Death oOooOOoOo!!

@Owain I do not believe that information(about 100% of PvP being voluntary) was available when I was here last. That sounds like a much better way to do things and could interest me in this game again. I would be interested in which written post by Portalarium states this fact(100% of PvP is by choice) if anyone has a link?

Although I must say that I think you should be given a warning for your tone in these forums, especially since you even insulted me out of chat from which I haven't returned to due to it. There is a long established trend with your toxic behavior and I'm not a fan.

A thank you to the Key Master for pointing out some of that in this thread.

 

@Khumash Gor, I am blunt with my observations, but I think I am fair. Read my last response to you. I note your own admission that you were a terrible UO player, so you cannot fault me for that, since you freely admit it yourself. You made an statement that was incorrect, and I corrected your misconception.

If you go to the portalarium channel on Youtube, https://www.youtube.com/user/Portalarium, every dev chan there that discussed PvP says repeatedly that PvP in SotA will be entirely by consent only, whether that be quests, duels, arena matches, guild wars, or even open PvP, although it is not entirely clear if all those categories will be present on release. They envision a sliding scale consent, so if you want just a little PvP, you agree to just a little PvP (only duels, for example), or if you want the full gamut, open the throttle all the way.

It's your choice, a little, a lot, or none at all.

 

@Kumash Gor,

Owain provided some info as to where you can go to hear the devs talk about PvP being 100% by choice, but I think this specific post may be what you wanted to read:

https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/?topic=growing-concerns-about-single-player&paged=3#post-17110

I hope it does indeed help you feel interested in this game again.

 

@Khumash-Gor

There is another bit of info that almost guarantees that PvP will be by consent only: the availability of Single Player Online and Friends Play Online modes (as described in https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/?p=3955 ).

Unless Portalarium decides to somehow gimp those modes, they will be a guarantee that players uninterested in the PvP element of the game can just change to one of those modes and completely escape PvP.

I also believe that this, in turn, will lead to the Open Play Online mode (the "MMO mode") also keeping PvP consensual, as attracting more players into OPO mode is one of the objectives plainly stated by the devs, and I think that objective will fail with for the most part fail if players setting their game to OPO are permanently at risk of PvP.

 

#2

You can always get extra funding by selling item bless deeds.

Though I do support a server that has perma-death. I'd like to choose between being a hardcore character and a regular character, and I would play both.

 

I'm glad people brought this thread back up since people are talking so much about death. I still vote for option #2.

I think it would be great to have ghosts that depict the type of person you are virtuous or unvirtuous or in between.

If you're virtuous Have an angelic looking ghost. If you are a wicked character it would be cool if they looked like a spectre. Then let there be a standard ghost for people who are in between.

*****
Also have the option to be resurrected by other players, or running to a shrine and you're body resurrect at the shrine. The shrine thing will help for SPO characters.
*****

 

@Isaiah MGT470

I don't agree with you regarding the death penalties, but the idea of the ghost changing according to the character's virtues is a very nice one. Many solo RPGs do that with the character as a whole (including almost everything Bioware created since they moved to 3D graphics), but I always felt that the character as a whole changing like that was a bit over the top; for the character's ghost, though, this kind of changes according to how the character behaves seem actually proper, given that the ghost is supposed to reflect the character's inner self.

Another idea that could be cool is what the Sims 3 do with ghosts; all ghosts share the same model, but they change shader, and have different special effects, according to the cause of death. A ghost from someone that died from electricity has sparks running through his ghost, from someone that died from a fire gives out smoke, from someone that drowned is always wet and leaves puddles. If SotA is going to have ghosts, something similar might be actually cool; add some simple SFX to the ghost according to the main cause of death.

 

I like both of those ideas, where your ghost has different looks as per cause of death. I think I would also agree that it should use the same model because that would cut down on the amount of work that the Dev team needs to do on modeling and what not.

A temporary gravestone where you die would also be cool, but not sure how practical it would be due to the game modes. If you burnt alive by a dragon it could be something like "Here Lies AvatarAcid. Roasted Alive."

 

I wasn't thinking in terms of penalties. Death is penalty enough. However, I thought it might be cool, no Awesome, for the evil character to look like a scary spectre. If they are a PK they might enjoy having a haunting presence.

