full pvp? full loot? like uo?

They most of the time entertaining on youtube i would guess ^^

 

I did use DayZ also in the Past to promote the good old Full Loot Days.
But there is a difference , a huge one.

Basically DayZ is so unforgiving, that ganking and harassing is not possible just like in UO.

Even the bad guys only have 1 life! , no blue healer who can resurrect the PK - and one good shot is enough, not more required to end the life of a PK - forever - he starts again with nothing.
Even if you are a newby - one good shot and the PK is dead. So no uneven situation. Ever.


It is even the opposite - If you are a fully equipped Bad Person you have more to loose then the new player starting with nothing. You are the one who has to be careful. The one with the T-Shirt has nothing to loose.
You are for him a easy ticket to saving hours of time searching.

In UO you did stay where many players are - in DayZ you search for being alone to be save.
Again a difference.

So there are some dramatic differences in regards to UO Full Loot times.



Just to say: DayZ is Survival Game - Not a true RPG Level UP- Full Loot Game as some understand.



I would explain it different:

DayZ is a proove that Players today love to play games that are dangerous and unforgiving.

That is undeniable! Ark, Rust, DayZ, Minecraft and on and one - times have changed - player can handle set backs.

 

Can an account without any posts have been purchased by an existing player who wants to troll his opinions on this topic under the guise that he is new? I think it's possible but sad if true.

 

First off, welcome to the community.

Richard Garriott has made many games over his career. Only one had full loot, and that game only forced users into open PvP for about 18 months. Very quickly into the lifespan of UO that decision was reversed and the split the worlds. For most of UO's lifespan people haven't been forced into non-consensual PvP and full loot.

I'm not sure why people insist that is the defining characteristic of a game, when that feature has been absent almost for the entirety of the life of the game.

It certainly isn't the defining characteristic of a game designer who has made tons of games over decades.

 

3 years, not 18 months.
Big difference. It took 3 years until trammel startet.

And UO did attrackt in those 3 years over 200 000 gamers.

If you consider that only 1.7% of the world population had internet in 1997 that was a huge success.

To make it more clear.
In 2004 when WoW was released 12% of the World Population had internet.
10 times more then 1997.
That means UO Would have reached
2. million of the total if you use the 1997 reach for 2004.

WoW reached 5 milllion end of 2004.




Considering that! What a success! Even with Full Loot!
Nothing was forced. Free will to play the game.

 

Welcome to the community. First thing I can tell you is that yes, this game is being developed by the same people who created UO. One of the things that will make this game successful is just that. The devs, know what they did right with UO, and also what they did wrong. Leaving UO entirely open PVP full loot etc, was a mistake that was made with UO. Before the introduction of Trammel, the non pvp world, UO was losing players. When they stopped forcing PVP and full loot on everyone (via trammell) players started coming back to the game, and then UO was successful again afterwards. This has been mentioned by the devs here.

There are however, areas in the game that do offer open pvp, and there have been talks about a full loot option as well but it is still up in the air.

These devs definitely know what they are doing.

 

Meridian 59 had about 12000 subs in 1995-6 with no advertising and far fewer people using their internet for entertainment purposes. UO had quite alot of marketing done for it and in its first 6 months it only had 100,000 accounts which expanded to 250,000 at its peak. Everquest started 2 years later with 225,000 and surged to over 450,000 subs. Gamers like me have been playing RPGs since 1990 on a PC. I played Avalon (the MUD) and Meridian 59 as well as Mythic entertainments: Darkness Falls and Magestorm Millennium. (Clerics Rocked) I actually tried UO but did not much care for the playstyle or the graphics that seemed dated to me.

To make an inference that because more people had the internet that they'd play UO would be partially correct if there was still no competition in its hayday. However, there was competition and PVP was not part of the games beating the hell out of it in subs even after it brought Trammel Online.

 

I have to agree. UO still has foot loot (though you are not forced into non-consensual PvP because there is a world choice) and it isn't like UO maintained the same ratio of subscribers to people who have internet access, so you can't say their early success was all due to full loot.

 

All those discussions are not made to find a truth. They are all only made to support our own game style and preferences.
And telling me how many games you have played and how long does not change the motivations of our arguments.

If i love a steak raw and you love it done. Then that is fine.
And both of us should respect that it can be awesome eaten in a different way. It still was a steak for both of us.

And i will keep saying till my last breath:

UO was the best game ever in it's first early years. And a steak only tastes good cooked bloody and raw.

