The Forum

[quote="SKET"]Actually lold at that video, worst pk attempts ever, literally announced urself both Times 🤣🤣 and what did u expect hahaha[/quote]

[quote="P3RCY"]DL never wanted the immunity changes back in the day lol. That was that faggot matty & tom no? Constantly crying to Dan because he couldn't hunt. And soma requires little to no skill let's be honest here lol, it's mainly numbers, 95% gear & stats of the characters & that's coming from the g bird king himself, who created that meta of play. Sup brahs, forever mirin Zyzz Edit - anyone got a char with gear for when I get the relic PC down from the loft? XoX[/quote]

[quote="MY_UNICORN"]This post is **not** about PvP methodology. It's about the **game mechanics and the direction of updates** that have steadily pushed Soma further towards being a **numbers game**. These updates have had a direct impact on the balance between players with numbers and those without. We've seen the same pattern repeated throughout the years in countless PvP battles involving groups like Fleshtruth, Sabre, and many others. Who honestly wants organised PvP battles when there are no numbers to fight? It simply isn't possible. Without opposing numbers, there is no real organised PvP. Please stick to the actual topic instead of trying to derail it. You've accused me countless times of using a PvP bot. Believe it or don't, I genuinely don't care. That's not the point. The point is that I know how to PK. You're right about one thing: PvP requires very little mechanical skill. It should primarily come down to your **gear, stats, and preparation**. That's what the system was originally built around. The problem is that over the years, repeated requests for cheap and convenient updates have shifted the mechanics to favour maintaining a numbers advantage rather than rewarding player progression and equipment. Those changes haven't improved PvP. They've simply reinforced the dominance of larger groups and pushed Soma even further towards becoming a numbers game. [/quote]

[quote="SETRO"]I agree with some of the observations you have made about PvP. Unfortunately it's right that the bigger side wins that's just life. There is a plethora of things we could talk about improving PvP, I recently had a conversation about how 1 handed weps are at such a disadvantage it's almost pointless using them unless you have a very good 5th axe user or a pvp bot i suppose. your point on feathers are somewhat agreeable but I would need to know why they were delayed etc in the first place. OPENTHEDOOR made a good point about gear. The patch has not destroyed PvP YET but it has the ability to do so, now there's no cap in place it means if you don't play as much you fall behind, this is by all accounts how the game was intended if you compare it to Esoma for example but have we not outgrown that grindfest, with family lives, changing times and a tiny usercount where the difference is much more pronounced|?? I think so... A lot of people disagree with me. Unfortunately without a larger user count there's only going to be two sides, and one side is bigger than the other, honestly because your side were so ruthless in pk and destroying the experience for a lot of players most of whom were neutral, I know I have lost many friends in game due to tongskie and co all in all i sympathize with you and the issues you raise but we're at a point where it's hard to move forward without it benefiting the side with bigger numbers. I hope you guys make a return because it brings a lot of life to the server, you just have to accept you aren't the a side when it comes to numbers advantage.[/quote]

[quote="SQUEEZIE"]The good thing about this patch is that it allows Finito to do updates on a more frequent basis. His goal is to raise lvl cap about once each 6 months. This also means more time for balancing and PvP adjustments where needed. I strongly believe this was the best persuit in a stable usercount. Without any caps, we'll be more motivated to stay hunting. With more frequent updates, we'll probably stick around longer or come back sooner. With proper slowdowns and people not getting ahead more than, let's say randomly, 50 str, it will work out. As It did on ESoma. I've returned in the second week of may to kill some time. I found that the server that soma was much more alive and has a much more active community than I had expected. I never expected a patch, let alone a rework of hsoma mechanics. This patch still has me excited about the game and it's potential, even so much later. Each and everyday I feel like there's more old faces returning and checking things out. Even though there was barely any marketing or hype for the patch. Word of mouth is spreading and will continue to spread. I even believe this was the right way to do it, as there's still some work left to do. Everyone returning at once would actually cause trouble. Soma doesn't need advertising, it needs people spreading the word. I've been so happy with the Finito's recent activity. From small updates (like weight recalc on crafting, del tabs from conti vafers). These things make us feel heard and appreciated. But I'm also happy that bots are being hunted. Generally I'm in a good place in life (outside of soma) and this makes my time on soma even better I guess. [/quote]

