PVP & Death: Current Thinking Megapost

I see where you are basing your argument from. The way this reads is that all risk comes from combat. The ultima series of games have almost always had more of a focus on RP then combat. Deadly puzzles, traps, and things of that nature. Also, saying that the AI will not be able to surprise you is a little premature considering we haven't even experienced the combat mechanic yet. Many of the games you talk about in comparison are MMORPGs which SOTA is most definitely not. What is with the criminal comment? I have never claimed that PVPers where criminals. I've never even suggested it.

Although these comments have nothing to do with the original "Risk only comes from other players" discussion we were having, I will address them as well. I don't understand the need to make somebody fight other players to get something. Why do believe that people who have no interest in PVP should be forced into it in order to have access to all resources? Why must it everybody except pvp and learn how to play around it. You say the world should, and the world needs, without backing these statements up with fact. Not to mention that SOTA is not an MMORPG like the other games you are comparing it to. The kickstarter info clearly states that they want to explore multiplayer beyond combat, and try out the unique Ultima game style in a new way. I plainly do not believe that forcing people into a play type they don't enjoy, (and thereby eliminating game options) will make a more enjoyable game. I can understand that much of the PVP type play style appeals to you; But why do you need to force it on other people? If these aspects of the game make it more enjoyable, there should be no need to force anyone. If they are enjoyable people will choose them of their own free will.

Nice talk so far. Thanks for being willing to clarify a position through reasoned discussion.

 

PVP aspect for me is from being a guild member to be a PK (criminal IRL terms).
The RP element is strongly if not side by side connected to the human factor.It was the main idea from point zero of RPG playing,a bunch of people,a dungeon master and all the game was around players choises.
And yes my friend i fail to see where is the RP element at a world that handles different people that wants pve (call it a crafter or a dungeon adventurer) from these that want pvp(call them guild members,player killers and whatever pvp can include)

Iam not judging early.I said that in the long run i havent met a game that the AI suprised me.After some point i was able to see the patterns and react accordingly and i think that you are able to do it as well with games that you spent a reasonable amount of time.And whats the point if there arent events and places that forces people to interact with each other?Why ,if this is not the case, should people bother playing SoTA and not a sandboxed game in which they will be crafters,warriors and gods without any risks involved and with a load game saving the day?

 

Yeah, I stopped reading at "********" in the first line... And even though it has been changed now, I won't read the post, because of that start... You only have 1 chance to make a first impression...
(And if you've bothered reading the whole thread, you'd know that (A) we're trying to find a reasonable compromise that works for nearly all people, (B) I personally am neither pro or con PvP, but dislike both the current proposal and full loot alike, (C) you are NOT the majority, just the loudest shouters, (D) we won't get Portalarium to shift their stance if we (or rather a few "extremists" out there) keep infighting rather than cooperating constructively.

Why can't you*) STOP shouting, bickering and reiterating you negativity, and START acting like adults (age irrelevant!) and work to constructively contribute to a workable solution!

*) "You" being all the negativists and inflexible people in this thread on BOTH sides of the argument. There's a number of posts in this thread I'd have removed if I were a mod, on BOTH sides of the argument!

 

Point me a game nowdays that PvE hasnt ended up as a grindfest for resources/items...
I presume you played pre Trammel as well.
If you have managed to get insta-killed after some time in UO in which you knew where to farm,pk hotspots etc etc then sorry but either you havent played the game enough or you werent good at it (and thats not bad or insulting,each person is good and bad accordingly at each thing he/she does.I for example mostly suck at FPS games ).
I never insta died or getting ganked after some point cause i knew which places to avoid with what char and in general people that interacted with other people in UO didnt have any problem surviving and making money.
And where did you see my safety which i deny from others?It was experience mate.I knew when it was the right time player and isp wise to use my PK.And i was using a modem while they were swedish people that played on my server (Drachenfels) and they had a T1 connection.And even these people that used their PK character at a wrong timing were paying the price of death and penalties.
Frankly i strongly believe that people got used to the nowdays gameplay that spoon feeds and protects so you dont have any risks and any danger attached...
I respect that if this is the majority of the players wanting it like i have said but personally i dont find any interest or challenge from such a gameplay.
And as a hint for UO: no the devs back then didnt change the gameplay cause players had problem with that.Gameplay changed rapidly after EA took the game and wanted to attract more money without caring about the player database at that point.Balance was fine.PK population was balanced.They were whole teams of players that hunted PKs with 100.000 and 200.000 gold bounty and back then you could buy 2 story houses at a good spot with that money

 

We are now coming up on the 10th day anniversary from when this post was started and we now have 73 pages of dialog to read through to come up to speed in an attempt to understand all these very deep subjects Yet, after having read all 73 pages, I've come to the conclusion...
" That Our Game is Only 6 Months Away from Distribution " and it's time for our Tech's to end finalizing whatever there is needed for their hands to start typing out the massive amounts of computer text to meet the distribution deadline

From what I've read here, our game is sounding like a highly tweakable system that can be modified as it comes necessary for it's future installments yet with that being said, I do worry about reaching the deadline with a viable and market explosive product. If it fizzles it will be because it still has many problems or will be viewed on the shelf as just like every other game.

