PVP & Death: Current Thinking Megapost

No there is just about no risk and reward without full loot. And no consequences.

Where are the risk and where are the reward without full loot?

My guild like risk vs reward and consequences. We dont play games that is without it.

Were not a PK guild. We fight with any necessary means to win and we have done that in all games we entered. We were the first guild on Darkfall EU 1 to build a Tier 3 city, before all the zergs. We still had the best crafter for months after we quitted the game, we had the best and most dedicated gatherers. We had the best leaders. We never lost 1 fight during our time in Darkfall. We never lost our city even though we were severly outnumbered. We sold it when we left. And we didnt cheat. Was the same in UO both OSI and freeshards. We fought 50 towards 70 and they had a cannon, we didnt loose 1 guy and killed +50 of them. You can say we are one of the best PvP guilds out there, and it is not numbers that make us good but skills, good communication, tactics and good leaders.

The only ruinous destruction we would bring to a game like this is never loosing but that isnt what i consider griefing. But now we will never know since guild decided to pass on SotA.

We dont play PvP games that have been pretty much perfectly suited for the PvE and the casual PvP player.

 

Not true. The KGB is very interested, but then there is much that is guild related here. Even so, the ability to declare your self Open PvP, either as a member of a guild or as an individual is no small matter. If you do so, you can PvP anywhere, even in towns, although you may have to contend with guards if you do so.

It will depend largely on how many people will so flag. If the KGB comes to SotA (like any guild, guild management is not unlike herding cats), we will almost certainly flag for Open PvP. We will have to see upon release how many guilds and individuals join us.

 

My Pk Guild ll be in SotA too ! Unless the proposal of the loot remains as it is now.

We can not wait to kill the legendary KGB.

We all want a head Owain as decoration

 

This post is also @Ara

Item loss/gain, which can be significant in this game.
Gold loss/gain, unknown value, but likely significant if the item you risk is significant.
Exp debt/gain

Equipment damage. This can actually be the most significant impact of dieing or losing in pvp.. Item durability in this game so far has been described as a means of removing gear from the system as well as removing gold from the system. If pvp death means you lose a lot of item durability on your equipped items there is a lot of pressure not to die. They want your items to be significant, they described an affinity system that you need to continue using the same items to master them, and you also will pay more for repairs as you use them, so it's a double edged sword with repairs+afffinity = better item, but more costly to use.

Now you combine that in a situation where dieing makes you lose even more durability meaning you need to replace the items sooner and lose your affinity bonus, and losing an item that you have affinity with and with a lot of durability still left and the exp/debt, and the loss of strategic resources you can gather if you hadn't died in a pvp rare resource area.

That is quite a bit of risk to assume if you can't just go out and buy another set that is just as good for little money such as in UO.

If Items are each individually as much or more significant than you normally get in a full loot situation in UO doesn't that mean it is more meaningful than pvp in UO?

This doesn't make it a gear grind like WOW, it just means you are more attached and spending more time and resources on your items than you did in other games where gear is really insignificant in games like UO. (I've spent 80+ hours getting gloves in WoW, I've never spent more than a few minutes getting gloves in UO, what if your average time investment per item is around 5-10 hours?)

 

Which is what I have fond memories of on UO Siege Perilous. Maybe SotA is the spiritual heir to UO, or at least UO Siege Perilous.

I would prefer Full Loot, but if I can't have that, I'll gladly accept Open PvP.

 

Get in line.

 

In line, nah,
we'll surround you,
it is more effective

 

Have I mentioned yet I think it's a mistake to put so much emphasis on getting people to change their play styles?

Sure, encourage players to interact with other areas of the game but no amount of enticing and reassurance is going to cause a major shift from one group to the other. Exposure between groups of players is great but you should maximize play for each group you're designing for. non-PvPers aren't suddenly going to become PvPers because you've lowered the risk involved any more than non-RPers are going to become RPers because they're forced to go into town for supplies and repairs.

Encouraging change in player behavior shouldn't be the goal here. PvP should be the most fun for the people who enjoy it the most. PvE / adventuring should be the most fun for the people who enjoy that the most. Same for RPers.. So on and so forth. There are natural ways to get these people together and expose them to different play styles. If there's any enticing to be done should it not be players enticing players?

 

If it takes that long to get gloves then it is absolute proof that PvP is fundamentally broken as it is item driven.

 

PvP Feedback:
I think part of the problem is trying to make PvP seem interesting to people who have no interest in PvP, either through questing, resource gathering, or some other means. I think that to have a successful PvP implementation you need to focus on core PvP features that make it enjoyable to PvP players; not by focusing on PvP features that make it enjoyable to PvE players.

I think if you eliminate any dependency on PvP in the storyline, allow a richer PvP experience for those who opt in, it may allow both sides to live together happily in New Britannia.


Death Feedback:
It sounds really interesting but personally, I find nothing entertaining in sitting around waiting for a timer to expire. I would rather be required to complete a quest (like seek out a spirit gude) to come back to life. Otherwise, when I die I just have to twiddle my thumbs until my timer expires.

 

We get neither.

Open PvP has not really been aloud as it must be consensual ....... The logical thing to do is to allow full loot where people do want to PvP.......we don't even get this.

We get unicorns, rainbows, fluffy animals with lots of glitter.

 

It doesn't work....EA tried it and failed and broke PvP in the process.

 

Open and non-consensual are different terms which have been defined and redefined on these forums ad-nauseum.

Open means anywhere. Non-consensual means anyone. That's the short version.

 

As long as I can kill the unicorn and take its horn...

 

Defined by a true non-PvPer.

 

Defined by the community at large in order to make conversation easier and less confusing for all concerned. I've seen a great number of PvP players adopt these definitions.

 

I am pretty happy for the most part with what is being proposed. But not a big fan of the proposed ransoming system. It does seem a bit over complicated. But perhaps with some tweaks it would work. Personally for myself I would have been happy with full loot. But I understand completely why it would not have been a good idea for the game.

 

Well just for clarity.....when I talk about "open" PvP I am talking about everywhere and everyone.

 

Same.

I have a lot of headache with the system Ransom/Loot.
Obviously, there are not many people who likes it.

 

Then you can probably expect people to respond as if you mean only "anywhere," simply because you refuse to adopt the generally accepted definitions, which exist only to serve as a common language, not as some anti-PvP agenda.

It's certainly your prerogative to use whatever terms you like.