sorting system, you will hardly ever see the people who have opted out of pvp. Is that the problem? This attitude reminds me so much of all the whining that went on from those who were griefers (not the rational pvpers), after all their "victims' moved to Trammel. - end quote
You wish, I have seen loads of old forum followers disappearing when the PvP system was revealed. So the ones you see today over there is mainly casual PvP players, the old UO players have left the game in disapointment and dont interact anymore. They have given up on the game.
This will be very much revealed when the game goes live and everyone ask where are all the players?
As to UO players being that I played UO, I think that every patch that comes we see more and more UO like stuff. The core of the system is very similar, and I truly believe that the developers do plan to make this the successor. Will it be exactly the same no, as they mentioned there were systems in UO that were never meant to be and they learned from these things to improve on it and or not create some of the issues presented long term in UO.
I disagree that the core system is similar. I am here talking about old UO when Richard Garriott was involved in that game since that game is the one that should be compared with today SotA. I played Ultima Online since beta and all the way up to february 2003 when Age of Shadows made UO a WoW game. After that for +10 years on different UO freeshards.
1. House system in UO were not as it is in SotA. In UO you bought your house by collecting ingame money. You placed your house in free spots that were open for everyone.
In SotA you buy your house with real life money and when placing your house the ones that have hi money pledges get to place their house before anyone else.
2. PvP and combat system have no similarities. UO had the so far most player skilled PvP system seen in any MMO, SotA have a card combat system where luck play a difference in the outcome of a 1 vs 1.
Ultima Online had high risk vs reward while SotA have very low. UO had full loot (felluca) and consequences while SotA have no full loot (partial) and just about no consequences.
3. Crafting in UO was way different then SotA crafting. In UO you could not craft anything yourself and were dependent on other player's crafting skills. In SotA you can craft anything yourself and wont be dependent on other crafter's skill.
Developers of SotA claimed they were listening to their community which was a lie. They listened to the PvE players and the hi money pledgers.
There was many polls during the start of SotA forums about how PvP and loot rights in PvP should turn out. The majotity in those polls were in favor of full loot and a PvP and combat system like old UO. Developers did not listen to that part of their community and decided to make a game with low risk vs reward and a combat system the majority of their community disliked - the card combat system.
Here you have some polls from the start of SotA forums that describe how developers ignored the old UO PvP players points -
Most if not all of the old UO players that enjoyed Garriott's UO PvP and combat system have left SotA. A major reason for this is that Garriott lied during kickstarter and that the game turned out to be nothing like the old UO PvP game.
May be the polls might show full loot is liked by some but full loot games are definitely unpopular as a general rule and in trying to make sure their game appeals to more people they may have made that decision to go partial loot PvP.
May be the polls might show full loot is liked by some but full loot games are definitely unpopular as a general rule and in trying to make sure their game appeals to more people they may have made that decision to go partial loot PvP.
He called SotA a spiritual successor to Ultima Online and since Garriott only took part in the old UO with full loot he draw the interest from old UO PvP players that have searched for a new UO for +10 years.
They pledged on his word.
He lied and as seen in the polls developer's didnt listen to their community. They listened to the hi pledger's and the PvE crowd.
Full loot in UO was very popular (i played the game from beta so i know).
As seen in this link UO lost over 150.000 of their community after it became a WoW game february 2003, just about all old PvP player's left the game -
But the game is pay to win. Even the devs say it's pay to win. The game has so much pay to win that the entire EULA is being redone to allow everything to be RMT. So you can go and buy everything for real money and win.
But that's not the original pay to win, that's just to get around all the time sinks. The gold sinks have real pay to win in the cash shops. Buy a tax free deed, now you don't have to pay taxes. That's pay to win. You can also buy a commission free vendor so you never have to pay fee for selling anything and that's another huge pay to win benefit. But wait, that's not all. You know that $100 sword you bought in RMT? You can go to the cash shop and buy premium currency called COTO and use that to fully repair your sword to max durability, so that's another way for pay to win to happen.
Really glad to hear you like the game and think it's a sleeper hit. Enjoy it while it's around but don't spread misinformation. The game has so much pay to win it leaves people feeling dirty.
You're on a very slippery slope here. See, the thing is that you don't describe how the house is "win". The fact I don't have to pay taxes by purchasing this tax-free deed means I get a house. That house is seriously downplayed almost everywhere I could find. So without completely discounting your entire argument, tell people WHY the house is "winning". Where the slippery slope comes in is that if the house acts as storage and that's the only real purpose of it, the we're now saying that extra storage is "winning", but extra storage is something that's long been accepted by the MMORPG community as an acceptable purchase, and there are a host of games that do it.