When UO was released, it had a very favorable write up done about it in WIRED magazine which did not talk about any flaws, yet highlighted many of the unique "newly innovative things about it". There were a host of other games mentioned within the video game special issue, which did seem to have better graphics, but it was the highly interactive quality of UO within the article that truly made me go out and buy an account for each of my young family members.

Arthur M. Young (inventor of the first production helicopter, which is still in use today) Noted throughout his life that you couldn't make something that worked by drawing it on a piece of paper and expect everything to just work the way it was intended. Though the design department at Bell would draw out new design features, they just didn't seem to work which resulted in many deaths of test pilots. This was the reason that Bell had to keep calling back Arthur M. Young to continue to work on the project as he had designed the fully functional model by flight test after test of smaller models "Out of His Barn" (yep, he does sound allot like Tony Starks)

My point is... We are 6 months away from distribution, and it's time to build it and see if it can fly. Then we can have enough time to tweak whatever problems comes up, with enough time left over to possibly add the right cherry on top

So my overall message to our Portalarium is, "Build it and lets get something that we can fly"

~Sil Rel Por Ya'll~
~Time Lord~

 

None shouted.Anyhow like i have said if the game doesnt provide freedom like UO (and i dont mean being the same like UO) i just wont play it.No use flaming in forums or in game.
After all players judge and act accordingly.If people want something sterilized i cant argue with majority but i wont follow.I for once dont see the point of a RPG that a player cant effect the world or another player(like it or not a player must be part of the world ).To be 100% i dont see the point playing such a game over the internet while so many good single mode rpg's exist.At least there i can do whatever i choose and of course pay the price for that good or bad.Being in a game that restricts my options isnt a game i want to be a part of.Being in a game that i can sit back and let my bot gather materials and craft isnt a game i like to be a part of.I like challenges and peculiar and un predictable things happen and these things can be offered only by another human being.
Of course i will get angry if for example my miner dies from a mage PK but i wont get disappointed.I will find another spot and after some time i will take my revenge (game-wise) on that player.Its called competition.And no AI and pve encounter can give you that....

 

[REPEAT MODE ON]
You *can* PvP, there's just no Full Loot, and people who do not want to PvP can opt out MOSTLY. There are regions you will HAVE to accept PvP if you want the rarest resources in reasonable quantities. PvPers have 100% of the map to play (ánd PvP) on, non-PVPers approx 90% of the map.
[REPEAT MODE OFF]

Now HOW does that conflict with your POV?
(And please do NOT pull full loot in to this as an absolute requirement, it is NOT gonna happen, we just need to find something the majority can agree upon, and maybe the devs will listen.)

In general (so NOT speaking to anyone in particular!) I'd like to say that if people do not have anything useful to add to this thread but statements like "if it isn't full loot I won't play" - because it WON'T be full loot - then please leave already, so the people who*are* willing to compromise can get something constructive going.

 

The key aspect of why DnD survives even nowdays is the freedom that it gives.Is plain and simple mate.You see every action you make affecting you/your party/your world.
Full loot is one of the elements of the freedom.Whats the point of being a thief if you cant steal everything(when you reach the top level of the skill)
Whats the point of engaging in PvP either by being a PK or bounty hunter or Guild member if you cant take everything from a player you defeated?(chop his/her head and lock it down or feed it to your tamed dragon for example)
What a fantasy medieval world would be like if only lawful good characters and merciful gods existed or vise versa?
And why i wont be able to siege a city with my guild and be a tyrant for example(high taxes etc)?
If such a thing existed pve people would take arms and rebel for example thus getting involved in PvP
I fail to see how protected pve and seperated pvp will drive to a different outcome than any of the games that are out there

 

