PVP & Death: Current Thinking Megapost

From what I can tell from the different videos, PvE and PvP will inhabit the same instances. The devs has discussed the guild/friends issue. If you are in a guild with someone that declared open PvP would you have to go PvP to group with that player? What if you are a friend of a friend that has a guildie that is PvP.

To avoid situations that turn into pushing everyone into solo instances without reason, PvE and PvP share the same instances.

This one I will actually go hunt down, because I am interested in the verbage they use to ensure I am following them correctly.

 

Oh, sorry, I was going to bold things but didn't.

So I went back and edited the post.

 

I interpreted it in this way as well.

 

Well, it could be resolved. If the two users partied up, they would need to meet up somewhere, once they entered the hex, they would both be sorted into an instance matching the Leader's PvP status.

If they were already in the same hex (but in different instances), then the *non-leader* would need to exit the hex, and reenter to be sorted with their party member.

Still it could get a little confusing for users unclear on the instancing concept.

Ah. There was a little bracketed caveat (immediately following the portion you bolded), but it was obviously not obvious enough. My apologies on that.

 

Actually now that you mention it. The parts that they discuss in those video (once I find them for clarity) do not seem to take into account the grouping homogenization part we just pointed out.

If you are guild/friend with someone that is not the same PvE/PvP there is a delay before grouping to flag the same as the group leader.

If that is true, I can't see are reason why PvP and PvE could not have their own instances.

 

I would like the video link as well. I took what I heard was that PVP/PVE would only be in the same zones if the PVP flag was enforced one way or the other. They even mentioned that the PVP flag was on the hex not the person.

I imagine there would need to be exceptions for duels or arenas, but if there is a full out battle going on there should not invincible people eating popcorn and watching. It should be trivial to filter PVP and PVE to their own instances to avoid this. I would expect to have to flag PVP to meet up with a PVP friend. Otherwise you are just going to have tons of griefing.

 

If two people are in the same guild, I would think the grouping algorithm would match them before it would strangers.

 

Yes... Still, leaves the question open as to *what* approach the devs actually intend to implement.

Nuisance that.

Agreed, I would expect "Guild Mate" would provide an even higher ranking than "Friend" in the sorting algorithm.

 

OK, on second thought, it all depends on how they handle grouping vs the filter. Which is more important, the group or the filter.

For example: Friend > Guild > PvP > Level > Recent grouping > common interest > etc

If the filter is more important then the group would change it to PvP > Friend > Guild > etc

But that's probably more of a Meta Shard mega thread, even if it really does impact PvP. If you desire a play style as @mmjarec then this is the big question. Still thinking they are going to go with Meta server over group. But the details are needed to see what they intend to go with.

 

I was hoping for a game that had distinct levels of PvP and PvE. I was looking for PvE only areas, with the counter that there would be real risk open PvP areas. PvE'r would be happy, PvPers would be happy. I would be happy because I could play both.

The fact that even if you opt for full PvP, that only would available in certain areas still doesn't allow full loot is....polarizing and ultimately game defining.

I see zero compromise between PvP and PvE. Some arm failing about 1 item looting but with mandatory ransom system in consensual only PvP...and now the game is clearly going to be gear based.

This is not a closed economy, you're selling gold. So the only reason for mechanics that protect gear this much is because the game is gear based or pseudo gear based.

If this is not a gear based game then why would they protect the gear so much?...in a non-gear based game being looted isn't a big deal because there isn't that much different between really good and average gear. I call BS on your reasoning about not taking out the best gear. If the best gear gives even a slight advantage it will be used unless the cost disparity is so great that it is a huge issue..you know..like in a gear based games.

The PvE only crowd should be thrilled. You even gave them high end resources etc in PvE only areas.

Ah well. I'll still play for a bit. It'll be worthwhile to see the designs, PvE environment and some of the mechanics but without real risk there is no real PvP. I knew that there would be concessions to provide solid gameplay for straight PvErs...but not like this. Too far. Not balanced.

Please make it so people can sell their accounts. A couple months after release, when the PvE is mastered I'll need to find a game that also has PvP.