Secondly, you go on to talk about a $100 sword that someone bought with real money. Ok! Now we're getting somewhere! Maybe you should have led with that. On top of that, you can repair it with real money, so that's another great point. HOWEVER! You should also explain how this RMT Sword either isn't available in the game or isn't attainable through reasonable means. Sames goes for the repair. If I can repair my sword with a reasonable amount of effort to earn money, then it's simply paying for a convenience.
So I think that there are a few opinion pieces that probably need to be filled in before you go around branding others as spreading misinformation. I'm not saying you ARE, but you haven't really given any good examples of how these things you're talking about ARE p2w and why. I mean if I can run a raid and get a much better sword than the $100 RMT sword, that's not p2w, that's like paying for a cosmetic item that's going to sit on the mantle at my walk-in storage unit.
I'm looking forward to some more insight into these mechanics.
the house part you are right, I suppose if there is a cost for storage which this is in game then owning a house is technically unlimited storage. Tax free deeds are only on the addon store and or through players sell theirs in game. That's said yeah having a tax free is for sure going to save a lot of gold for a player. So I agree on that one although a house really isn't needed to play, and as I mentioned there are plenty of people that own houses that offer free rooms, houses etc. as well some that do charge rent for places like myself I rent my place and only use some of the space.
As to swords its easy to attain the player goods, prices vary , some charge ridiculous coin others like myself charge reasonable amounts that people can afford. Some guilds as well just outfit their guild mates so they don't have to buy anything
all I am saying is there is no real win in paying for anything in the game with the exception of saving a little time. the game is all player trade as all the best items are made by players. crafters pay a lot for resources which non crafter types make their money with for the most part. there are Player Market forums, Market websites, discord market etc for setting up shops and advertising. Some markets do sell items for cash but anyone can do that with what they craft, personally I would never pay for character items as they are easy to get cheaper through ingame means.
Everything in game is usable for something, and has a value to another, I will say people with business backgrounds seem to fair better then others for wealth as they tend to spend most their time trading up.
As to the RMT store, they don't sell anything other then skins, décor, house models, basements, etc, but they are all now available in game from the COTO merchants, which as someone said you can buy that currently on the RTM store, but as I said buying from player markets is cheaper then on the RTM store but more then 50% so id rather spend my in game gold buying in game then pay cash with interest in order to get something that is fluff.
Bundles on the other hand which is where the current taxfree stuff comes from does give those a little bit of a saving on that, but the rest is same all fluff.
1. House system in UO were not as it is in SotA. In UO you bought your house by collecting ingame money. You placed your house in free spots that were open for everyone.
In SotA you buy your house with in game gold, COTO's, or money, and or trade for one. Only the original backers got first access to NPC towns which are not prime markets anymore and are not as busy as the POT markets. This is one misconception people have. Owls head which was a prime spot at once point is now an over priced market that is dying. Novia Market one example is new and has more business then any of the markets in game. its player owned town and it was first come first served to get a spot. All houses have timers on them, and if one cant pay or in some player towns if people have empty vendors they are evicted. Then next person that grabs it or notify the local Gov. aquires it. OM, nbtm and many other markets opened up which are better then any NPC towns. the only benefit to an NPC town is access to certain npc venders (seed vendor, trainers) That is all. Is that a win, certainly not there Player towns are less then a few feet from these towns and can enter them and buy and leave.
2. PvP and combat system have no similarities. UO had the so far most player skilled PvP system seen in any MMO, SotA have a card combat system where luck play a difference in the outcome of a 1 vs 1. Ultima Online had high risk vs reward while SotA have very low. UO had full loot (felluca) and consequences while SotA have no full loot (partial) and just about no consequences.
Sota does have a card system with luck, it also have locked glyph system for people like me that don't play luck, it also allows a mix. so you can play just like UO if you like with locked glyphs. the only thing you loose with full locked is the combos which the perk to using the unlocked. The perk for locked is that you can charge up your skills and unleash more powerful ones. So its up the player on how they want to play or mix their skill decks. you also have the ability to swap decks and lock armor / weapons to a deck. that means if I am a mage and loosing a fight I can use quick swap and become a tank in a few seconds which is a great feature.
As to pvp loot, yes SOTA had the higher risks, but that also lead to bounty exploits which was a get rich scheme for some guilds. SOTA has the oracle which randomly picks items form inventory and sets the bounty cost to get them back. There is a timer for a player to pay the bounty or they loose the items. that is a different system no disputing that. On the other end if you watched any of the recent QA's the PVP systems are incomplete and not fully implemented and wont be this chapter. They have a slew of things form PVP castle sieges and remaking the PVP areas to draw more people into them for rare resources etc that canbe only found in these zones. as well capture the flag and more for pvp player towns.
3. Crafting in UO was way different then SotA crafting. In UO you could not craft anything yourself and were dependent on other player's crafting skills. In SotA you can craft anything yourself and wont be dependent on other crafter's skill.
