My thoughts on Looting

Actually, yes, it can be beaten that fast. Without any codes or a way to save the game, it was meant to be beaten in one sitting by a child. The current record is under 5 minutes, using warp pipes.

Other NES-era games, and even SNES/Genesis era games, when they didn't include codes to continue where the player stopped or a save system, were also meant to be beaten very fast. A good player could easily beat the Sonic games, for example, in less than an hour (the world record is less than a third of that time).

BTW, I was the kind of player that no one wanted to play the original Mario with. That game only switched players when the previous one died — and I could beat the whole game without dying, even when not using warps.

This is not set in stone yet. It shares many of the disadvantages of gear looting, the ones Chris used to justify why not have full loot, albeit to a lesser extent; I wouldn't be surprised if some way to basically keep gear forever was introduced.

If not, no biggie. I will just calculate the optimum point at which to scrap my previous gear and craft new one in order to minimize my loses. I'm planning to have characters with every crafting profession mastered anyway.

Much of the death penalty seems to be tied to the gear, so the cheaper the gear used, the smaller the death penalty.

I don't. I would rather not worry about grinding replacement gear, or materials to craft it. Part of why I prefer to face higher challenge in the actually engaging gameplay in order to be able to skip on the boring preparation.

 

That was a pretty considerate proposal but it really didn't address the reasons I want to loot my opponent. For me, it is mostly about disabling the other person or just being an ass (I'll admit it. If I am minding my own business and you attack me if I win I want it to suck to be you.) I don't think the system has an objective way to determine that someone was being a jerk and deserves to lose all of their stuff for harassing someone better able to defend themselves. In those cases I often don't care if it discourages people from PvPing.
I can't speak to situations where I am the aggressor because like most villains I never believe I do anything wrong and the other person is always at fault because I was just defending myself or my farming area...
Your OP seems to be the most equitable but it doesn't really address why I would imagine we'd be fighting in the first place. Any loot system where you don't drop everything on your death feels pretty contrived and your system would be one of the least bitter pills to swallow but I prefer that my defeated opponents have to go home and re-equip.

 

Sure, but that doesn't have to be the case. Death could be something you'd want to avoid, even the gear loss aside.

 

Death SHOULD be something you want to avoid.

 

Thank you for the feedback. I'm not sure any loot system needs to address why but you could always add or take away features so here's a thought. What if the aggressor risks more? You start the fight and lose.. you double your risk or are "fully" lootable.

My only concern here is players finding a way to fool the system into thinking someone else in the aggressor. Then again a full time PvPer would always be at max risk so at a certain point it wouldn't matter I suppose.

 

No, it doesn't matter. It's just part of the cost of doing business.

 

yeah but still woundering why not one big developer try it

when a big company would release a sandbox loot game without bugs,and with skillbased combat and all you need to make pvp enjoyable and that it make sense, last game was ultima online who did that ,and you cant say that it wasnt succesfull.

so many people tried out games like mortal because of there vision , just coudnt live with all the bugs , but would still love to see an open pvp game. (sota should seperate the hexes with matchmaking)

and why rust cant be compared , it shows clearly even when it is no mmo, that a lot of people like the thrill and loot and bought it because of that, even if it is an unplished no budget game developed by 1 person
why are pvp games with loot always low budget ?? because they are made mostly from players who are fans of a game like Ultima online and are sad of the fact noone bring out a game and so they try to do that themself , henrik was an uo player who wanted ultima online 3d so he asked his dead for money and made mortal online
trust me most of those games got developed by players who know what other players especially pvpers want but cant do it bugfree with low budget and are no experts in balancing like a blizzard team

 

Because no small budget game along those lines seem to achieve a good degree of success, most likely. Until one such small budget game enjoys success far above what would be expected for its budget, I don't think any medium to large budget MMOs with mandatory PvP and player looting will be made.

For what it's worth, EVE was originally made as a small budget indie game, with lots of bugs simply because the then tiny company CCP didn't have the resources to polish their games to big studio standards. It did spark a series of attempts to mimic its recipe, but all of those stalled, either closing down or getting stuck as a tiny niche game. And now that EVE seems to be waning (and CCP saw its Dust 514 flounder and canned its plans for an open PvP World of Darkness MMO, which sends a strong signal that not even the creators of EVE can capitalize on its formula with new games), its influence in new games being developed is also waning.

UO? Without bugs at launch? What planet do you hail from?

For what is worth, WoW, for the first few months, was a jambled mess of constant bugs, server issues, huge queues, etc. While it was not the worst MMO launch in story, as far as being a smooth, bug free experience goes, it was in the same ballpark. And it thrived despite of that, reaching over 10x more than Blizzard's most optimistic scenario for the player base in those first few months (well, to be fair, many of the issues were exactly because it was insanely more popular than expected, but whatever).

For the same reason you can't use the ridiculous success of Mario Kart (the best selling racing game of all time is of that franchise) to defend adding turtle shells to serious racers, or the absurd success of Smash Bros to defend adding random power ups to more serious fighting games: it's a different genre, or sub-genre.

Besides, Rust could just as well be used to defend having a player reach the pinnacle of power in just a few measly minutes, eschewing character progression altogether; or to defend permadeath; or to defend not having a story; and so on. You can't look at just one feature in isolation, you need to look at the whole package. Apart from world persistence (and character persistence until he is killed for the first time), Rust has almost nothing in common with MMOs; it's a permadeath survival game, first and foremost.