 

I played UO for many years , and what I most liked and do different UO than other mmorpgs is precisely the FULL LOOT and OPEN (non-consensual) PVP, the sense of danger you have when you leave the city, it makes you think about it twice but it also makes you experience the game in a much more intense way. Current thinking is typical of PVP mmorpg any of you get bored of playing in a week because there is nothing exciting. If this game was going to be a spiritual successor of UO, the essence of UO was just that.
People who do not like PVP can play in single player mode and no one bothered them. Do not spoil this game before it comes out please.

 

This is not true. If you flag for Open PvP, you can PvP in 100% of the map, even in towns.

 

Your concept of "OPEN PVP" is not happening and this is pretty much established as fact; neither is your concept of multiplayer for PVP only and single player for everyone else.

Just thought you'd like to know.

 

I go with the people that want open pvp as a major point of this game being a successor to UO.UO had full open pvp outside cities (before Trammel etc).Good crafters went to gather resources to places that were very often visited by PKs or just scammers that wanted a share of what the area had to offer.
But of course PKs didnt roam the land cause of the many hot spots and the various penalties so they couldnt risk attack the same places in a routine since they would be killed.At the good old days a part of the economy was also around pk bounties and pk hunters.This can be also implemented here.
By having PVE with that many privileges and at the scale that devs describe it ,it will have the same outcome as Trammel for Ultima.Lots of crafters and after a point being a gm blacksmith or whatever didnt have any value at all.To be honest a same recipie like pre Trammel UO can work in this game.
PVE grinding games and item oriented are all around and i can say for sure that some of them are or will be better than this game for the pve aspect.A big percentage(more than 50% that for sure) of the people that supported this game either in KS or in the time between KS and now are people coming from that era(or have seen UO in its glory days via a friend playing it) and i think they want just that.Simple but it misses from all the other games around.The joy of playing a totally free mmorpg with the risks and the joys involved

 

That's fine. I came here thinking this game was going to be like DOOM, but with the shotgun from DOOM 2. Too bad we can't both be right.

 

I think you guys(devs) should be a little bit braver and trust us to work out how to live with full loot and open pvp. I just think that if creatures and dragons and all that can kill you you here, why are the humans so special? There are always options to make it more realistic, how about bounties? Or a,local guild that will look,after the robbed and seek,vengeance, charters for protection of travellers and all sorts of things that will bring depth and feel of a living society.
i think as long as you bring accountability for actions and characters, the rest will sort its self out.

 

I agree partly with you but this is something that wont happen for several reasons (mostly the community) so better to go with the current and try to make the best out of it.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

 

Well if thats not an introduction to an UO successor i dont know what else would be.If community wants a PVE/item oriented mmorpg like well 95% out there fine with me.I for sure in the long run wont continue.
But tbh the pvp topic should remain open till the end cause i think that the biggest part of the percentage out there wants far more open and realistic world than this model.
Judging from the people that write in these forums and on the pledges like i said for sure most of the people here come from the old UO era and they want something like that with modern terms.
It isnt nostalgia or making the past look ideal.Is a recipie that worked wonders and like wise men say "If something works dont fix it".

 

You did see the part where they showed all the Ultima games right? And did you notice which title was absent?

The focus of that video was role-playing. He talked about getting rid of quest markers and telling stories.

At only one point is PvP even mentioned in the video, as a sidebar. UO is mentioned one time, at the end, and used to say: hey, we messed up some at UO, so we want your input this time around, so we can make a game that better suits our audience.

I think this video makes very poor evidence for your argument.

 

There is no real accountability in a PvP game. If there was, a pker would be thrown in jail for the rest of their gameplay time with that character or executed and be unable to play again with that character for killing someone.

Anything less than that is no deterrent at all and will just lead to an abnormal percentage of murderers in the world, making it an unlivable place for the majority of non murdering people.

Real, permanent consequences are the only thing that will hold back the masses of pkers, but I've yet to see one who will accept these realistic consequences. The reality is, most of them want to kill with impunity, with very little to no downside.