You are correct, in SOTA you could try and master all the crafting schools but it would take you a life time to master them all. because of how the XP pool works its very hard to do more then 2-3 skills to master GM level. and that is only to level 100 of 200. to get to 200 you will pretty much have to only focus on 1 crafting tree or it will be forever trying to get there because of the XP requirements. that is not to say if you played 24h a day and have unlimited resources and XP pool you could not achieve it in 10 years lol. but you will always have to go out to gain enough xp to keep feeding your pool gathering as there is no methods to keep the pool full just crafting. the input xP is more then the xp you get from making.
The other side to this as mentioned in the Dev QA for both crafting and skills is that they attunement system in upcoming patch will make it more valuable for people to focus on only 1-2 skills sets in each. they have not given anymore details other then this is to make healers and other classes more required then an all in one master of none.
I do agree on what you are saying about UO PVPers and some of their arguments, only time will tell when Darkstarr rolls out the PVP systems in the next chapter will determine if they win them back.
as to the links those were from 2015 when they first rolled out the deck its all changed twice since then, and the new system with reactive counters is way better
1. House system in UO were not as it is in SotA. In UO you bought your house by collecting ingame money. You placed your house in free spots that were open for everyone.
In SotA you buy your house with in game gold, COTO's, or money, and or trade for one. Only the original backers got first access to NPC towns which are not prime markets anymore and are not as busy as the POT markets. This is one misconception people have. Owls head which was a prime spot at once point is now an over priced market that is dying. Novia Market one example is new and has more business then any of the markets in game. its player owned town and it was first come first served to get a spot. All houses have timers on them, and if one cant pay or in some player towns if people have empty vendors they are evicted. Then next person that grabs it or notify the local Gov. aquires it. OM, nbtm and many other markets opened up which are better then any NPC towns. the only benefit to an NPC town is access to certain npc venders (seed vendor, trainers) That is all. Is that a win, certainly not there Player towns are less then a few feet from these towns and can enter them and buy and leave.
You may be right in how SotA house market and hot spots work today. What turned me off was the rule developers decided to use that hi money pledgers got the right to place their houses before anyone else.
A game should always start fair and with fair i mean all that bought the game should have the same right as the other guy to get a house spot he desired and also a size of that house he would deserve depending on his ingame work and not how much real life money he have. That was not how it worked in SotA.
You mentioned earlier that player's could rent room's or basement in existing houses. I have discussed that over at SotA forums and my point was that i would never lower myself to pay rent to someone with more real life money then myself. It is about pride. In a fantasy game i want my own house.
I also payed for the game and if i should play the game then i want to have the same chance by ingame work to get the largest house available at the best spot available. I think developer's and some in the SotA community dont really understand how many people were turned off by the house rule settings and the real life money needed to perform well on the SotA housemarket.
If developers want to keep a high player base they need to move away from as i see it a system where the one's with alot of real life money get special treatment.
I respond to the other one's tomorrow, it is kinda late over here.
Here is a description for the one's that is interested how the house placement rush in SotA worked out -
2. PvP and combat system have no similarities. UO had the so far most player skilled PvP system seen in any MMO, SotA have a card combat system where luck play a difference in the outcome of a 1 vs 1. Ultima Online had high risk vs reward while SotA have very low. UO had full loot (felluca) and consequences while SotA have no full loot (partial) and just about no consequences.
Sota does have a card system with luck, it also have locked glyph system for people like me that don't play luck, it also allows a mix. so you can play just like UO if you like with locked glyphs. the only thing you loose with full locked is the combos which the perk to using the unlocked. The perk for locked is that you can charge up your skills and unleash more powerful ones. So its up the player on how they want to play or mix their skill decks. you also have the ability to swap decks and lock armor / weapons to a deck. that means if I am a mage and loosing a fight I can use quick swap and become a tank in a few seconds which is a great feature.
As to pvp loot, yes UO had the higher risks, but that also lead to bounty exploits which was a get rich scheme for some guilds. SOTA has the oracle which randomly picks items form inventory and sets the bounty cost to get them back. There is a timer for a player to pay the bounty or they loose the items. that is a different system no disputing that. On the other end if you watched any of the recent QA's the PVP systems are incomplete and not fully implemented and wont be this chapter. They have a slew of things form PVP castle sieges and remaking the PVP areas to draw more people into them for rare resources etc that canbe only found in these zones. as well capture the flag and more for pvp player towns.
My problem with combos and the card system is mainly it take away your focus on the action going on. Sure you can have a locked glyph system but it give you disadvantages. It would have been better to go with one system without any cards involved, combos from randomly popped up cards is not needed in a player skilled PvP game and when it also remove your eyes from the action and force you to look down on the cards at the bottom of your screen it pretty much explains itself why it is not popular among PvP players that seek competitive player skill combat.
