Open PvP with full loot everywhere in online mode?

If you are planning to go to Red (if such a think exists) there are a couple of approaches that could be used for that.
First, it has been suggested that Reds have a city open to them, similar to Bucc's den in UO.
Second, and perhaps more to the point, perhaps Reds should not be permitted to unflag from Open PvP until they are no longer Reds (however that might be done).

People always complain that there isn't any real downside to being a PK in SotA. Perhaps this would serve as a disincentive.

 

Well, the downside to that type of mechanic to deter PKing is its easy to get around with alt accounts. If the PK has 2 or even 3 accounts then this mechanic stops working entirely.

The upside is they sell more accounts.


BTW, my earlier point about the ability to trade between two players was about single players owning multiple accounts. It is one part of the "strategic supply" equation for games if they decide to go that route, and is historically what breaks the game in that aspect. Then combined with the ability in SotA to manipulate the friends graph and the instance settings, people will find ways to position their alts in complete safety to restock PvP characters much quicker than the PK char alone could do it.

 

If someone wants to go to the trouble and expense of buying multiple accounts, more power to them. The more units that sell, the more likely Episode 2 will be released. I'll not get my knickers in a knot over that, since I think the impact will be minimal.

 

I expect when I show up in New Brittainia, the guards will say "We don't want your kind here!"
I'll say something to the effect "What?!? What do you mean...??"
One of the guards replies "Earthlings!" Spits on the ground.
"But... I..."
"You're bad news..."
"But...I..."
"We know all about you and your kind, all your silly bickering, fighting, arguing..."
"But..."
"always dominating over others and looking down on others as if they are inferior to you..."
"But... I..."
"Your whole history speaks for itself!" Sneers in disdain.
"...payed for this game..."
"You and your first world problems, tell that to those struggling third world people with real problems!"
"But... I..."
The guard takes a menacing step closer, causing me to instinctively take a step backward, thus one step further away from tainting his world with my Human presence.
Lowering his spear, he says "Go find yourself another world to ruin..." He takes another step forward "...another virtual world, universe, dimension or whatever you want to call it, but not here! We have enough problems of our own!"
In my defence I meekly declare "But that's not me, that's the others...!"
WHAM! He slams the gate shut in my face and I hear him say in a muffled voice of contempt from the other side "That's what they all say! NOW GET!!!!"

 

Replace "what we all" with "what I" , since I most likely prefer another PvP system. Chris (or Starr Long; I'm not entirely sure) stated once, they don't want to rush with informations for PvP, since they know how important this is for a lot of players. But they want to provide informations till end of the year.

But to get back to topic, RG has brought an example for purpose driven PvP and the Friends (or Opponent) Graph through questing in the Warcry.com Interview:

And it looks like there'll be control points in the game (like in Tabula Rasa):

But those could be interesting for PvE, too (once RG told as an example of a passage through the mountains, that has to be cleared and controlled first, before players can walk through)

 

I like that idea!! that way you dont have to worry about losing good stuff 5 slots should cover, head, arms, chest, legs, gloves i would also suggest a 6th slot tho for weapon, (if you have a shield well youll have to scarifice something!) but that covers protection and damage control, for you to get back to your body or move on elsewhere!

 

That would be like having no loot as far as i am concerned.

There is no middle ground in this.

Risk vs reward all the way or just go for no loot at all and loose the players that wont accept that.

 

In subscription to the title of the original poster's thread. All in all it sounds like a great time.

 

This is why there should be
Online single player
Online friends play
Online open play limited
Online open full loot 2x loot on creatures & resources


Sent from my HTC-Z710a using Tapatalk

 

I hope there's PvP with full loot everywhere, They've already stated that people that don't want to PvP can flag themselves as non pvpers.. If that's not enough for the PvE/RP player I don't see why they need to take more away from the PvP crowd.

