PVP & Death: Current Thinking Megapost

RG says he means to break new ground with game so why doesn't he test the market and open up a PvE server and a PvP server and check the viability of both.

 

While loot should never be the only point of PvP, and PvP should be fun without it, it does as much to attract players as to keep them away. I'm worried that under the proposed ransom system, interesting items will never be up for loot because players will always have a "ransom fund" in their bank before they go out and use them.

Everyone is looking for a middle ground -- and so am I -- but I think the middle ground is a little bit more towards the risk end then is the current plans. The current ransom system seems majorly nerfed; not a middle ground at all. There are a couple of good suggestions by Ristra and Abydos which maybe can influence the design and bring it to something more balanced.

 

Ristra, Abydos and Gunga-Din have all proposed ideas that would help the "compromise" weigh a little more on the PvP side. Some of you would argue what little gains we might get off of the table in favor of something we won't get. It makes me wonder what side some of you are on.

 

What new grounds? A game with PvE and PvP players mixed together and a risk vs reward free PvP game with no consequences as just about all of them out there. I thought the PvP was going to be adjustable when i pledged for this game, the ones that wanted full loot should be together with others that had just that interest. Where are the options to choose a PvP style you like?

 

There IS consequences to dying, you just don't like them. Try providing some constructive feedback instead of trying to spread your negativity with false statements like there being no risk or consequences.

We get it, you wanted full loot and are pissed that it's not likely to happen. Many more people didn't want full loot. This is an acceptable middle-ground to many, regardless of how much you don't like it.
Perhaps make a suggestion about how they can increase the risk or consequences more to your liking within the system they are describing? That would be far more constructive.

 

Call of duty, company of heroes, dark age of cameltoe, tribes and many more. Not to mention ultima online. Go to any pvp server and its always active. The demand is there to make a pvp game. You think pvp fails and it will if its within a crap game. You listed crap games except for guild wars which was very popular. St least the first one was. Besides this isnt a popularity contest. Pvers have over a hundred pve mmos to choose. Why cat pvpers have one?

Im sure there would be more good pvp games if they had the cajones to make them but when the ratio is aout 50:1 if not more of course there are t goig to be many
A game doesnt have to be successful to be good. A good game will make money no matter what it focuses on
Just because you dont like it doesnt mean its not worthy. I never specified nor did you strictly mmos

 

Full loot was never on the table. Chris told us that from the beginning. A whole lot of people wished it, including myself. I respectfully accept their decision, but would let them know that I favor the more open Oracle type list of items to choose from. Picking 3 items out of a list of 10 is more apt to fly....than screaming Full Loot page after page.

 

Since you are only going to see a small fraction of the players playing at any given time any ways I don't know why I can't just set the game so I only see other full loot pvp players. I have zero interest in interacting woth the non-pvp players.

 

None of those games you listed except UO had or have full loot or any real consequences for dying other than time lost to get back into the fight, or some temporary stat debuffs.

So how does that support your point that a game NEEDS full loot to be successful at PvP?

If anything it shows that a game with fun combat, and meanginful PvP does not at all rely on looting or having phyiscal punishments for the people that lose the fight.

Warhammer Online also had no full loot, neither does any other MMO or shooter game or other types of games you are listing. So, whats wrong with this proposed system not having full loot if the combat is fun and meaningful?

 

I never said it had to have full loot to be successful. Conversely you dont know how successfull it will be necause nobody has the balls to do it with a AAA title.

Aside from UO? How many examples do i need. One game is proof it can be done. The reason it hasnt been done is people equate revenue with success whereas some equate success with a good game. There are plenty of small good games. I dont neccessarily want every mouthbreathing playing the same game as methats why i thiught this game would be different. No coporate masters, an invested community but that has all proven to be a mirage as ex UO players have gone soft or the community has been infiltrated by carebears.

On the bright side theres a wide open niche for a type of game thaf i hoped this one would be. It had the cards stacked correctly to be able to do it but it looks like they are choosing the well worn path. I figured if anyone would stand up to dissent and make a good game where all that mattered was making a good game but obviously he has chosen to listen to those that sqwawk the loudest and always get heard. So much for the little guy having his niche game

Its not just full loot. Its pve zones. Funders getting every perk , the combat. But i stay in hopes tjey change it and for nostalgia but nostalgia only goes so far

 

More players wanted full loot then not.

You claiming this isnt true dont mean anything. There is a poll that had a end result that 75% was pro full loot (out of +220 voters) but that you seem to decide to overlook. So did the developers. They gave you PvE and casual PvP players the game you wanted and showed very little interest in the suggestions the real PvP players suggested. The game have insurance (LOL) and noone have to loose anything as long as they have money in their bank, it is Age of Shadows again that made just about all oldschool UO PvP players leave UO, now we should try to play it again under the name of Shroud of the Avatar? No thank you.

This game is light years away from a old school UO game, it have nothing with old UO to do when it comes to PvP.