Disadvantages with cards and combos is well described by Borg in this thread -
Locked Deck = NO COMBOS = INCREASED FOCUS COST = GLOBAL COOL DOWN = UNFAIR
I think the dynamic deck system and randomness is terribly distracting is taking attention out of action.We are playing a combat VIDEO GAME not CARDS, this system is forcing us to constantly look at the bottom of the screen I sincerely don't like that. We are forced to handle two different things at the same time, not to mention the combo system, in my humble opinion nice if we were playing cards but not when you are chasing an opponent. In conclusion I think this system wont appeal PVP players at all. - end quote
In Ultima Online you had to have total focus on what your opponent were doing to counter his actions. You also needed very fast reactions and timing.
The card combat system did remove alot of PvP players from SotA and as i see it was a huge miscalculation from developers and also tell me they had very little experience knowing what the old UO PvP crowd wanted.
Some may think since Garriott was involved in early UO he and SotA developers would know how to make a popular combat system but you need to remember that it was not Richard Garriott that made the UO combat system it was Raph Koster and friends.
I think you mispelled that SotA had the higher risk so i corrected you. UO had the higher risk vs reward. Bounty exploits was a very small problem and used by a few and had no/very little effect on the economy. Most PvP players were involved in Chaos vs Order or factions.
My main problem is that developers did not listen to the majority of the PvP players and instead created a PvP compromise -
- a compromise that was just about the death for all old UO PvP players. With a distance to this developer decision one can now see they made a poor choice and had either very little knowledge of what the outcome of this decision would be or they just cared for the PvE players interest. After this compromise most old UO PvP players left the game and it is the main reason why there is so little PvP today in SotA.
It is interesting to see some of the answers from this thread like first my own -
Ara - Disagree since no or little risk/reward in PvP will take away the interest of taking part in SotA PvP. I as a hardcore PvP player that loved the PvP settings from UO Renaissance (and i can assure you i am not alone here) will never take part if there is no or little PvP rewards like for example the ransom that was suggested. I also believe that SotA PvP will be less successful without risk vs reward in PvP. PvP just for the sake of PvP is not a interesting PvP game, there need to be something to win and something to loose.
So it seem to me developers need to choose which PvP group do they support and want to take part in their game, the hardcore PvP players that love risk vs reward PvP or the ones they want to entice taking part in PvP, the choice is easy as i see it but developers seem with their suggestion (PvP compromice) to be more interesting enticing the casual PvP player with some interest taking partin PvP and the ones that never before tried out PvP.
Another post that i today see as abit amusing is this one -
Owain - If the devs lose @Ara, and gain many other gamers, they will have chosen wisely, right?
Owain - It's a trade off. The devs are betting that this design will attract more players than it loses. If the game is as successful as I expect it to be, they will be sorry to see you go, but will be justified in their choices.
Looking at it from a distance now i can safely say that i was right and Owain was wrong.
Comments
I am happy you found a game you enjoy but after looking at this game, the pay for advantage is high enough to turn me away. Good luck in your game play!
Anything with any effect on combat no matter how small is pay2win, but there are B2P and F2P games without that. I am not sure about SotA since I havn't played it myself, but I do have heard a lot of people saying it is pay2win.
It does sound rather on the p2w side of the tipping point, judging from the info presented by everyone here. How much that interfere with the game is impossible to tell without seeing the "final" version of it.
But.. The demo/open beta or whatever it was I tried failed to trigger any curiosity in me to dig deeper. There were no presentation of interesting or well designed concepts or mechanics to wake my interest, and further dulled out by the usual story driven linear "do this, now do that".
If there it is a hidden gem, they really really need to work on showing it better the first 4 hours.
And not sure what to think about the frequent telethon funding.. it is not my money but.. it feels like the input is producing very little output value.
"I am my connectome" https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HA7GwKXfJB0
That is pay to win.
That way he got alot of pledges from old UO players that have been looking forward to the next UO.
He lied. He made a promise that was not accurate. In kickstarter there was no decision made how PvP would turn out and that was convenient for Garriott since no old PvP player from old UO would have pledged if they then knew how PvP would turn out to be.
How many of the old UO PvP players that pledged for this game are still arround on your forum? You can count them on 1 hand or worse not one.
I was there and was called Ara on the SotA forum and i made suggestions how PvP should turn out, so did many other old UO PvP players. Were they listened to - no. Developers listened to the one's that made the highest pledges.
Even though the majority wanted more risk vs reward in the game with full loot and consequences developers decided to not listen. That was strange since developers had promised to listen to their community.
What was pretty obvious after a while was that developers listened to the hi pledgers.
