PVP & Death: Current Thinking Megapost

Yes, I certainly would hope so!

But I don't think Abydos' suggestion is bad either. There's nothing wrong with giving players an extra incentive to use their rare items.

Although, I suspect that the way it will turn out with either ransom system -- the devs' current approach or Abydos' -- people will only go out with their rares if they know they can pay the ransom. If they have something they don't want to lose, and don't have the money to pay for, they'll still end up stashing it in the bank, and they'll only start to bring their rares out once they create a big "ransom fund." And in the end it will be pointless, because for their rares, they'll always just be paying the ransom fee -- every time. And nobody will ever be looting rares from other players in the game.

But at least for Abydos' suggestion, you can add in added costs and restrictions. For example, what if you had to choose which of your items to protect? What if you had to give up a portion of your mana to make an item soulbound to you? Its a more interesting and more flexible approach, imo.

 

Like many other , i like pretty much everything exept i would prefer full loot , or the closer we can get to that , and btw for those who want to try something very hardcore... me Abydos and a couple friends are back in Mortal online , until this game is out !

 

You dont really know that! I for instance, I do RP"my PVPr! Most of my PVP friends do the same, heres a perfect example, you go out an kill "so an so" for his gear, you take it and run, He tells me he has been pkd by you, and can you help me get him and my stuff back, being the Paladin or cleric i am it is my duty to help this poor soul! i call my cleric friend and my warrior and mage friend, explain to them what happened we go and find and kill you and take all your stuff, give the poor guy back his crap or something equivalent from your back pack, we take the stuff left over so that our PVP smith/warrior can repair our stuff, and any money goes to where we see fit, the guy says "thank you!" We go and look for the next person to help whether its crafting or fighting or protecting! Or hunting a bounty on a "Bad guy"(that is our roll play, you may not understand that since you don't really know how many of us actually do RP or how we do it) i am a helper of the innocent and weak, challenger of the evil! that is my RP, plus maybe my guild has rewards for helping others, Or maybe we set up adventures within the game (like a D&D adventures with our guild, or others guilds),Yes we do RP!

 

My 2 cents:

On Loot & Ransoms

The victorious player should be able to choose which gear to loot.
The defeated player should have the option to ransom their gear in most cases, but not all.
Determine the amount of loot based on how much the victorious player dominated the battle.
Add an offset for different player levels so that high level players won't get much loot from killing low level players.
So if the victorious player took a lot of damage and barely won the battle, they would not get much loot, but if they completely dominated they would get lots of loot with no chance for the other player to ransom.

Something like:
% difference in damage -- Loot
1% - 5% -- Nothing
5% - 40% -- 1 equipped item and 1 inventory item, defeated player has the option to ransom the items.
41% - 70% -- 2 equipped items and 2 inventory items, defeated player has the option to ransom the items.
71% - 90% -- 3 equipped items and 3 inventory items, defeated player has the option to ransom the items.
91% - 100% -- 3 equipped items and 3 inventory items, defeated player DOES NOT have the option to ransom the items.

Another idea is to increase the ransom cost as the damage difference increases.

EDIT - More Options
The number of ransomable items could depend on the damage difference. So with a larger damage difference, more loot would not be ransomable.
Example:
41% - 70% -- Loot 3 equipped items and 3 inventory items, defeated player has the option to ransom 2 equipped and 2 inventory items.
71% - 90% -- Loot 3 equipped items and 3 inventory items, defeated player has the option to ransom 1 equipped and 1 inventory item.

Mimimum ransom values could be implemented. The defeated player would have to pay if they did not have loot valued above the minimum.

----------

What happens if I kill another player and then immediately get killed?

In group vs group battle who gets what? If someone else has almost defeated another player but then I deliver the final blow, who gets the loot?

I would really like to see some sort of area like the Arena in Oblivion where other players could go to watch PvP duels. Players could pay an entrance fee with the take going to the combatants (70% to winner, 30% to looser?) Skilled PvPers would attract a larger audience and thus bigger winnings.

 

As we already knew but great to get final final confirmation. Rest looks good. I am sure I will turn on my PVP flag occasionally for laughs.

Keep up the great work!

 

I also would like to mention to those people that are not purebred PVP try not to assume what we die hard PVP people do or play, Not all of us are player killers (such as, finding the weakest person and killing them and taking their stuff) In fact i personally have never decided it was in my best interest to attack a weak easy person for anything! Yes we do have some PVP that are Pkrs and will roll up on you and kill you but that is thier gameplay! last but not least contrary to popular belief we can live without the weaker opponents and we would do just fine killing each other off!

 

Damn, coming into this thread late in the game. Basically like many others, I think everything seems good except the ransom system. Bowen seems to have summarized most of my concerns already, so I won't rehash them except for this:

This is an important point. It feels like a compromise within a compromise (inception compromise?) where a second compromise was not needed.

