PVP & Death: Current Thinking Megapost

From what I've read so far, it seems like most people want at least the option to go full loot. Hettar seems to have a very good idea. Make loot flag options. If somebody wants to risk it all there is really no point in stopping them. As long as the devs can make it so the loot option is whatever is lowest between the two players I don't see how anybody could complain. The only opposition I can see is from people that want to fully loot anybody they kill no matter what the other person wants. Of course I am not a huge PVP type so all my conclusions could be completely erroneous. Is there anyone here on the forum that does have a problem with the idea of setting different loot options?

 

I was fine with it until you put your support behind it. I just KNOW you have to be wrong.

@everyone but ragnabrock: that was a joke! Pssst. Let's not tell him. hehehehehheee

 

Actually, the current plan is you would drop items in PVE also. I assume Ransom would still be in place its just would not go to another player if paid.

 

As a non-hardcore PvP player I don't think it matters to ME, but from what I have read and understood from those that do claim that title, it seems best to just let guilds choose 'standard loot' or 'full loot' and EVERYONE who chooses the always-on (until quest done to turn off) "Blessing of the Oracle" is "full loot" by default.

And then yes, in cross-rule death, the lowest rule applies.

 

Even if it's a 30% reduction, so you are still 70% efficient, it can be a pretty big blow. I want some gear dependencies because without it itemization is pointless/worthless just like original UO... yeah, GM weapons/armor were cheap/easy to get and easy to lose. I want progression, to me that is what an RPG is about. It doesn't have to be a huge progression like Wow and other games, it just needs to be enough, like Link in the original zelda, there is a big difference between starting sword, 3 hearts, green clothes and the master sword, 16 hearts, red ring...If you were pvping one vs the other, yeah the newb geared character could beat the decked out character if there was enough of a skill difference. You could still beat the toughest things in the game, but it would be challenging. (You can even beat it without getting a sword, there is a play through on youtube of it, craziness.. actually I think you can't quite, you have to stab gannon with the master sword to beat it, but you can get to that point).

Now if in order to achieve this master level on everything took a long time, and losing all of your gear was like returning you to newb status, you can see how most players wouldn't want that kind of punishment for 1 loss in pvp. Yes, they can still kill things, and adventure but they are handicapped till they can regain it.

 

I really don't enjoy that at all. I want to have more hearts, be faster, etc. because of my level. I want bonuses on gear to be minimal. I would like magical weapons to be good situationally like for bypassing immunities and the like.

sent from the future using my Coleco Adam

 

Lets see... You want gear to not be very meaningful, you want pvp to be open, and you want full loot right?

So you can run around with barely any gear, pk people, steal their rares if any and make money with little risk? heheheh

Seems to be the mindset of most of the people requesting things like that.

 

I wonder if any PvP battle achieved in the game will be as epic as this thread. Good debate!

 

I could go with that.

If it was good enough for King Leonidas and the 300, it's good enough for me.

I'm not a PK. I hunt PKs, and there are a lot of us who want Open PvP/Full Loot who do, so don't equate this with PKs only.

If you are carrying valuables, safeguard your valuables.

Not entirely - see my criticism above.

 

Magic items that arent so powerful isnt something bad.In fact in UO magic items gave you advantage over a player on your level,you couldnt beat a better and more experienced players cause you had the phat lewt from Ragnaros or whatever.
So magic items were used mostly for duels or pve farming (liches and other mobs with certain immunities) and of course for guild fights.This was one of the key aspects that made UO a balanced game even for nowdays terms.
That didnt make PKs run around cities or instances.PKs were exactly acting like IRL.They went to points of interest for a very short duration and then leave for another one to make their kill.
Each action has a reaction so people also knew that and waited for them(in the good old days they were people and guilds that were based on hunting bounties from PKs) so combine this with the penalties a PK had when he died (skill penalties that many times were far above the gold the pk had gathered with these kills) and you had a pretty much normal outdoor experience and even in instances that you knew that were PKs or scammer hot spot you could always escape with a scroll or hide and avoid getting killed or looted by a scammer if you have died by a monster.
The world should be open pvp and full loot like UO or at the worst case scenario force pvp flag on places of interest like dungeons and other places with rare resources.It gives a meaning and better value at every action you make.Whats the meaning of being a master blacksmith if you have farmed it without any risk and with all the resources being accessible without any danger?Zero.But lets say that after a certain skill the ore you need is near instances and other points of interest that people know that you may get ganked gives another status both to the value of your items and of you being a master of a whatever crafting skill and also will keep the number of crafters balanced which will also drive the economy not to be inflated in the long run.