 

You dont want a "win all formula" for a game or you get what we have now! Multiple WOW clones.

WOW was successful because it brought a world that so many players had already played in with the Warcraft Series, it made MMOs main stream. It had absolutely NOTHING to do with no looting.

ALL MMO SUBSCRIPTIONS ARE FALLING. Hence why Micro Transactions are taking off.

Stop saying PvP does not equal money because you have been quoted and proven wrong time and time again.

We get your playstyle mate stop pushing it like it is everyone's cup of tea. Point of an alpha and a crowd sourced game is to hash out ideas. We have heard yours, mine and looting to no looting till the cows have come home. Hopefully it can be tested. Until then you still have your selective multiplayer where we will never ever ever bump into each other.

 

I agree. You shouldn't have to worry, though; apart from the fact SotA is an online RPG, and has optional PvP, it has little to do with WoW.

WoW subscriptions passed the lifetime sales of Warcraft 3 in less than a year, and kept growing explosively past that. Warcraft 2 sold far less than Warcraft 3, and the first Warcraft was a very niche game that, for the most part, only hardcore strategy fans got to play. Familiarity with the Warcraft universe might explain some of WoW's success, but not all. And that is assuming everyone that played Warcraft 3 got to try WoW, and that WoW didn't lose players in the first year, which are both obviously not the case.

Besides, if just the scenario was the deciding factor, Star Wars Galaxies should have eclipsed WoW easily, and TOR would have been a resounding success.

As for what made WoW such a success, my guess is the way it catered to casual players. Because, when I look at what WoW had going for it, it's the only one where it wasn't merely on par with, or even eclipsed by, the competition. Little details like no gear loss ever, no loss of crafting materials on failure, an easy to use auction house, a mailing system with a cash on delivery system, small death penalty with no XP loss, a taxi system that at the time made travel in WoW far more convenient than in its competitors, being able to choose a server type where PvP was by consent only, being able to get to max level while playing exclusively solo, clearly marked quests, and so on. I personally saw a handful of friends that had passed UO and EQ over due to the harsh, unforgiving systems, give WoW a try and be hooked.

 

has anybody brought up envy's loot proposal, and ristra's loot proposal?

 

Here's a thought. Why doesn't someone say.. compile all the different proposals into one thread for comparison.

 

I thin you guys are misunderstanding the system. PvP and loot from being killed are non related. When someone goes out to PvP that means they want to fight people. That's all fine and dandy.... You can have battlegrounds or areas that support PvP with no looting... Almost like a capture the flag game where the objective is not to kill and loot but instead to team play for objective....

Looting in "unprotected areas" of the world is not exactly PvP.... Its basically a thrilling reality that when out in the wild things can happen. Looting should be allowed if you died by a mob and someone walks about and grabs your gear.... Too bad, that's life .

Someone can also kill you and take your stuff.. Too bad that's life .

Non protected areas of the game is what makes this game thrilling. That's what made UO the best game prior to the introduction of trammel.

I thin designated battlegrounds could help with those pvpers that want to PvP and not loose gear but gain rewars. Hell perhaps introduce a 2v2 arenas with rewards... Those areas people can PvP and not loose gear.

When you PvP your not doing it for loot. Your doing it for skills.

When you pk... Then you do it for loot. Yes you may need great PvP skills... Yes you will have to engage in PvP combat but its not the same mindset as just PvP battles like duels.

 

Looting and PvP are related because players want it to be related, and the devs want to comply with what players want. The problem is that there is no agreement among players as to how looting should be implemented. Different players want different things. Some want no player looting. Some want limited looting, and some want Open Loot.

I am of the opinion that players should be allowed to choose, and Selective Multiplayer should sort us out. If not, there will be some unhappy players if their preferred option isn't offered.

Unless there is a very good reason to deny reasonable choice, why would Portalarium want unhappy players?

 

Just a few thoughts on this ::

The style of RP between lets say gatherer and PVPer is a lot different to start out with, In he old days you pretty much knew if you were not a PVPer and ran into one your chances were not good.. And to have looted all of what you just spent hours getting was not a way to get ahead in the game..

Maybe a guard deed that is non transferable and can only be purchased from a city vendor would help even the odds a bit and make the PVPer wonder if that miner or logger had the nearest cities protection in his back pocket. See red / pop deed and no red will survive in a certain radius for X amount of time.

I think the biggest problem of non PVPers and PVPers was it was so one sided in battle with no penalties to even it out, If you do not like to PVP maybe a guard deed is the answer, that is unless the PVPers would be worried about being victims now 8 } .. The tough it up you have to be a victim of this style of RP should work both ways and the guard deed might work or something like that to even the curve and fight.

 

Why on earth should a gatherer expect to deserve an "I wish you were dead" feature like that? What makes gatherers so very special, above all other players?

 

Not so much gatherers but any that do not want to PVP, It evens the playing .

They would in fact have to pay good gold for that deed 8 }

 

There is already a mechanism built into the game specifically designed to even the playing. It's called skill trees. Either invest in the necessary skills yourself, or associate with other players with the necessary skills.

The last thing SotA needs is to let players buy an "I WIN" artifact.

 

Is not a PVP honed red, decked out for killing a non PVP crafter or gathered or explorer a "I WIN" artifact already ?

 

No. I cannot be held responsible for the stupid decisions of players who decide to enter a PvP area unprepared. They should no more expect to prevail than I should expect to be able to craft a grand master level weapon or piece of armor if I do not first invest in the skills necessary to create such an item.