 

The part I disagreed with you is where you said "I still vote for option #2"; it's not the option I would choose, and those options are basically a vote on the preferred death penalties. I wasn't associating the appearance of the ghost to a death penalty.

BTW, to recap the options:

 

There are those who call me "Nearly Headless Nick".

 

Option 3 is what is wrong with alot of games.

 

I would encourage a more robust PvP method then just option 2 or option 3. I agree that in order for life in game to have meaning, death must be something to avoid. But to someone trying to feel out the water, to lose everything all the time might be discouraging. Yes, I agree, it could also be very invigorating as well. Perhaps there is a sliding scale that can be stretched from option 3 to option 2 based upon your weekly/monthly involvement in PvP. For those just testing the waters or who little involvment in PvP, keep the risks AND rewards to a minimum. As players progress and become more and more accustom to the PvP interaction, slowly increase the risk AND reward. For example. First time involved in a PvP engagement and I die would cause me to lose nothing or maybe damage my gear. If I were to win instead, I may get some minor trophy or monetary reward. However, the next time I'm involved more of my items are available to greater damage, or even looting. Or if I win, I am able to gain more loot from my opponent. Eventually, if the person continues in the PvP mode, the natural consequence/reward would be a full loot model or if the person chooses not to be involved very often they risk little but will get little reward.

This might also help to keep the PvPers looking to go after the PvPers instead of the non-PvPers if they happen to be in the same "shard"

Just some thoughts to try and navigate between options 2 and 3.

 

Actually, see all the single player games that allow players to save their game, and afterwards load it? They are all basically using option 3 no matter what their death penalty might pretend to be, thanks to the possibility of just loading a previous save game when you die. This includes the Ultima games prior to UO, BTW, as well as almost every other single player RPG ever made, with a few exceptions (roguelikes, for example, tend to use option 1 even nowadays; the first Diablo used option 2, though later ones moved to option 3 and all of them offer option 1 as an optional mode).

Also, my guess is that most of the player base for MMOs won't accept anything except option 3, which in part explains how WoW was able to find more MMO players than most devs and analysts even thought existed; those players jumped into the first good quality MMO that wasn't so harsh as to drive them away.

 

One interesting mechanic some PvP-based MMOs are using is scaling the reward for killing a player based on how much time has spent since his last death. Killing someone that has just entered the game or respawned brings little to no reward, killing someone that has been around for more time brings far larger rewards.

Something similar might be adapted here. The more time a player has spent actually engaged in PvP without being killed, the larger the rewards other players get for killing him. This might include looting rights if player looting is implemented; someone that had just set foot into PvP, or was just rezzed after a death, wouldn't even be lootable (or be able to loot other players), while someone running around in PvP for a good while without defeat might have most of his inventory lootable (and be able to loot others to the fullest extent the rules allow).

 

Having some of the way you died is cool too, but since we are speaking of Harry Potter, I change my idea of having the wicked look like spectres... It would look even better if they looked like Dementors.

 

I think option 2 is good.

It adds the extra risk to the whole game which always equals fun. Plus it also makes you think more about what to take with you when out adventuring.
Such as if you are on your own, you might suit up cheaply with a few supplies. But in a group, maybe use better gear, as you have more protection, and better chance of getting gear back in case you are pk'ed.

I remember in UO always trying to decide if I was going to use a new weapon I found or sell it. I think Eve Online has the same kind of system... Don't fly what you can't afford to lose!

Also losing gear always keeps the crafters in business!

First post too

 

Option 4, all of the above?

What about something closer to
Option 3 for newbs
Option 2 for almost everyone else
Option 1 for the most morally reprehensible. (but increase the rewards for achieving this status).

 

Sincerely, no, at least the part about increased rewards for morally reprehensible players.

The reason is simple. Reward players for being douchebags, and players that would otherwise behave well will instead try to be douchebags. For example, EA discovered this in a bad way when they gave an achievement for being temporarily banned from the Spore exchange; many players started putting offensive creations on the exchange just to get the achievement, even though it was never meant as an achievement.

 

My mistake, I thought this would have gone without saying.

Morally reprehensible *characters*, not players.
I am always in favor of increased risk for being evil. But I do not think it is fair to have increased risk without increased reward.