If we have that WoW PvP game as a starting point then it will take ALOT of changing to make it even remotely interesting. You just dont get that, do you? If that is the starting point then i see no reason to start compromising.

 

This is not a AAA title... this is a kickstarted game.

And the hundreds (thousands?) of successful games since UO that incorporated PvP without full loot show that that can be done well too. UO was the only game I know of that had full loot... there could be more that I havn't seen, but they are'nt popular.

So your "proof that it can be done" comes down to one game made like 15 years ago, when every game since has improved and modified things to get away from that system?

Good is subjective. Success is a good measure of a game because it means more people are finding it fun, or 'good'. So yes, success and popularity and all that stuff IS important.

You know what happens to those 'good' small games? They stay small, they have a limited budget, and they don't often move beyond being a 'good' small game. Sorry, I want SotA to be a 'good' popular game so that I can continue to get updates to it, and see further releases beyond the first, for many years to come.

So far in this whole thread the only thing you have given for making it a 'good' game has been to whine and moan about the lack of full loot. You have given no constructive feedback about the proposed system other than squawking nonstop about how much you hate it.

You have continually commented about how there is no risk or consequences, even though that is not true. You are saying its not a real PvP game but have not expanded on that beyond wanting full loot.

You are completely ignoring the fact that there is conseqences and risk, and plenty of PvP options. They just arent at the level that you want them to be.
However rather than try and work with the system and give some suggestions or feedback about how things could be tweaked, you are simply stuck on the "full loot or nothing!!1" and it is getting very old.

 

Ristra’s idea is similar to my disjointed post I made in the Dev+ forums, so by proxy I like it ;-)

I’m not overly fond of the ransom system, but I’m all for giving it a shot (I like the way Ristra used it in his idea).

The basics of my idea were you can only loot what you have time to loot. Equipped (and especially attuned) items take longer to loot than gold, resources, reagents, and consumables. The amount of time you have depends on how long it takes for the vanquished to be rezzed. The closer you are to a rez point in the world the less time you have. If they have a member of the party who can combat rez (which Im not a fan of, nor combat heals…but that is another thread) then you may have only the time it takes to cast a rez spell.

Anything attuned is basically unidentified and broken if you choose to loot it. You have to get it repaired then identified to sell it for more than 1 gold, or if you want to use it. You can loot a percentage of their resources, reagents, consumables, and gold (though Im good with all their gold) if they don’t rez fast enough.

Any gear they may be carrying that isnt attuned drops to the ground and is fair game once they rez. To attune something you have to take it to a PC crafter to have it “cleaned and polished” and then start using it.

Most of this is similar to Ristra’s idea…one difference I had was that looting was on a timer itself also even if they didn’t get rezzed before the ghost timer ended and their body was snatched to them automatically. Though after having time to think about it that may not be necessary, depending on how long the ghost timer is.

I posted it in the Dev+ that night because I had been reading the posts there and the idea started forming and I needed to get it out of my head because I couldn’t sleep with it bouncing around…it has taken me till today to finally get time to do any posting and a bunch has happened in here since.

 

Right, because you and your poll of +220 votes is a clear way of knowing what the 60,000+ backers want in this game. It doesn't matter what I claim, I am positive the developers know much better what people want in this game than you do. Plus, this is still RG and his team's game, and what THEY want in a game also must be taken into account.

Further, simply look at the responses to this megapost, and the one in the dev+ forum. The majority of people are OK with this system and it is a VERY vocal Minority that are clamoring for full loot.

It's funny, all the 'for realz hardcore' PvP players that think they are the only 'real' PvP'ers and know best what 'real' PvP is. and of course they all think they are the real ones and everyone else is just a casual or a wannabe. I can call myself a hardcore PvP'er and you a casual as well, it means nothing.

It is a community, that gives input into the game as a community, and its not a matter of PvP vs PvE, nor is it a matter of 'casual' PvP'ers against 'real' PvP'ers. So how about instead of trying to push that mentality, you participate as part of the community and give some actual constructive feedback about the system proposed.

Nor was it ever intended to be an old school UO game. What is it about that part that you don't understand?

 

I like this idea, it is creative. Though personally I would like to see something like this but with a limit of equipped items that can be looted... say only 1 or 2 of the equipped items could be taken. That way I still wouldn't mind wearing a full set of good gear because at most I'd lose a piece or two, but everything in my bag is fair game (easier to grab?). That could be a good compromise between the proposed system and your idea perhaps.

 

i don't think that PvP gear and enchants are a good idea if you want to have quests that will flag you for pvp i would just skip them because i wouldn't have the gear for it and if you have to pvp flag just to craft the pvp gear the price on that is going to be crazy or guilds will horde it all for themselves and i don't think any of us want a coordinated band of over geared players running around stomping down any that dare flag for pvp

 

A thought it little more, and some of my conclusions are:

I would add: In game player run system of arenas with special conditions (not necessarily tied with guilds), like no loot.