Amen

 

As long as game designers/developers make ITEMS more important than character development choices and a player's skill in combat, full loot will be difficult for many players to stomach. In a world where items are less important, a well rounded warrior should be able to pick up any weapon he can find and still be somewhat competitive. I believe a character's skills/spells should always be more important than items, but many players want sparkly items with uber stats on them. In a world where items are less important, weapons can regularly break, be stolen, get knocked out of your character's hand because of a weapon clash and sent flying off a cliff or be disarmed and captured by your opponent, etc and the psychological sting that people experience becomes less of an issue because players aren't focused on the dramatic statistical value of the weapons. Instead, they will rely more on the skills that they have accumulated developing their character. The soft cap on skills makes this type of world possible.

I've advocated for a dynamic world and Opt-In PvP systems on these forums. When it comes to full loot PvP, you can apply realism to the full loot equation. How long do you think it would take to remove the armor off someone's body while someone is rushing towards you about to bash your skull in? I would think it's a bit more complicated than quickly left click and dragging one item into your inventory. In a full loot scenario, perhaps it would take more time to loot certain items off your opponent's body.

The average PvE type player may have no interest in PvP, but they should be able to slowly introduce themselves into player conflict through an assortment of activities until they become 'skilled' enough to consider turning their PvP flag on. Or maybe they never do. But there should always be a pathway for people with limited interest in PvP to engage in player conflict without being thrust into it. Not sure what Mr. Bartle would think of this, I'm guessing he would not approve - but the idea is that players should have the option to try PvP activities of many different types without declaring themselves full blown PvP players. I call this the player conflict gradient. I would like to see the PvE and PvP communities collaborate in player conflict activities without being mired in the US vs THEM scenario.

I played primarily in Felucca in Ultima Online. I knew that in this environment, player justice was always possible. I could penalize blue griefers by attacking them and taking their loot if they were being jerks. This is something that reputation and virtue systems have had difficulty tracking. (should validated complaints against you in the Reporting system affect your virtue?) I took the penalties and went red, many times for opportunities, but many times because I understood the opportunistic nature of other players. I became skilled enough in combat to fight multiple opponents and I knew that if I was 'red' or 'grey' that groups of players would attack me. I would try to fight them head on, or lure some of them away and pick them off one or two at a time. This was the thrilling experience of PvP - a test of your own abilities against multiple opponents. In a dynamic world where players can enforce the rules, they have the opportunity to group up together and fight back against the 'thugs and griefers.'

Also - In a resource based PvP model, being able to loot potions, reagents, equipment, etc allows you to be profitable in PvP and allows you to continue fighting by accumulating the resources from your opponents. There is also a greed factor involved when other players see this, because they know you must have a lot of loot on you and it encourages other players to attack you. This all needs to be limited by real world physics so that players can only hold so much weight and their movement will be affected negatively by carrying too many items. This should affect spells like Chaos Step and Blink as well. If you're too encumbered perhaps it increases your fizzle chance. imho. Also, I can see in a full loot scenario there should be some items that are non-lootable, such as quest items. So it should be 'full loot' for relevant items - including gold.

It would be cool if you could highlight blocks of text and create "agreement bits."(?) Perhaps people won't agree with my entire post, but just a few of the ideas. A global 'like' to a post is probably not granular enough. This would allow more specificity for developer feedback to see exactly what players are agreeing with...

 

This isn't intended to be a gear treadmill like WoW.

However full loot and non-consensual PvP has other consequences such as griefers, and making the new player experience difficult and decidedly un-fun.

I think the SotA devs have decided to strike a compromise that introduces risk with the loot system, but new players aren't forced into it.

However, I think any meaningful death penalty and loot system means that PvP stops at one round. The most popular PvP games in the world all have effectively no death penalty. People go right back in for more and more gameplay. People keep playing. Everyone has fun.

Let's say someone kills you. You lose a piece of gear. With encumbrance, you may not have backup gear for everything, and even if you do, you may not have an equally good backup piece. On top of that, you have a major penalty to your stats when you respawn (unless you find an ankh which is really difficult on some maps). Now the same person attacks you a second time, and you are even less likely to be able to defend yourself, so you die a second time and lose a second item. This repeats until you have nothing. You helplessly watch a slow grind. Is that fun?

Or you just flee the scene and never come back and the other players have no one to fight so there is no PvP gameplay. It stops immediately after the first round. People sit around listlessly unable to play because there is no one to fight. Is that fun?