[quote="MY_UNICORN"]I appreciate that both of you have taken the time to respond to the discussion properly rather than turning it into personal attacks. I don't disagree with everything either of you have said, and there are valid points on both sides. I completely agree that larger groups will usually beat smaller groups. That is true in almost every MMO. My argument has never been that numbers should not matter. Numbers should absolutely be an advantage. The question is how much of an advantage they should be. Every PvP system has a tipping point where numbers stop being an advantage and become the deciding factor. Once that happens, other aspects of the game such as player progression, gear, positioning, strategy and decision-making become increasingly less relevant because overwhelming numbers can solve most situations. That is the direction I am concerned Soma is moving towards. Regarding the level cap, I understand the reasoning behind removing it. More progression gives players something to work towards, and more frequent updates are generally positive for the server. I don't believe those goals are bad. Where I disagree is with the assumption that future balancing will automatically correct any issues created along the way. History does not always support that. We have seen updates such as Feather Delay introduced with good intentions, yet the practical outcome was that it increased the value of numerical superiority. That is why I keep coming back to outcomes rather than intentions. Good intentions do not always create good results. The concern is not that this patch has instantly destroyed PvP. It is that several recent design choices appear to be pushing in the same direction, strengthening the biggest existing advantage on the server: having more players online together. Regarding the point about our side driving players away, that is a separate discussion. Every alliance throughout Soma's history has had periods where they dominated, PK'd heavily, or caused frustration for other players. That does not change whether a mechanic itself creates healthy or unhealthy PvP. The reason I continue to focus on numbers and mechanics is because history has shown what happens when those factors become the main deciding element. Even if DarkLegacy/Outlawz disappeared tomorrow, I would still make the exact same argument. The issue is not who is currently benefiting from the system. The issue is whether the system itself creates competitive PvP. If the optimal strategy increasingly becomes "bring more people," then every future balance decision becomes harder because numbers are already the strongest advantage in the game. Instead of mechanics encouraging better fights, they continue amplifying an advantage that already exists. A good game system should not only work when one particular group is strong. It should continue creating competitive and enjoyable PvP regardless of which alliance is currently on top. The problem is that some updates have unintentionally reinforced the strongest existing advantage: numbers. The history of Guild Village War is a good example of this. There have been periods where the event became less about competitive PvP and more about which side could field the larger force. The imbalance reached a point where one alliance stopped consistently participating because the numbers difference made the outcome feel decided before the event even started. What should have been an organised PvP event became a situation where simply turning up with superior numbers was often enough to secure victory. When there is no realistic competition, players naturally lose motivation to participate, and the event becomes a numbers check rather than a test of strategy, preparation and execution. That outcome cannot simply be explained by one side having better players. The mechanics at the time heavily rewarded having a large, coordinated alliance. The constant changes and updates, combined with mechanics such as proc damage during that period, created an environment where stacking numbers became the strongest strategy. A large alliance, particularly one heavily built around mages at that time, was able to maximise those advantages in a way that smaller groups simply could not replicate. That is the wider issue I am trying to highlight because it affects every part of gameplay. When mechanics amplify an existing numbers advantage, the result is not better competition. It creates a situation where smaller groups become less willing to participate because the outcome feels predetermined before the fight even begins. This is not about claiming one alliance is innocent and another is guilty. Every alliance will naturally take advantage of the systems available to them. That is how competitive games work. The point is that game design should avoid creating situations where the strongest advantage simply comes from being attached to the largest alliance. Numbers will always play a role in PvP, and I am not dismissing that. The issue begins when the advantage becomes so significant that it affects participation itself and causes events to become effectively obsolete because players no longer believe meaningful competition exists. At that stage, the problem is no longer which alliance is winning. The problem is whether the mechanics are creating an environment where competitive PvP can continue to exist. That is why I do not see this as a "my side versus your side" issue. I see it as a discussion about the direction of the game and whether the mechanics are encouraging competitive fights or simply rewarding whoever can assemble the largest force. I think this also highlights a deeper issue that has affected our alliance's willingness to return and engage with the server. The frustration is not only about individual updates or PvP mechanics. It is also about the perception that certain decisions, bans, and changes have felt one-sided over time. Whether that perception is intentional or not, it has had an impact on player confidence and trust. A clear example is the approach towards botting. Everyone knows there have been cases where players who were previously banned have returned, while many players from our side remain permanently banned. The issue is not about arguing that rules should not exist. Rules are necessary. The issue is whether the system is consistent and whether there is a path for players to rebuild trust and return. At some point, the server has to consider what is more important for its future: maintaining permanent punishments from the past or creating a system that allows the community to recover. Personally, I believe permanent bans are not always the most effective long-term solution, especially for a small server where every active player matters. A system of temporary bans with increasing durations, potentially applying across associated characters, would create a stronger deterrent while still allowing players a route back if they genuinely change their behaviour. However, that is a separate discussion from the current PvP balance issue. The wider point is that recovering the community requires players to feel that decisions are being made consistently, transparently, and with the long-term health of the server in mind. When major changes, removals, or punishments appear to repeatedly affect one group more than another, it naturally creates distrust and makes people less willing to return. For the server to move forward, there needs to be a focus not only on individual updates, but on rebuilding confidence across the entire player base. [/quote]

