PVP Full Loot and the PKing experience!

You mean something like...

Let every play style contribute to a larger world-plot mechanic to effect tangible and meaningful persistent change, regardless of how much they play?

 

This is a player driven economy. Players will craft the best items in the game. Crafters will make and players will consume these items. If they have said that there will be no full loot due to item serialization what mechanic will be in place to consume items?

Durability is what it looks like.

It was stated that gear will wear and can be repaired. But the cost to do so will escalate to the point it will be too costly to do so.

Durability hits span across all forms of combat. It's better than full loot in the sense of removing items from the game. Why? Because it always removes where full loot only removes items from the game IF the player 1: loots 2: destroys. If the players does not 1: loot then no items are removed and if does not 2: destroy items only change hands.

Durability has a gradual wear and tear on gear. It can also have a big death penalty, if they tune it high enough on death. PvP deaths will have that impact on the economy and so will PvE deaths.

I don't know of any game that has used durability as a major control for the econ.

 

The only issue I see with this sort of durability/wear model with the way they are talking about the gear is that there will be no 'heirloom' type weapons. No epic swords of kings or weapons with a history of any kind. They will all be too expensive to repair and use....

 

That and the attunement system where it is in the interest of the player to keep using the same gear rather than swapping all the time. (Which I love the concept of) I wouldn't mind a higher durability loss system for gear thats heavily used (not just getting damaged on death) and having to use components from crafters to actually repair it. So that rather than pumping out constant sets of complete new sets of gear they produce the pieces required to repair the gear, which is where the primary economy would come from.

 

Im pretty sure everyone here wants old school UO... if not there is all the other games that are exactly the same lol...

 

Yea durability is a must for the flow of economy. But the transfer of the items from person to person by..... you know what.... is rather delicious! =P What! you dont like that flavour?? =O
How dare you!

 

I have been laughing for a few weeks now as well, but just today I found an older interview with RG that the joke is on me. The dealbreaker for me was:

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

I don't want to PvP with people who aren't opting in. Psychologically, that changes a sporting leisure activity into an unhealthy exercise in power and domination.

 

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

Basically saying hes got to do what he feels is right? That he needs to consider what we players what, but cannot give ANY of us exactly what we want and that we have to trust him? Thats how I interpret this. Well.... I trust him.

He also says:

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

Now im interpreting this as him saying that... hes not going to do what the full loot PvP "old school UO" type want. Nor is he going to allow all out trammel.. It sounds like hes doing what many PvE players have told me they absolutely DO NOT want to happen, he is locking content behind PvP, and baiting PvE players. What does relative safety mean?? Thats probably a scary phrase for some. Perhaps it just means that new players can be killed by spawn but only if they engage, and they cannot be killed by other players.. Meaning the world is only as dangerous as the new player wants it to be at the start. If this is correct that makes things perfect for me! Ill leap right into the danger zone.

How do we interpret the phrase, "but that as you progress through the game, encourages - if not forces you - to accept danger, especially if you want to explore certain areas of plot threads or you want to deal with the most valuable resource opportunities."

I think if I were strictly PvE, id be starting a thread about this right about now. Even though its right up my alley this is how I want the game we need to all examine this a bit further... somehow. Ideally we want to keep as many players in the game as possible.

 

@Robby I think you and I may see the state of PvE and PvP the same way. That's pretty much how I have interpreted everything up to this point. Only thing I don't know is how much of lobbying, one way or the other, the reset of the dev team have had on RG's stance.

I trust him, I am down for some PvP with a purpose.

 

We will all interpret PvP with a purpose differently. As of right now, we got the groups who want it everywhere and the people who dont want it at all butting heads still.

I want it EVERYWHERE! Not willing to but heads with them though.

 

From this article it is clear he doesn't listen to what people say they want because he thinks they don't know what they want. Now - combine that with the complete omission of any information from official channels on PvP in nearly a year, 27k backers and 3.2M later...

He did say pre-tram was one extreme, but then again the other extreme he is referring to was opt-in PvP. To him that is an extreme, so you will get something in the middle. Lets call it "PreTramLite". That is where my trust went out the window -they aren't talking about it deliberately because they don't think we are not capable of choosing whether we want to consent to PvPor not.

As a rule, I don't trust people who decide I am not capable of a rational decision if I were given the information up front.