I totally agree with you no matter what set up they have the monsters and NPCs will have a mechanic they will follow its easy to discover that from fighting them, or just watching them from the shadows, Now if the game mechanics were very aggressive and unpredictable the PVE crowd would be complaining about that next!!! Then the Design once again would be changed just for them, as it pretty much has been since this game started, i feel like since im a PVPr (not a pkr (yet!)) that none of the designers will listen to anything i say since i support PVP and PK and RPPVP or RPPK, full loot and such so im going to smelt my silver platter down into ingots and sell it (at least i can say i worked for that gold)

 

Same thing that happened at WoW raid encounters.Even in a PvE server with the worst risk being a wipe from a raid boss people that didnt have the skills or the time complained and in the long run (see nowdays) you have a game full of epics with no value at all (at least compared to what the word Epic really meant when epics were hard to obtain).So everyone gets more or less the same.
RP is everything from the lowest thug/thief/scammer or humble paladin/knight to the most virtuous lord or dread lord.Even the slightest detail missing is a minus.

 

DnD gives you a sense of false Freedom. In a DnD game, absolutely everything is controlled by the Game Master. Every aspect of any action you do is filtered by him and the presented to you in a way that makes you feel as if you are doing whatever you want, but he, in his mind, is continuously making adjustments to his world and deciding what you can actually accomplish or what not, so the game remains playable. Also, in a DnD game, the world only needs to cater to the small group playing it, so it wraps around the party to be fun for them. In a game like this, however, the game needs to be fun for every player or the players won't play.

Now, while I understand than playing "the bad guy" can be fun sometimes there's two things to take into consideration:
1) Not everyone enjoys the constant threat
2) Game mechanics and economy balance must be mantained

Ok, 1 is easy: optional PvP, as it's now. Whoever wants to play that kind of game can and whoever not doesn't need to be forced to.
2 is more complicated, as things like Full Loot comes into play. Again, in a DnD game the master is constantly accounting for your actions and ajust everything. That's impossible to realistically do in an automated large-scale world like this, so here a compromise between freedom and mechanics must be achieved. You want full loot, but the Devs think that full loot will break mechanics, so that's just not gonna happen. What is possible, however, is to find a balanced alternative that, while not being fully what you want, is better than the proposed system and mantain the playability. That whhat this discussion was supposed to be, to find an equilibrium, instead of a battle of no loot vs. full loot.

Actually, there is a 3rd concern: the possibility of griefing.
In the real world and, heck! even in a DnD game, characters actually face risks for their "illegal" actions. A thief can get his hand cut off (and the GM impeding an easy regrowth spell) or killed forever or imprisoned for life. Mor even so for an assasin. That would be actual RP. Here? This kind of game can't be so punishing, so the balance turns heavily towards the "bad guys" who risk little punishment vs. the "victims" who risk losing a lot. The result of that is that many PKs or Thieves aren't actually RP PKs or Thieves, but griefers whose only way of playing is making the game no fun for everyone else. That's another aspect that has to be properly balanced, and it's not easy.

Personally? I'd make death a bit more punishing (within reason). I think it would make the game a bit more challenging and help avoid the "naked mage pk" problem, as even that type of character would face some risk. But then, that's just my opinion.

 

Can I just question your reasoning behind opting out of Full loot meaning players use worse gear out of fear and death being too costly;

In trying to make pvp inclusive for everyone you may very well break the system you are trying to create, turning pvp into nothing more than a constant deathmatch of the willing, removing fear of loss, making people behave unrealistically with no fear of consequence. You don't seem to realise that UO style pvp was all inclusive from the second you logged in. Players who did not want to fight built a real economy or crafted for guildies and THIS IS PVP albeit through a middleman.

I played an AOS server for a while with insurance disabled and initially it was as described, people pvp'd in junk. but as people learned more and more they used better gear, (artifacts were used rarely but kept for tourneys and duels and honestly I dont see much wrong with this at all, what else are we gonna put in these bigass castles). This meant that the lower end gear (horned/barbed leather etc) was always cheap and because it was cheap anyone could start learning to pvp for less than 5k. For those who had artifacts the fear of losing them meant nobody ever used them in real open pvp, so it was never necessary to disable them because of balance issues, but crucially; ANYONE COULD GET INTO PVP CHEAPLY AND AT LITTLE COST, WHILST FEAR OF LOSING ARTIFACTS RESTRICTED THEIR USE TO TOURNEYS. I write that in bold capitals because I greatly fear that the interaction between pvp and the economy is being overlooked, they are in fact connected, and this connection is the founding stone of what made previous games so realistic in terms of peoples behaviour and overall balance of the game.