Here is a thread i started where i asked Garriott about this and how disapointed i was with him and the other developers -
https://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/408967/so-richard-garriott/p1
You told us UO PvP veterans that Shroud of the Avatar was the spiritual successor to Ultima Online.
http://i.imgur.com/e5BgsFm.png
I have to ask you, what similarities do Shroud of the Avatar PvP have with that old Ultima Online game when it comes to PvP?
Do SotA have risk vs reward in PvP? What we know so far it dont.
Do SotA have consequences in PvP? It have insurance that give the winning player some gold, no gear loot whatsoever if the looser have gold in his bank.
Do SotA have a skill based combat system as old UO had? What we know so far is that SotA have a random and luckbased cardgame as combat system which is nothing remotely close to that old UO game that had the so far most skill based combat system seen in any MMORPG.
Why are there no similarities with SotA and that old UO game when it comes to PvP if this is the spiritual successor to that old UO game?
My problem with you telling us old UO veterans that this will be the spiritual successor to UO is that you lied to us. Shroud of the Avatar is more like WoW when it comes to PvP, it is no spiritual successor to UO when it comes to PvP. No full loot and no risk vs reward and no consequences. It would have been better if you would have informed us old UO PvP veterans at kickstarter level that Shroud of Avatar PvP will be more of a WoW PvP game then a spiritual successor to that old UO game. I must say i am very disaponted at you.
I pledged for your game on your promise and i feel you tricked me. Dont worry though i wont go for a reclaim of my pledge, so you can keep my money but i want you to remember the way you managed to get it.
And why didnt you inform all of us old UO PvP veterans at kickstarter time how the PvP will turn out? That would have been fair towards all that feel like me today. Saying it will be the spiritual successor to UO gave alot of us hope that we will play that old UO game again. Saying that it will be the spiritual successor to UO at kickstarter and very little about how exactly PvP will turn out in SotA must have given you alot of pledges from those old UO veterans. Sad you broke your promise though, well you broke the promise it would be a spiritual successor to UO PvP that many of us hoped it would be.
Can you explain to us old UO PvP veterans what we have to look forward to when it comes to PvP? What similarities are there btw SotA and UO PvP?
Read more at https://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/408967/so-richard-garriott#wlszcueFdlIVcibv.99
https://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/408967/so-richard-garriott/p2
Aragon100 -
Really? That's why their is an uproar over at SotA forums where old UO PvP players feel they hane been betrayed. Developers gave the game to the PvE players and every suggestion the PvP crowd had was sidestepped by developers. I suggest you inform yourself. And you claiming it is only griefers complaining is laughable at best.
SotA have lost loads of hardcore PvP players. Why should they play a game that only take interest in PvE players or casual PvP players? - end quote
Maribu -
Really? I don't see any uproar over there. What I see is the majority of pvp players willing to give the system a chance, and a very small group of whiners throwing a tantrum because they saw what they wanted to see rather than what was actually said.
There will be pvp in the game, it will be open pvp but only with those who also want it, and with the sorting system, you will hardly ever see the people who have opted out of pvp. Is that the problem? This attitude reminds me so much of all the whining that went on from those who were griefers (not the rational pvpers), after all their "victims' moved to Trammel. - end quote
You wish, I have seen loads of old forum followers disappearing when the PvP system was revealed. So the ones you see today over there is mainly casual PvP players, the old UO players have left the game in disapointment and dont interact anymore. They have given up on the game.
This will be very much revealed when the game goes live and everyone ask where are all the players?
The only real feeling I came away with was that I should reinstall EQ and give it a run. Maybe not the correct nostalgia, but still nostalgia.
Personally I try games myself. Everyone has different ideas on games and different perceptions. the only true way to know if a game is good or not is to try imo. Just like movies, I never listen to critics or rotten To. There are more people that like the game then complainers. Even if one looked at SOTA forums which is moderated you will see a lot of activity from a lot of players some good some bad, but there are far more good then bad.
out side sota if you look at most of the core complaints they are from only a handful of people. Look at Steams SOTA forums. There was a hate thread with lots of people complaining. There was one there that called out that out of half those in the thread didn't even own the game, or have not played it in the last year. they based their whole comments on things that have been fixed. People figure that when they buy into an alpha, or beta that it should be polished and have all the features now. then they write garbage based on that snapshot of the beta.
until the game is completed reviews should be taken lightly as the systems were not even competed, just like the quests there were not in a year ago now there are more quests then I can keep up with. One can't judge a games completeness until release
You're on a very slippery slope here. See, the thing is that you don't describe how the house is "win". The fact I don't have to pay taxes by purchasing this tax-free deed means I get a house. That house is seriously downplayed almost everywhere I could find. So without completely discounting your entire argument, tell people WHY the house is "winning". Where the slippery slope comes in is that if the house acts as storage and that's the only real purpose of it, the we're now saying that extra storage is "winning", but extra storage is something that's long been accepted by the MMORPG community as an acceptable purchase, and there are a host of games that do it.