PvE players still have everything they want in their game, and are also protected by the enshrined principle of no non-consensual PvP. In addition to having that, they also seem to be watering down the PvP side of the game to allow for an avenue for some PvE'rs to test out PvP without much risk at all.

My concern is the same as Bowen's concern in that there is likely going to be little shift in play styles regardless of how accessible they make it to the opposing side. In addition I feel that the gain of getting a sample of players willing to cross over from PvE to PvP seems far too small if it comes at the cost of alienating the existing PvP playerbase.

I disagree with posts like this for the same reasons I mentioned above.

From my experience, no incentive is likely going to make a significant impact on those crossing over from PvE to PvP. People are just too entrenched in their play styles and they either like it or they don't. I don't buy that those people would leave the game either, as they would have a perfectly functional non PvP side of the world to play in.

 

T

hi

this might be a stupid question but how is player killing going to work in this game if you have to flag? Im not being a smartbutt im just confused i see alot of people talking about pking but i dont see how it fits in the current game

 

It really seems like everyone is in agreement that the game looks awesome but everyone including some pvers wouldn't mind a little more loot added...I hope the devs see the pvpers rpers pvers getting along n agreeing on this matter.. good job devs but plz reconsider the loot.. give a lil more..plz..

 

Well I was sure I was done but then I ran across a couple extra thoughts and thought I'd share.

There appear to be several ways for non-PvPers to get their toes wet in PvP waters. PvP centric quests for example. It occurs to me from the game's perspective people either flag themselves for PvP.. or the system flags them for PvP provided certain conditions are true. It occurs to me that in the case of the latter you could viably have a different set of looting rules without it seeming too gamey.

In the case of the contraband quest example. The player accepts the quest.. PvP is on. The only loot that drops on death is the quest item. Whomever has the contraband is flagged for PvP. The non-PvPer in this case is at no risk of losing gear. They're only at risk of failing the mission. Where as PvPers can pick up the contraband and either complete the quest, turn it into the guards or depending on what it is.. find a way to use it. (perhaps its a rare alchemical ingredient that's outlaws in a certain town). Perhaps non-PvPers entering resource areas are only at risk of losing the resources?

Meanwhile people who flag themselves on their own may have more flexible partial loot rules. In general I'm suggesting the loot rules be dependent upon how the player was flagged. What conditions are the players entering into that bring them into PvP?

 

I would really like to see some sort of area like the Arena in Oblivion where other players could go to watch PvP duels. Players could pay an entrance fee with the take going to the combatants (70% to winner, 30% to looser?) Skilled PvPers would attract a larger audience and thus bigger winnings.[/quote]

Like this idea perhaps with a League system with a quarterly champion of New Brittania or some such title, Or an end of season finals from the top 16?

 

This kind of already exists. You can purchase an arena basement........I was actually planning to do and organise these kind of tournaments.

 

I'm pretty happy to see dueling in myself. I will certainly be organizing tournaments. Excepting having some kind of official public arena would be pretty cool. The only problem I can see with it is that it is dependent upon always having combatants ready to go all the time, or for at least any scheduled events. In theory at least this shouldn't be a problem assuming arena PvP is popular. Otherwise you'll have people standing around waiting for their next match.

 

Hi Paco! Well if we are flagged PVP then we would be gankable by you!
You wouldnt get alot of stuff (yea i know full loot does seem better to me too) but you could kill me and take my 3 items, i would probably meet you on even grounds a town or something and give you the rest of my stuff for killing me, but thats just me! I am an honorable fighter! I will hunt you back though lol and hope for the same respect. I think you would since i do know you! Thata basically a prime example that even without the sheep we could still continue playing our ways! flag just means you ok'd for PVP, so you would be able to kill us in PVP!

 

I actually quite like this.

It feels like the person who loots has real choice and decisions to make. At the same time it is a compromise due to the time needed.

EDIT

The more I think about it the more I like it. Equipped armer such as a tunic, leggings and arms should take the most time to loot.....gloves would be fairly quick along with a weapon......consumables a quick grab and run.

You could even add in a success chance of looting the more difficult items! you could throw luck into the equation on if you damage the item when you remove it. The longer it takes are the more times attempted would increase the chances of damaging the item.

@Starr ...... Please consider this, it's a great idea.
@Rista ...... Thumbs up, really a great concept.

 

Are housing areas gonna be in pvp zones.. id love to have two warring guilds living in reach of each other.. houses n pvp go together.. remember the house nxt to yew gate..? So many awesome wars

 

Yes, you can PvP in towns.

Quote from original post :

If you are asking whether a town will ever be switched to a temporary PvP enforced hex : There is nothing official in that regards, though I don't see why not.

The devs have mentiond PvE town sieges temporarily forcing owners out of a town, so doing the same for a PvP action is certainly plausible.

 

Thank you, I appreciate it.

My suggestion is a ruff frame work but the general idea is the the victor has a lot of choices to make. What is most important, that shiny new weapon, quick resources or reagents, or sending the player to the house to get some replacement armor. Take into account that the fight may not be over so you have to loot quick, you go for what is important and fast.