All the current talk of consentual pvp is making me wonder if UO was just some kind of glorious accident we will never see the likes of again, you created a system which (almost) managed itself. Why on earth would you want to lean towards the current market trend, You have a niche, a golden blueprint which tens if not hundreds of thousands of players are longing for, crying for something fundamentally different from WoW/Guildwars/Everyother god damn mmo on the market (sadly including ESO) for the love of god don't waste this opportunity.

 

That sounds as if PvP was the only thing that was in the game. "People would not use expensive gear for PvP" "People learned PvP", etc... but there is way more than PvP in this game... Why should a crafter going from home to wherever he needs to be need to risk losing his gear if he doesn't want to? Why should a warrior going to a quest lose the items required for said quest if he doesn't want to participate in PvP?

Also, let me stress something: This is NOT a MMORPG. It's some kind of story-driven sandbox game with open endgame with multiplayer interweaved. It's something new, something that's never been done before, so the rules applying to other games doesn't need to apply here.

True, in a completely player based system, PvP has an important role in the economy. The best example that ever comes to mind is EVE, in which PvP is crucial, "pseudo open" (has it's rules, it's not uo-like but almost) and balanced enough so even the gankers may risk something (maybe not enough, but quite). But this isn't this kind of game.

This game needs to be balanced from scratch and the best way is to first find some kind of theorical equilibrium point to start from and, from there, it will need a lot of manual adjusting and evolution before achieving the desired equilibrium point.

 

Valid argues there mate.None talked about a possible PK character with no penalties.Penalties should be there in the form of item and skill/experience loss on death (or even by lets say arrest if you go near a city..)
Also the ''nake mage pk'' to be a mage with the skills needed to PK (and that means at least around 90 magery to be effective and some resist with melee/fist skill to survive) needed also the player that had this PK char to also have a crafter or a more pve oriented mage/warrior so he could always have a steady and sure source of income.
You cant be a pvp player of that nature from the start of the game.You will start like all people with a character to discover game mechanics and earn your living and after a decent amount of time you will start to build your pvp char either he will be a pk or a guild pvp character.
And like i have said in previous posts having a totally secure pve with resources that are always obtainable without risks and hardships you are driven to an inflated economy where crafters and items are everywhere and with no value at all.
A pvp guild that invaded your town must effect you either you want it or not its exactly like people militia react to an invading army.
Same rule applies for a pve random event in a pvp flagged area.It would be un-realistic if an undead army skipped attacking PvP characters in the area and only waited for the adventurers to come.

 

+1.A self managed system that was sustained by the players.No game except UO like you said and EVE (in its way)has achieved that.I too cant see the point of using the ordinary wow recipie when such a good blueprint exists....

 

It has been said more than once that not all resources would be easily obtainable, and that some of the rarest would only be in enough quantities in PvP areas. Even if it's not, a resource protected by enough level mobs, even with a predictable AI, should generate enough loses to balance the gather.

All of that, however, must be balanced... and right now it's unknown how the economy will actually work in a mixed game like this. Remember that there is even the One-Player Online Mode, where the players affect the economy but don't encounter any other PCs ever... so it's really complicated.

Let me tell you what I think: Ep1, at release, will be far from perfect. It will be awesome in many aspects, but a deception in some. But I'm pretty sure that the team will learn from that and from players actually playing this new genre of game they have invented and, by Ep2, a lot of things will have improved. If by Ep3 things aren't running smoothly, then we could say that the Devs have failed in their intent, but no sooner as, again, they are stepping in unknown lands.

On a side note, perhaps some unrealistic combinations of PvP and non-PvP flagged players could be fun... Say, for example, a pure crafter that needs to gather a resource in a zone full of monsters, so he hires a bodyguard. Said bodyguard is, however, flagged for PvP. PKs couldn't attack the crafter, true, but could attack the bodyguard, rendering the crafter unable to obtain his resource, but with no harm to him... There are cases in which a balance, although slightly unrealistic, might still be fun. But it's a hard thing to do, so we need to stop pulling eacch from one side of the rope and start working together on finding how to make of this game the best possible.

 

Because this isn't an open mmorpg, that's the problem... If it were it would be a lot easier, but it's not. It isn't a solo game, either. Is a completely new genere, so either blueprint wouldn't likely fit. We need to start for scratch.

(Sorry about the double post, but you wrote that while I was replying on the previous post )

 

You could always treat the multiplayer online play as a country with an economy and general society behaviour based like we said on the players and the single player online being something like an outside small country partner.
The player that is single play on line should affect the economy of the larger country/online multiplayer at the appropriate percentage more or less acting like the barrier a country puts on its imports