Secondly, you go on to talk about a $100 sword that someone bought with real money. Ok! Now we're getting somewhere! Maybe you should have led with that. On top of that, you can repair it with real money, so that's another great point. HOWEVER! You should also explain how this RMT Sword either isn't available in the game or isn't attainable through reasonable means. Sames goes for the repair. If I can repair my sword with a reasonable amount of effort to earn money, then it's simply paying for a convenience.
So I think that there are a few opinion pieces that probably need to be filled in before you go around branding others as spreading misinformation. I'm not saying you ARE, but you haven't really given any good examples of how these things you're talking about ARE p2w and why. I mean if I can run a raid and get a much better sword than the $100 RMT sword, that's not p2w, that's like paying for a cosmetic item that's going to sit on the mantle at my walk-in storage unit.
I'm looking forward to some more insight into these mechanics.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
Somebody, somewhere has better skills as you have, more experience as you have, is smarter than you, has more friends as you do and can stay online longer. Just pray he's not out to get you.
In a nutshell, when you are able to explain to me how one player can win over another in a predominantly PvE based game, then we can begin discussing its P2W status.
Again without going into many examples i'll use just a few that pissed me off with Vanguard.I was liek any legit player going out and working my ass off in the harvesting/crafting aspect.Immediately i saw a ridiculous amount of rares+rare crafts being sold by same players.What i found out is they were buying via RMT,so NO EFFORT,simply use real money then sell them in game before anyone else.
I used a keyword already "BEFORE".markets and game economy are volatile,once a product is flooding the market,value goes WAY down.While legit players are out playing the game legit,trying to sell their wares,cheats can rmt and get way ahead in the game to start already on the next tiers of crafts/bosses whatever has in game value.
CHEATING,example seen in in pretty much EVERY single game but worse when pvp is involved,Healing bots,so multi account,walk around ganking and owning with your heal and or dps bots.
I could go on and on,the scope is HUGE,i would think anyone having played any mmorpg for at least a few months would "get it".I was figuring out hidden cheats in these games in my first few months,even to the point i was one the first to spot rmt activity when they were running level 1 accounts,doing cheap easy quests for gold then deleting and making new accounts ,rinse/repeat.
There is a big world out there in real life and inside games,people need to get out from under that rock and wake up.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
What you are describing is more akin to P2L (pay to lose) than P2W. What those players are doing is cheating themselves from experiencing the enjoyment of achievement in an MMORPG. Which, along with progression, is undoubtedly one of the predominant joys, if not the only goal, of playing an MMORPG.
I don't know about you, but I derive no enjoyment from taking shortcuts and buying my achievements. AFAIC, that is not the definition of winning, it is the definition of losing. When I am made aware that any one player has "bought" his/her achievements, be that by buying armor or convenience, I lose all respect for that player. There is no admiration or respect, in my eyes, for a player who achieves under those circumstances. Any player who engages in this practice in an MMORPG is not achieving, on the contrary, he/she is underachieving.
As far as how it affects that players peers, they are only losing if they allow themselves to allow their game play to be negatively affected by their action. In this regard, you are merely succumbing to your own jealousy and the need to feed your self esteem, or lack thereof, because you allow yourself to feel inferior to the achievement of others, particularly when that achievement has been gained via false achievement and circumstance.
In short, the above dynamic is better defined as P2L, not P2W. For under the above false method of achievement, we all lose because it undermines the achievement of those who gained it through honest hard work, effort and determination rather than the casual and lazy swipe of a credit card.
The only winners are those who gain their achievements through hard work, effort, resiliency and determination. And as long as YOU know that YOU gained your achievement via this method, you should feel proud and fulfilled. As long as you alone know this, you are indeed a "winner" irrespective of any external or surrounding circumstances.
I care nothing about cosmetics, only concerned about advantage when it intrudes severely into my gameplay and I'm a bit more flexible than most on that last term and definitely rate it on basis of degree.
Perhaps it's because I am willing to pay a bit extra to improve my experience.
I started EVE buying a few billion ISK to make those early ship losses and skill trains less painful. Never had to after that, have only paid sub fees which were a decent amount when I had 6 accounts though I did pay annually.
If I were to play BDO I can easily see myself buying a full complement of gathering pets, that new $50 tent, a few costumes perhaps and paying the sub, but not much more.
I don't worry much about the advantage others have as in most games it rarely impacts my ganeplay. But in all fairness, I don't solo or small group PVP much so I can appeciate how cash shop sales would concern those folks more.
I'v found in every MMO due to my lifestyle, many will have an advantage over me which I will never overcome, because they have more time, skill or cash than I'm willing to spend so what does it really matter?