Please - someone prove me wrong. Point out to me where the dev team (not players) have stated we get to opt-in/opt-out of PvP (and I don't mean by using lawyer speak of "you can opt out in single player offline mode"). Because I went from adoring fan to ragequit in 30 minutes flat.

 

I do not think RG mean you or any other specific person when he speaks about everybody wants. I think he rather means the combined will of all players and to be frank that is an impossible task to make all satisfied. With that said I'm really unimpressed in how poorly they are releasing information about PvP or even what they think about the PvP issue.

 

I get the impression that RG wants to have something to show. A mega post will get picked apart from both sides top to bottom. Having a working model, however basic it is, will be a better method of getting everyone to open their minds to what he has planned.

Just look at the combat system, people pick it apart just because of the "card" label.

 

Or because what they've described, shown, and demonstrated to date directly contradicts previous stated design goals? (clean/minimal ui, focus on combat)
Or because, from the perspective of some posters, the described, shown, and demonstrated system is logically flawed?
Or because, the described, shown, and demonstrated system is similar to many other historically demonstrated failures? (this ONE feature will save/make the game! No, really!)
... yeah. The "card" label is low on the list, for me.

 

Yet, how many people have started threads simply because of the card label. The comment doesn't fit everyone. Would you like a different mechanic/feature that people jump to conclusions without knowing the details? Pick one, use that instead of the card system. It was an example.

 

For as much as I am pro-PVP, and even pro-full loot, I have tried and left too many games because of them. Due to the fluctuating levels of busy my job has I can go 3 or 4 months straight with no more than a few hours a week I can play any games. Since I cant do anything really involved I would usually go do some resource gathering, and maybe a little grinding. I spend 3 hours harvesting the best resources I can to improve my crafting skills or that I need to create a specific set of items I want (in the hopes that I get time to play the following week to pound out some crafting) and someone comes along, kills me, and takes my 3 hours of work. For the most part I accept that, I take the risk and crap happens. The problem is 2 fold. First someone just "earned" my 3 hours of reward in a matter of minutes which = low effort and big rewards for them, but high effort but big loss for me. And second, not only did I lose my belongings, but I lost a weeks worth of play time that I now have to try again when I can next play. That happens 3 or 4 times and I can easily be out 2-4 months of play. If it is a subscription game, I cancel and am done. I cant waste money that freely. SOtA separating crafting/harvesting from the same leveling mechanic as combat skills will help that some (harvester with teeth) and per Kickstarter will not have a subsciption, but there is things even those dont fix. No game mechanic will regain my lost gametime. And, despite the constant touting of risk vs reward, everytime I do win and someone fails to gank my hard earned items they are carrying crap....so they are increasing my risk for me to get my rewards but never risk anything of their own. Dont come to me with a fight if you arent willing to put up something on par with the value of what Im risking losing. Otherwise you are just disproving your arguement that PVP (PK especially) increases the "risk vs reward" levels, and only increases the "risk of lose" levels......


Lose of durability and increasing repair costs is something that can be worked with, it eventually sucks, but hopefully by the time it does get bad you will have better gear or at least something comparable to swap over to.....I would even be fine with losing some of my things to looting, but make the gains for the other player on par with the effort put in...they didnt put 3 hours of effort into the gains, they dont deserve 3 hours worth of my goods.

 

Hehe ..

Well for starters;

• Real AI on the mobs
• Removal of the Holy trinity if you hit something with a fireball it should be you it wants to kill
• Less focus on Goon features

This should start to build a community that needs to fight to survive and progress in the world, that's what I want to see the focus on , not meaningless individuals. Earned Reputation and a mechanic that removes the PvE and PvP terms hate them both I just want Game Play and consequences with a little improved AI.

But if I can't have that whatever the Developers achieve will be good. A House and Trees I can chop down will do....!!!

 

Yep I like this quote as well ...

 

The holy trinity is designed to bring teams together and define roles so a person can have a goal in character development. I don't see how it's a bad thing.

I've seen a couple of games that operate without it (Champions Online comes to mind and GW2 to a lesser extent) and teams are a cluster to the point that nobody wants to even participate unless they have to.

I respect your position, especially on point #1, but I can't get behind the Holy Trinity being a bad thing.