 

I, and it seems many others, disagree about whether that gives us meaning in a game. If it gives you meaning to all the actions and achievements then by all means, I want you to have it.

Can you explain what the benefits would be to having it as you stated above versus what the devs suggested in the OP, specifically for anyone who does NOT feel like the constant danger adds fun or meaning to the game? I would guess that the ability to receive the "Oracle Blessing" to make the world open PvP for you, if you could also be able to fully risk your full loot, would provide what you prefer?

 

The value comes from time spent crafting, gathering resources from many different places, and danger experienced from going to the places to get the rare resources witch I am sure will be filled with challenging monster, puzzles etc. The idea that an accomplishment only holds value if you had to fight off another player (or kill another player) to get it doesn't make sense to me. If that is how you play, that is fine by me I just don't think that the only value from our accomplishments come from winning out over another player. As to my question posed earlier, this is the first vote for not having loot flag options for partial loot or full loot. At least I think that is what you are saying. Please let me know if I am wrong on this. Anybody else want to speak up in opposition of the idea of loot flags?

 

Risk has been all but removed. Not just for PvP. It doesn't matter how you die here there is almost zero risk. This lessens the PvE experience as well.

I'm not sure crafting comes into play like this for me. I like crafting. Making stuff is the achievement. Having a good vendor is an achievement. Having a sweet house with cool add-onds is an achievement. I will ook forward to all those things.

Sota is going to be somewhat to largely gear based. Don't have to read far between the lines to guess is it will end up largely gear based. Special PvP gear, special PvE etc.It will be progressive like WoW not open like UO.

Not even sure why the PvP vs PvE debate continues. Dev team is pretty clear on the direction they are going. Embracing the casual gamer who wants to be spoon fed achievement.

The Anti-pvp crowd is just hanging around to gloat and rub salt. Its just the kind of PvP they like, no risk. What they don't get is this system makes PvE duller by far as well.

If you die from a hard mob..or any mob..your stuff should be up for grabs. All of it. The satisfaction of gearing up, going back and killing the mob to get your gear is awesome.

Limited/protected loot dulls the experience for us all. Same reason. Why fear that mob boss? So you died and he took one of your 3 swords that you carry specifically to feed the 1 item loot mechanic. Who cares you got to pick the item anyway...just get up and fight him again with basically zero loss.

This is a formula for boredom not achievement. You can't have victory without defeat. Defeat should sting. It is memorable. This won't be.

 

Your first line is an assumption, and one that is directly contradicted by what the devs have said about gear NOT being a large focus on what determines victory.

I've been hanging around championing for the PvP players to get EXACTLY what they have stated they want; Open PvP (the devs have already given it) and full loot (I think you should get it - but not those who don't want it). What you call being spoon fed achievement other people call 'fun' - why are you more right than they are?

And if you enjoy the satisfaction of gearing up after loosing everything, fearing that mob boss or PvPer, or belief in victory requiring defeat than YOU SHOULD HAVE IT, I HOPE YOU GET IT.


But don't assume I or others must also play that way.

 

That seems both insulting and a little presumptuous. I like a challenge, I just don't think failure should have catastrophic consequences. If by casual gamer you mean someone like me that has either a full time job, or a full college schedule and can therefor only spare a couple of hours a day (if we are lucky) to a game, then yes I am a casual gamer. To say that I want to be spoon fed achievement because I don't want every failure to cost me several hours of in game work is insulting. Remember several hours in game = several days real time for some of us.

Why must it always be anti-pvp and pro-pvp? I am mostly neutral towards the pvp aspect now that I know if won't be forced on me. If you read my posts you will see I am actually trying to get people to speak up on how they would prefer the system to work. If we stopped arguing and concentrated on coming to a consensus on how we would actually like the game to work, I believe that the devs would take notice and really consider our ideas. Also I am assuming this is vote number 2 against the idea of loot flags. Anyone else?

 

I don't get this, why can't you have gear progression with full loot? There is no reason for you to take your best gear to an area where you can lose it if it matters that much to you?

There will be places for you to do your PvE thing without risk of PvP, so please explain where the problem lies?

 

Risk aversion. Some people have it. Some don't.

 

There's no risk, they have said there will be areas to farm without it.

 

That's what I said a number of pages back, but people are so hellbent on being right and/or being negative, they can't (or won't) respond in a reasonable manner. Unfortunately most of those are the self-proclaimed "hardcore gamers" or "hardcore PVPers", and they'll only end up hurting themselves because if we don't come up with something that works for all, the dev team will push forward with their original idea...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.

 

It is not risk aversion, that's not it at all. I don't see it like that, that is an extremely narrow view to take.