In this game its not the monetization model at all which keeps me away, nor even the performance complaints as I find many are overly concerned with that as well.
Biggest issues for me is low population and popularity, major reasons I play MMOs is for social opportunities.
Not sure about the card combat system either...
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
They pledged on his word.
He lied and as seen in the polls developer's didnt listen to their community. They listened to the hi pledger's and the PvE crowd.
Full loot in UO was very popular (i played the game from beta so i know).
As seen in this link UO lost over 150.000 of their community after it became a WoW game february 2003, just about all old PvP player's left the game -
http://users.telenet.be/mmodata/Charts/Subs-2.png
After trammel old UO was a consensual PvP game since the one's not wanted full loot PvP stayed in trammel.
How full loot in other games worked or is popular or not isnt interesting in this discussion.
As to swords its easy to attain the player goods, prices vary , some charge ridiculous coin others like myself charge reasonable amounts that people can afford. Some guilds as well just outfit their guild mates so they don't have to buy anything
all I am saying is there is no real win in paying for anything in the game with the exception of saving a little time. the game is all player trade as all the best items are made by players. crafters pay a lot for resources which non crafter types make their money with for the most part. there are Player Market forums, Market websites, discord market etc for setting up shops and advertising. Some markets do sell items for cash but anyone can do that with what they craft, personally I would never pay for character items as they are easy to get cheaper through ingame means.
Everything in game is usable for something, and has a value to another, I will say people with business backgrounds seem to fair better then others for wealth as they tend to spend most their time trading up.
As to the RMT store, they don't sell anything other then skins, décor, house models, basements, etc, but they are all now available in game from the COTO merchants, which as someone said you can buy that currently on the RTM store, but as I said buying from player markets is cheaper then on the RTM store but more then 50% so id rather spend my in game gold buying in game then pay cash with interest in order to get something that is fluff.
Bundles on the other hand which is where the current taxfree stuff comes from does give those a little bit of a saving on that, but the rest is same all fluff.
1. House system in UO were not as it is in SotA. In UO you bought your house by collecting ingame money. You placed your house in free spots that were open for everyone.
In SotA you buy your house with in game gold, COTO's, or money, and or trade for one. Only the original backers got first access to NPC towns which are not prime markets anymore and are not as busy as the POT markets. This is one misconception people have. Owls head which was a prime spot at once point is now an over priced market that is dying. Novia Market one example is new and has more business then any of the markets in game. its player owned town and it was first come first served to get a spot. All houses have timers on them, and if one cant pay or in some player towns if people have empty vendors they are evicted. Then next person that grabs it or notify the local Gov. aquires it. OM, nbtm and many other markets opened up which are better then any NPC towns. the only benefit to an NPC town is access to certain npc venders (seed vendor, trainers) That is all. Is that a win, certainly not there Player towns are less then a few feet from these towns and can enter them and buy and leave.
2. PvP and combat system have no similarities. UO had the so far most player skilled PvP system seen in any MMO, SotA have a card combat system where luck play a difference in the outcome of a 1 vs 1. Ultima Online had high risk vs reward while SotA have very low. UO had full loot (felluca) and consequences while SotA have no full loot (partial) and just about no consequences.
Sota does have a card system with luck, it also have locked glyph system for people like me that don't play luck, it also allows a mix. so you can play just like UO if you like with locked glyphs. the only thing you loose with full locked is the combos which the perk to using the unlocked. The perk for locked is that you can charge up your skills and unleash more powerful ones. So its up the player on how they want to play or mix their skill decks. you also have the ability to swap decks and lock armor / weapons to a deck. that means if I am a mage and loosing a fight I can use quick swap and become a tank in a few seconds which is a great feature.
As to pvp loot, yes SOTA had the higher risks, but that also lead to bounty exploits which was a get rich scheme for some guilds. SOTA has the oracle which randomly picks items form inventory and sets the bounty cost to get them back. There is a timer for a player to pay the bounty or they loose the items. that is a different system no disputing that. On the other end if you watched any of the recent QA's the PVP systems are incomplete and not fully implemented and wont be this chapter. They have a slew of things form PVP castle sieges and remaking the PVP areas to draw more people into them for rare resources etc that canbe only found in these zones. as well capture the flag and more for pvp player towns.
3. Crafting in UO was way different then SotA crafting. In UO you could not craft anything yourself and were dependent on other player's crafting skills. In SotA you can craft anything yourself and wont be dependent on other crafter's skill.
You are correct, in SOTA you could try and master all the crafting schools but it would take you a life time to master them all. because of how the XP pool works its very hard to do more then 2-3 skills to master GM level. and that is only to level 100 of 200. to get to 200 you will pretty much have to only focus on 1 crafting tree or it will be forever trying to get there because of the XP requirements. that is not to say if you played 24h a day and have unlimited resources and XP pool you could not achieve it in 10 years lol. but you will always have to go out to gain enough xp to keep feeding your pool gathering as there is no methods to keep the pool full just crafting. the input xP is more then the xp you get from making.