[quote="MY_UNICORN"]Before the inevitable replies of "just get more numbers," "your side did the same thing," or "you're only saying this because you're losing," I would ask that people actually address the point being made rather than the person making it. Nobody is arguing that numbers should not matter. Nobody is arguing that larger alliances should not have an advantage. That is obvious and has always been part of MMO PvP. The discussion is about what happens when that advantage becomes so strong that it stops being an advantage and becomes the deciding factor before the fight even begins. A football team with better players should have an advantage. A team being allowed to field twice as many players is not a balance discussion, it is a different problem entirely. The same applies here. The argument is not "we should win because we are smaller." The argument is that a PvP system should create competitive fights where preparation, progression, strategy and execution still matter. If the answer to every balance issue is simply "bring more people," then the conversation has already moved away from PvP balance and into population management. The goal should not be to decide which alliance deserves to win. The goal should be creating a system where there is still a reason for both sides to show up and fight. [/quote]

[quote="ZUZU"]I think what you might be looking for is an arena based PVP system That would not solve your open world PVP issue though, and any game that has open world PVP will have the same "issue" you are mentioning I won't lie, your posts are too long so i didn't really read it all (my bad) but i don't really see the issue with the way PVP works in Soma, other than if you are being hunted then you can't take immunity which i can see will be very annoying but also the direction Finito has decided to go. The good thing about the update is that you can hunt any monsters to gain progression, so if your being hounded out of a certain spawn, move to a lesser mob (that you will kill faster and get faster exp per hour on) despite it potentially taking more % per stat - this doesn't matter as levels are irrelevant now you can gain stats after cap.[/quote]

[quote="MY_UNICORN"][quote="ZUZU"]I think what you might be looking for is an arena based PVP system That would not solve your open world PVP issue though, and any game that has open world PVP will have the same "issue" you are mentioning I won't lie, your posts are too long so i didn't really read it all (my bad) but i don't really see the issue with the way PVP works in Soma, other than if you are being hunted then you can't take immunity which i can see will be very annoying but also the direction Finito has decided to go. The good thing about the update is that you can hunt any monsters to gain progression, so if your being hounded out of a certain spawn, move to a lesser mob (that you will kill faster and get faster exp per hour on) despite it potentially taking more % per stat - this doesn't matter as levels are irrelevant now you can gain stats after cap.[/quote] I understand the point you're making about arena PvP, but that isn't really what I am arguing for. I don't think open-world PvP should become an arena system, and I don't think every fight should be perfectly equal. Open-world PvP has always involved risk, politics, alliances, hunting, and uneven fights. That is part of what makes it interesting. The issue I am discussing is the point where imbalance stops creating interesting PvP and starts removing PvP altogether. There is a difference between being outplayed, hunted, or losing a fight, and a situation where one side becomes so dominant through numbers and mechanics that the opposing side stops participating because competitive fights are no longer realistic. The example of Guild Village War is not about wanting an arena. It is about an organised PvP event becoming less meaningful because participation dropped when the numbers difference became too large. The problem was not that one side won. The problem was that the event reached a point where there was no longer a genuine contest. Regarding progression and moving to different spawns, I agree the changes give players more flexibility with progression, and I understand why that appeals to people. My concern is that progression alone does not solve the underlying PvP issue. If the strongest advantage in PvP remains having the largest coordinated group, then more progression can actually increase the gap because the groups with more players online together are also the groups that can progress, protect each other, and control more areas efficiently. Again, I am not arguing that numbers should not matter. They should. The discussion is about whether numbers are becoming so valuable that they override the other parts of PvP that make the game competitive. [/quote]

[quote="FIXIT"]You don't get more unfairer ban's than ours and they know what there doing they aim to drive us all off and when they do they moan about numbers, i mean wtf? The days of a good server with loads of good people are gone. "If you get good you are gone" All see that. Banned and driven off that is there intention. So many asked us all to return so we popped our heads in to have a nosey but we all read the forums while standing around in town. 2 of us point blank refused "The resi scroll" You made ya point i guess but we did it first :p They did every dirty single handed update they wanted to suit them, so you have abdo remix and every dog and it's dick running this shit show. Plus note so many walked out after our bans because they see no point in even trying now and good on them. every time we quit the server or took time out it was mostly due to an unfair bans. each time we returned it was because they was back in play? [/quote]