 

I would bet on it, there will be an option for pvp with full loot everywhere outside of towns, need the safe area in town to be able to swap to another mode

 

This is just my humble opinion on the pvp/combat/loot mechanics... If a player chooses to go online with other players, it should be open pvp/loot etc.

The act of connecting via internet connection could serve as the consensus for pvp.

If a player does not want to consent to pvp, log out and play single player.

Bottom line, if you go online, you should be susceptible to player attacks, and all of the freedom that comes with fellow player interactions/shenanigans.

What's the point of going online, if you're free from any type of interferance ? I really don't see the logic with such an option. Seems that it would lead to a royal economy screw job, greater than the likes of which we are all too familiar with.

-my 2 cents

 

That's a bit narrow minded to say everyone needs to play like you do, some want to play with their friends only but dont want to put up with 12-15 year olds, I sometimes play checkers, I don't want to play checkers with land mines all the time.
I don't always want to play hardcore, mostly I want to play for 5-15 minutes, be able to stop at any point & meet the needs of my family (talk to my wife when she asks something & not have the computer be more important than her, etc) but when time allows, I'll go full on

 

Since we have a selective multiplayer environment the people who don't want to PvP will never have to interact with PvPers.

I think it should be Open World PvP full loot for anybody flagged for PvP.

 

I don't think so because there are players out there that like PvP but can't stand player looting. Forcing player looting on everyone flagged for PvP, IMHO, will mainly serve to drive such players out of PvP.

So, while I don't see any issue with looting being available as an option or game mode - perhaps even the default PvP mode - making it a requirement for engaging in PvP will, IMHO, do more harm than good to the game as a whole.

 

Ahhh waahhh for those who want to pvp that don't want to really pvp. That's where the line should be drawn. We can't force people to PvP but the ones that do should be ready to accept the consequences. If they can't handle true PvP then they should go back to World of Warcraft where you cant be looted in pvp but also that isn't real PvP in warcraft. That WoW PvP was a joke! I hope this game isn't like WoW.

 

So the hardcore PvP players should settle for WoW PvP then?

 

I think the point is that there are more options out there than the more-or-less binary choice between a) WoW-like PvP and b) an unrestricted, free-for-all, beginner-beware gankfest.

 

With enough hard consequences being a murderer it wont be a gank feast. UO tried with statloss but they never tried a harder consequence version then that. Im sure trammel would never have been necessary if developers of UO introduced a even harder penalty then the statloss system they implemented. It was to easy to macro off murdercounts in ghost mode.

Problem with this is that we only have 1 character to play and UO had 5. The murderer macroing off in ghost mode didnt matter that much since you could play 1 of the other 4. With more then 1 character a harder penalty then UO statloss would work just fine. Players that wasnt addicted evil roleplayers would think twice before entering the killing of new player game mode.

And splitting the PvP playerbase into to many different PvP game modes isnt a good option as i see it.

 

Heh...it matters not to me, personally, since I'm backing this project for its single-player element. But for some, even one instance of being victimized by unwanted PvP will be too much, and it simply isn't a valid suggestion to argue that Portalarium should simply ignore that subset of the player base.

So while I agree that consequences for murder, if stringent enough, would work to deter the worst aspects of open PvP, for some subset of the player base, that's still irrelevant: even one murder is too many, and will result in them abandoning the game (or at least the game mode that they had previously favoured).

If imposing stringent penalties is the goal, doesn't the fact that players only have 1 character work in service of that goal, under the system you outlined? That is: there AREN'T alts that penalized murderers could fall back on whilst working down a penalty, forcing them to either step away from the game entirely while their macro goes to work OR play the game and bear the consequences of the penalty imposed.

Fortunately, that doesn't seem to be what Portalarium is angling for...not exactly. There will be consent as a factor in PvP, but the PvP player base won't be wholly isolated from the PvE player base by default or by design.

Beyond that, it's hard to say exactly what form the system will take, since there hasn't been much word on the matter from the dev team.