The victim is not open to full loot. There is the ransom option, but it's in the hands of the victor. Time is limited and the faster the victim can get ressed the less loot will be taken.

This also has the added bonus that if someone does spawn camp you they can't loot you dry. They need to get away from the res points to have more time to loot.

 

From my experience its the exact opposite. I know plenty of PvE players that wouldn't touch PvP at all in one game that have gone over and played around in it in other games if the system was right. There are people that are willing to be flexible depending on the incentives, situations and game design in question on a case by case basis.

The compromise between Full Loot and No Loot isn't simply PvP versus PvE despite thats how its being portrayed by some. I do play PvP in some games, (WAR, WoW, TSW, SWTOR, SB (you don't get me admitting that often)) but I have no desire at all for a system where other players can take all my gear for whatever reason.

The Dev's suggestion, I'm flexible on the potential for losing some gear in PvP despite being fully opposed to full loot. Many of the suggestions of watering it down that I've seen, I wouldn't touch. I do have limits to my flexibility in the end. ^^ If there are people who are completely inflexible when it comes to variations in game play, then that is simply them. If people were going to be stagnant in their playing, they'd never touch anything beyond the first game that they ever played.

However, if you want to remove the concept of 'Incentivizing' to get PvE players to take part, so that only the 'serious business' PvP people take part, then take away any additional resources and rares in PvP Hexes, the PvP bonuses and rewards, because they were only ever there to try and get more people to take part then would normally do it. If you look at classic RPGs with difficulty settings, you'll find that the final stupidly hard level of difficulty has absolutely no better rewards than the next one down, not even additional scenes or endings. Its there for the joy of taking part of the challenge itself. In fact, in many of the rewards along the way are less, because part of the challenge is doing more from a smaller bucket.

On the subject of gaming the ransom system, one of the concepts we'd thrown about was if someone was to come into a PvP area in junk or without items of a value of what their ransom would be, and if they didn't have the gold on themselves or in their bank after a couple of deaths they'd be banned from PvP hexes and flagging to avoid exploiting the ransom system. Owain's concept of having to put your money where your mouth is in order to enter PvP zones in the first place also has merit.

One of the bizarre effects of the ransom system is that it has the potential to be more of a profitable income to a PvPer than simply taking the loot and trying to hock it, since the gold value of the ransom will be higher than the item itself as you fight opponents of higher PvP levels. Its really a win/win system since the victor gets the spoils of non-encumbrance bearing gold coins, while the victim gets to keep their item and just ends up poorer. Honestly, I wouldn't mind it if the system in part looked at the total wealth of a player before determining their ransom value, as long as it used the player level formula as the baseline, so that it just went up if they had excessive gold. I wouldn't mind if part of the additional amount was consumed in a 'Ransom Tax' to try and remove some of the excessive gold in the economy if it reaches that stage, since the game would clearly need more money sinks.

Always paying the ransom is a situation I don't believe would happen, as I don't believe people would pay a ransom far higher than the replacement cost of an item unless the affinity system was game breaking and I don't think anyone wants that.

I do support the ideas folks have of the victor choose the item (or items in exceptional pre-set circumstances) rather than it being random, but not choose the value. That should be system set otherwise you'd have people going "1,000,000 ransom!!111!!!" on trivial items. Heck. Let the winner just choose gold straight off the bat if none of what the victim has interests them in picking up. They might need to be paying the tax on their house or saving up for a pair of shiny shoes.

The person commenting on ending up with something they didn't want was from a humorous (or I'd like to think it was) post of mine where I expressed my disgust at the corpse mutilation system and how it would impact those people who wanted no part of it. After all, we're playing 21st century people thrust into an alternate fantasy world. Provide the ability to toggle it off so we don't have to play hot potato on who ends up with the nose if the killer isn't into desecration, and the victim doesn't want to pay the ransom, since it really doesn't effect the victim in any way materially from losing their schnozz. If the option on body defiling or not isn't a choice on the victor's part, I guess I just won't bother looting at all.

(I'm trying to remember what game I had been playing many many many years ago, but I kept getting as drops from something, bags of teeth of one of the playable races... just disturbing)

Now the wording here I'm curious about since its new to me... PvP 'predefined areas' vs 'random areas'. I'm curious whether it means that there are certain areas that will always flag to PvP during the events as well as some additional ones that are randomly selected.

 

read some my other replys - giving a player the chance to gather a posse to get revenge giving them an hour to kill the pker to get item back was an idea by another player if that makes you happy i agree
how blessed items work in pvp is you can bless one item and cannot lose it upon death. so this would protect one very vaulable item for a player so you wouldn't lose your favorite most precious item. this is how i think looting should work.
could get some items back for ransom. the consumables could be looted and the next most valuable item after the blessed item would be automatically looted. after all wouldn't you loot the most valuable item?
in this way players could still have "revenge" . to me though its the community,economy,pve group battles, then pvp in that order in my opinion. hope that answers your questions Kambrius