I dont agree with this idea. We need people to actually play this game, and unrestricetd full loot is not an idea that would sell this game to a wide audition. Too much risk. Having said that, I think we need to modernize the idea of risk and immersion in game present in UO. I propose a full loot system for everyone (PvP and PvE) where you can select a maximum number of items to insure (3) without (ideal) or little cost, that get damaged anyway if you die. The rest stays with your body (damages as well) so a friend can guard your items (maybe unlootable if a friend is near) until you come back, if you do.

Another issue with ransoms and time to get money for them is that if you killed 3 players in a row you dont lost time looting and dont get encumbered with weight of items. And your opponents friends or party cant kill you to get back some of the lost items( immersion break).

That is not true (entirely). If the big boss of the dungeon X is only killable by Y number of player with Z equipment, then people will NEED to use that equipment to get the job done. I think PvPers would have a little disadvantage, but not to great if they could assure some of their equipment, and you could add some incentive regarding more resources if you get the NPC killed with PvP enabled.

This is a MUST, I said it in another post: Rare gear doesn't need to have better stats, has to be different with properties you couldn't find another way. People are not only motivated with better stats on items. Rare properties, special effects, different looking items do the trick most of the time. Rare properties may able to craft a specific combination of skills (cards) and items that derivate in a special play style.

So if you mix free insurance (limited to a x number of items), damage items on death, maybe time lost on looting if it is not your corpse (Ristras idea), better items being rare (but with restricted reparation times): You can regulate the economy, you can have players that actually can use their items and crafters with job crafting items for player in all the range of progression of their crafter carrier (in the actual system the will only sell junk items to npcs).

 

My original post had 1 weapon and 1 piece of armor I think, but Im more worried about the overall idea than the details. The details and balancing adjustments are for the dev team (and I seem to remember Chris saying something about that is why they keep him around...something about adjusting the numbers ;-) ), if we can get a working idea built.

 

You speak of two things that can not exist together. You say you do not care about resources. Yet you care about full loot. Resources = loot. Everything crafted comes from resources, everything can be crafted.

If you don't care about resources, then don't go to resource hexes, there will be other options for PvP. Because, guess what, those PvPers in there looking for resources probably are not looking to stand toe to toe with someone that is only interested in PvP, they are there to gather.

When you kill someone in PvP are you going to loot them (if it's full loot)? Is your sole purpose to sit in the hexes waiting for someone to come in so you can PvP, attack on sight? Or do you look for PvP with a purpose?

Which brings me to my next question. What do you know about PvP with a purpose in SotA? Rare resources and creatures in PvP zones is only one aspect of the PvP content. There will be some story driven content for PvP. Are you interested in that? Guild vs Guild, you plan on partaking? What PvP do you engage in?

It's not all about 1 PvP style. There will be several venues for PvP but we haven't been given a PvP purpose thread. This is a PvP flagging, looting, death thread. All that was detailed here is Open PvP, Guild PvP, and rare resource/creature hex PvP.

To say I don't understand PvP is to look with blinders on. I understand the Dev's intent (without imposing my own demands) and it's not to cater to one play style. If you are expecting them to make the game with only your play style in mind you are going to be disappointed. In fact, you will be searching for the next great PvP game till the end of time.

 

How about starting with open pvp. Obviously you havent read my ideas.

I dont see why you think im obligated to put forth any ideas. Theu wont get implimented its pointless. You say success is subjective then explain to me what is, to you. And i dont really care what kind of game others want. And a lot of them dont play it because they enjoy it they play because its new until the next one comes out. Just because numbers are high is no indicator of success, success is longevity not momentary popularity

And i gave you an example and t wasnt good enough for you. Its obviously good as its still played. So they got away from pvp stuff that doesnt make the game better to me or mean its good for the genre all it means is the companies are cashing in on a fad. Those games have no stayig power they trickle into obscurity because of no dynamic pvp. Pvp is what keeps ppl, pve gets them. So some of us dont find and endless pve grind treadmill enjoyable just because you dont like it doesnt ivalidate it for us

My proof it can be done is exactly that. How many examples do you need? Did you stop and think maybee because people stopped doing it after UO that maybe is the reason you dont see many successful pvp games. Because they dont even try.
You can say they have improved but myself and others would argue that its done nothing but go down the tubes as all the games are made to cash in on a generic pve formula. It doesnt mean its improved at all. If nobody tries to make them of course there wont be successful ones cause thy are t being made due to vocal people such as yourself that want to stick to the same boring format and think anyone who wants something else is wrong. I would hypothesize that if anything its a step back going from dynamic gameplay where u can do as you wish to a stale hand holding follow the path grind out the gear endless treadmill. I dont need others in my corner standing on a hill preaching my viewpoint to have my stance validated. Most pvpers are loners that despise the herd mentality that pvers seem to congeal around

I never said pve couldnt be done good. You make my point. Why do we need another grain of sand on a beach?