[quote="MY_UNICORN"][quote="ZUZU"]I think what you might be looking for is an arena based PVP system That would not solve your open world PVP issue though, and any game that has open world PVP will have the same "issue" you are mentioning I won't lie, your posts are too long so i didn't really read it all (my bad) but i don't really see the issue with the way PVP works in Soma, other than if you are being hunted then you can't take immunity which i can see will be very annoying but also the direction Finito has decided to go. The good thing about the update is that you can hunt any monsters to gain progression, so if your being hounded out of a certain spawn, move to a lesser mob (that you will kill faster and get faster exp per hour on) despite it potentially taking more % per stat - this doesn't matter as levels are irrelevant now you can gain stats after cap.[/quote] I would also imagine it takes longer to code than it does to read what i have written.[/quote]

[quote="FIXIT"]And i just been signed out again :) lasted 24 hours and i make 1 post and they feel the need to be nosey on my forum acc, [/quote]

[quote="AENUS"]Its real simple play the game or dont no one will care either way[/quote]

[quote="SQUEEZIE"]To be fair, iSylver has always done the content and Finito has always done the mechanical/ coding side of things. I personally have very little idea on how Finito would like Soma to be and what the future will bring. I suspect the 'esoma' feel is a goal.9 I trust Finito enough to read and take in proper feedback when given. Threads as this do help, though it might be worth summarising your post at the top for the lazy readers. xD I do trust Finito to have a perfect understanding of how soma works and that he has an idea of how it should be. Currently with the unending stat gains we know very little about the slowdowns at higher rates. What happens if a character is 1000 hours ahead of the rest of the game? Could he tank gvw solo? I don't know. I don't believe anyone really knows at this point. I suggest we await future changes as they come and continue to deliver our feedback where needed. I do beileve ideas are always welcome if done properly and constructively. Also don't forget that even if an idea might not be implemented or accepted as such but it could trigger other ideas.[/quote]

[quote="MY_UNICORN"][quote="SQUEEZIE"]To be fair, iSylver has always done the content and Finito has always done the mechanical/ coding side of things. I personally have very little idea on how Finito would like Soma to be and what the future will bring. I suspect the 'esoma' feel is a goal.9 I trust Finito enough to read and take in proper feedback when given. Threads as this do help, though it might be worth summarising your post at the top for the lazy readers. xD I do trust Finito to have a perfect understanding of how soma works and that he has an idea of how it should be. Currently with the unending stat gains we know very little about the slowdowns at higher rates. What happens if a character is 1000 hours ahead of the rest of the game? Could he tank gvw solo? I don't know. I don't believe anyone really knows at this point. I suggest we await future changes as they come and continue to deliver our feedback where needed. I do beileve ideas are always welcome if done properly and constructively. Also don't forget that even if an idea might not be implemented or accepted as such but it could trigger other ideas.[/quote] I agree that feedback should always be constructive, and I also agree that nobody can know exactly how the new progression system will look months or years from now. However, I think the main point of my post may be getting slightly misunderstood. My concern is not purely about what might happen in the future. It is based on what has already happened. A large part of our side has not stepped away because of one individual update or because we dislike change. It is because over time there has been a growing feeling that certain decisions and mechanics have consistently moved the game further towards rewarding numbers over competitive PvP. That is why I keep referring back to previous examples. We have already seen situations where changes introduced with good intentions had unintended consequences. By the time those consequences become obvious, the damage is often already done because players have stopped participating, communities have broken apart, and people lose confidence in returning. I agree that Finito has put a lot of work into Soma and that feedback should be given properly. This is not about assuming bad intentions or saying future updates cannot improve things. The reason these discussions are important now is because once a community leaves, rebuilding it is much harder than preventing the issues that caused people to leave in the first place. Regarding the unlimited progression system, I agree that nobody knows exactly where the slowdown points will be or what the final balance will look like. But that is also why the potential consequences need to be considered early. If the system creates a situation where the strongest alliances become even further ahead through both numbers and progression, then catching up becomes increasingly difficult for anyone outside that group. My argument has never been "stop changing the game." It is that when making changes, the impact on a small PvP community needs to be considered, because unlike a large MMO, Soma does not have thousands of players to absorb those imbalances. The goal is not to criticise change. The goal is to make sure the changes create reasons for players to return and compete, rather than reasons for them to leave. [/quote]