Why chase systems that aren't fun?

 

To suggest elements to push people toward PVP gently or slowly or otherwise is absurd. I kicked ass in Archeage as a reaver and in SWTOR and In Dayz SA, CS:GO etc. however I just do not enjoy PVP in my MMORPG experience. Why is that so difficult for people to get? Being good or bad at something doesn't make participating in it less or more fun necessarily. I gravitate toward MMORPGs to RP, craft, group, explore, adventure and have fun with friends after a long day at the office. I don't need to be "introduced" to game elements I do not like so PVPers can feel better about making victims out of people who do not want to be victims. The devs have been fairly clear on what their plans are for PVP. I don't get why it seeps back into the fold as w major discussion point. Serves me right for reading posts in the area.

 

you cannot compare games that are post launch to a pre alpha game and expect any kind of clear results lol

 

Quality over quantity... I'm with you Ravicus...

I'd play alone on my siege perilous instance anyways... well as long as I can still get a second account to visit the main servers to meet with all the nice folks and that the program dosen't put me in a separate instance like it always does *really getting frustrating* which makes me not see anyone anyways most of the time.

I'm not kidding there can be like 20 people online and the server matches me with an empty instance ?

 

I really get the feeling there is no more "chaotic neutral" trolls and the ones left are "loyal good" which is extreemly strange.

This thread makes me depressed somehow...

 

I played siege for a few yrs

 

As I said in my post - I'm for opt-in systems. Players choose to do what they want and they know what they're getting into went they participate in it - when it comes to player conflict and other dangerous elements in the game. This is just my personal opinion but when I think of the ideal dynamic persistent world it is the transition from a static world to a fully dynamic persistent world that includes remorting and perma death. I've probably lost a few people here, but this is the ultimate expression of risk vs reward. In a perma death environment, characters can age and die, and this would give meaning to gravestones. Based on your performance in these types of environments you can obtain rewards otherwise not possible in the game (inherited to your character soul/account.) You are your character soul, your characters are simply incarnations that can be logically associated into family lineage. (if you choose to do so) This is what I consider end-game content. But at all times, players should understand the risks.

If you don't want to PvP, then don't PvP. If one of your friends enjoys PvP and both of you decide to spar together and you happen to get better at it, maybe try your skill at a PvP activity geared for 2-3 players. I don't like the compartmentalization of PvP, but if it makes things more fun instead of being zerged by a gank squad then I'm for it. Having choices is what's important. I hope that there will be more PvP activities in the game other than turning on your PvP flag and looking for people to kill.

 

I believe Shroud has sold 50,000 accounts. The fact that so few play concurrently right now is because the game hasn't launched and it has frequent wipes.

 

I have noticed this damning statistic for quite some time as well. Simply no interest in streaming or watching the game being played. Every once in a while I see a semi-mildly popular streamer gives it try but it seems to be quickly dropped due to lack of interest.

 

I have made similar responses before on this forum and others that full loot is not essential for meaningful PvP. I played UO for 10 years starting at launch and I played on open PvP servers on most MMOs created since UO. My best memories of open world PvP is the rivalries guilds had. There was a huge sense of pride to be a member of a tight PvP guild. I started on Great Lakes but moved to Lake Superior once it opened. I remember epic battles between guilds like UOF, NBk, RED, BSR, KoA and OO. There were zero PvP mechanics, special systems, or leader boards in place in UO, it was all created via guild rivals. Guilds would stake out a claim at a dungeon or a popular mining area and would fight each other for hours. In guild voice com "call to arms" went out all the time when rival guilds were camping a fellow guild member. So if PvP is going to be successful in SotA it has to be driven by the player base.

I would also encourage non-PvPers to keep an open mind about PvP. It is hard for people to understand but there is a lot more griefing that goes on in games without PvP. Things like training mobs on to a person, ninja kills on quest mobs, blocking a persons progression by placing people or objects on bridges or narrow passages, ninja gathering of resources while your clearing the mobs in order to harvest it yourself. I never once "raged quit" a game over PvP but I have when people did the type of things I mentioned above because I could do nothing about it.

In my experience PvP guilds seem to be closer knit because they need to rely on each other to get through a game and protect each other where as my experiences with non PvP guilds tended to have small clicks in them, people may or may not help each other. Those are my two cents on the issue, but full loot is pointless.