The other side to this as mentioned in the Dev QA for both crafting and skills is that they attunement system in upcoming patch will make it more valuable for people to focus on only 1-2 skills sets in each. they have not given anymore details other then this is to make healers and other classes more required then an all in one master of none.
I do agree on what you are saying about UO PVPers and some of their arguments, only time will tell when Darkstarr rolls out the PVP systems in the next chapter will determine if they win them back.
as to the links those were from 2015 when they first rolled out the deck its all changed twice since then, and the new system with reactive counters is way better
A game should always start fair and with fair i mean all that bought the game should have the same right as the other guy to get a house spot he desired and also a size of that house he would deserve depending on his ingame work and not how much real life money he have. That was not how it worked in SotA.
You mentioned earlier that player's could rent room's or basement in existing houses. I have discussed that over at SotA forums and my point was that i would never lower myself to pay rent to someone with more real life money then myself. It is about pride. In a fantasy game i want my own house.
I also payed for the game and if i should play the game then i want to have the same chance by ingame work to get the largest house available at the best spot available. I think developer's and some in the SotA community dont really understand how many people were turned off by the house rule settings and the real life money needed to perform well on the SotA housemarket.
If developers want to keep a high player base they need to move away from as i see it a system where the one's with alot of real life money get special treatment.
I respond to the other one's tomorrow, it is kinda late over here.
Here is a description for the one's that is interested how the house placement rush in SotA worked out -
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/lot-selection-sequence-process.11466/
Disadvantages with cards and combos is well described by Borg in this thread -
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/combat-system-deck-based-combat-really-bad-idea.15098/#post-247068
quote -
I think the dynamic deck system and randomness is terribly distracting is taking attention out of action.We are playing a combat VIDEO GAME not CARDS, this system is forcing us to constantly look at the bottom of the screen I sincerely don't like that. We are forced to handle two different things at the same time, not to mention the combo system, in my humble opinion nice if we were playing cards but not when you are chasing an opponent. In conclusion I think this system wont appeal PVP players at all. - end quote
In Ultima Online you had to have total focus on what your opponent were doing to counter his actions. You also needed very fast reactions and timing.
The card combat system did remove alot of PvP players from SotA and as i see it was a huge miscalculation from developers and also tell me they had very little experience knowing what the old UO PvP crowd wanted.
Some may think since Garriott was involved in early UO he and SotA developers would know how to make a popular combat system but you need to remember that it was not Richard Garriott that made the UO combat system it was Raph Koster and friends.
I think you mispelled that SotA had the higher risk so i corrected you. UO had the higher risk vs reward. Bounty exploits was a very small problem and used by a few and had no/very little effect on the economy. Most PvP players were involved in Chaos vs Order or factions.
My main problem is that developers did not listen to the majority of the PvP players and instead created a PvP compromise -
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/pvp-death-current-thinking-megapost.8247/
- a compromise that was just about the death for all old UO PvP players. With a distance to this developer decision one can now see they made a poor choice and had either very little knowledge of what the outcome of this decision would be or they just cared for the PvE players interest. After this compromise most old UO PvP players left the game and it is the main reason why there is so little PvP today in SotA.
It is interesting to see some of the answers from this thread like first my own -
Ara - Disagree since no or little risk/reward in PvP will take away the interest of taking part in SotA PvP. I as a hardcore PvP player that loved the PvP settings from UO Renaissance (and i can assure you i am not alone here) will never take part if there is no or little PvP rewards like for example the ransom that was suggested. I also believe that SotA PvP will be less successful without risk vs reward in PvP. PvP just for the sake of PvP is not a interesting PvP game, there need to be something to win and something to loose.
So it seem to me developers need to choose which PvP group do they support and want to take part in their game, the hardcore PvP players that love risk vs reward PvP or the ones they want to entice taking part in PvP, the choice is easy as i see it but developers seem with their suggestion (PvP compromice) to be more interesting enticing the casual PvP player with some interest taking partin PvP and the ones that never before tried out PvP.
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/pvp-death-current-thinking-megapost.8247/page-150#post-214912
Another post that i today see as abit amusing is this one -
Owain - If the devs lose @Ara, and gain many other gamers, they will have chosen wisely, right?
Owain - It's a trade off. The devs are betting that this design will attract more players than it loses. If the game is as successful as I expect it to be, they will be sorry to see you go, but will be justified in their choices.
Looking at it from a distance now i can safely say that i was right and Owain was wrong.
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/pvp-death-current-thinking-megapost.8247/page-34