 

Sorry that all I can do is speculate as of right now, but it seems that RG doesnt want an opt-in/opt-out button. What I think, as of right now, is that he wants us to play through the game, and let our actions determine wether or not we end up having conflict with other players. I think he wants to avoid determining the game mechanics(PvP and full loot in particular) for each individual player by allowing them to turn PvP and full loot on and off at will in the options screen, or with some "PvP slider". Which right after reading what RG said im now pretty much totally against the slider.
What im thinking RG is going for is, well, probably something thats already been said.. But what I think hes going for is you can only determine wether or not your going to end up fighting with other players and potentially looted is by your decisions in the game. He doesn't want us as players to label ourselves and lock ourselves in this ONE style of play. Think about it, we are all here together assuming we are going to be this or that. We are all assuming things like "I just want to be a pk again!" or, "NOOO i dont EVER want to be attackable by another player!" and the game has NOT come out yet. Think about real life... Im sure you can say to me that you would never hurt or kill anyone or damage your property. Funny thing about life is, sometimes you dont even know how you will react to life yourself untill your in the situation. Dont you ever surprise yourself sometimes? Havent you done things that you regret? Dont you ever take something you feel bad that you done in the past and then think, "I should never have done that, I thought I was better than that!". I think RG wants us to approach this "Role playing game" just like that, he wants us to be a clear slate. Forget "old school UO", trammel, WoW and forget terms like PvP, full loot PvP, or PvE only.
Think about the possibilities in this world RG is creating for us. He states that he wants to encourage, if not, force us to accept danger. Well, just like how real life does that to us too.. Wether or not we are safe in real life is determined by two things: Our decisions, and then there is fate. Some of us are born into a dangerous time and place, others live in a very safe side of town. But even on the safe side of town, fate still follows us, there are still traffic accidents and disease, workplace hazards. Theres even the occasional... murder. I remember reading the local news once, a very safe side of town, an upper class family someone broke in and murdered everyone. For the family, it was fate. For the murderer it was his decision, and now he is facing the consequences.
You see, in real life its all "full loot open PvP old school UO". Anyone is attackable at anytime. But why aren't there constant gank squads? Why do I not murder anyone? Well I choose not to murder or go to dangerous places. I dont live in a dangerous place, and I make good decisions. Fate has also been on my side, so I continue to live well and peacefully. Now all that can be gone in a second, either fate decides to not be on my side anymore, or I make a bad decision, or go to a certain place I might end up where I dont really want to be. The law can only protect me so much. As an example, I lost a job recently due to a bad decision I made. I beleive it was a recent bad decision I made, on top of a poor choice I made years ago. Twas a stressful job, never thought i'd act out the way I did, at times I feel like it went against my character, and often ive been questioning my character since that day, wondering things like "who am I, really?".
When your role playing, keep what ive said in mind. You might say that you do not want full loot PvP, or to murder or be murdered. You might say that you just want to run around and PK everyone in site. You also might say now that you are not willing to risk going into the PvP world, or have any participation in the "old school UO" mechanics period.. But just keep in mind what happened to me, I acted out unexpectantly. I mean, before I went through that, id always have said, "No i'd never do something like that!" But it happened!
You never know what is going to push your buttons and make you do something you wouldnt normally do. So if your questing in SotA you might just run into circumstances where you will jump right in there, attack another player, kill them, and take all their loot, and then say... "wait a minute, why did I just do that...?". I dont know why either, it could be a lot of things, dont assume that the only possibility is that they killed you and looted you before or because they stole from you or insulted you. Think about fate. What if its your job? Your a soldier, your job is to slay and loot these people. Kinda like how right now im faced with the possibility of having to either work at mcdonalds, work in a factory, or maybe even do something I wouldnt normally do... Like work at a slaughterhouse on the slaughter floor. I will do it if I have to. But even as aggressive as I sound sometimes in these forums, the thought of actually slaughtering an animal like they do in slaughterhouses makes me uneasy..
Yes, I can already see how you might say that building game mechanics like this to too much of an extreme could end up being bad for the game also. You come to play an MMO roleplaying game to unwind, to escape "reality". You want to have a certain amount of freedom in this playpen. If the game's "fate mechanic" if anything like that is to exist forces you to play in a way you do not want to each and every time you log in, your either going to delete your character and start over, or quite the game altogether. So if RG is planning something like I said, it MUST be easier to get out of being in a dreadful situation due to "fate" in the game than it is in real life.