PVP & Death: Current Thinking Megapost

I doubt at this point I am ever going to play this as an MMORPG. I signed up for a spiritual successor to Ultima and Ultima Online. The devs statements regarding PvP have me deeply concerned that it will fulfill that criteria, at least for me. I have fond memories of Ultima Online as a "wild west" game where you never could adequately anticipate what was about to happen. Players had the possibility to choose good or evil. It seems that in multiplayer this will not be possible in SoTA.

I am a fan of Tracy Hickmand and Richard Garriot. It is unfortunate so many people view Ultima Online as a failure. I think a game which has endured since 1997 with numerous competitors is far from a failure. There have been several changes to the gameplay throughout the years, but the original game revolutionized the MMO market. It has been stated before and I will state it again: SoTA is not Ultima Online. It is my opinion that it is quite a leap to even call it a spiritual successor. The karma system and the open world is what made Ultima for me. Those key ingredients are fundamental to the essence of Ultima and Ultima Online.

Is it possible to not have open PvP and full loot and still satisfy the requirement to be an open world with consequences for your actions?

It is my opinion that the answer is no. Lets say that I murder another player and take his armor. I cannot sell him back his armor at a price I deem appropriate. I cannot do that because the developers have already interfered. I can venture deep into the abyss, but I will always be aware that there is no real threat lurking around the corner. There will be no moments of intense adrenaline when my character approaches the moment of death, I have nothing to lose.

The younger generations of gamers have never experienced this. The feeling is difficult to describe and is something that must be witnessed first hand. There has been no game which has successfully duplicated the early days of Ultima Online. There has been no game capable of living up to the early days of Ultima Online and there probably never will be. Shroud of the Avatar with its current rule set will not even be close. It will be a game closer to Everquest or World of Warcraft and will feature a similar rule set.

 

I agree, in the early days of Ultima Online it was possible to escape ganks. The technology advanced and with voip and tools such as Ventrillo caused it to become increasingly difficult. On some private servers there were even programs to synchronize your casting with another player. The use of 3rd party programs to increase your ability to successfully gank is lame.

I played as a red in Ultima Online and we usually stayed away from populated areas. Occasionally, we rolled into Deceit or Shame but it was often the case that the numbers overwhelmed us. There were always more blue players than red ones. It was still exhilarating to engage in combat when the odds were stacked against us. There were easy targets who had low skills, but there were always at least a few worthy opponents as well. The life of a PK was never easy.

I saw more gank squads on UO Gamers than I ever did on OSI. There were massive guilds whose sole purpose was to defend other blue players, these were called notos or anti-pk's. I think Owain is a member of one such group, although I have heard very little about KGB.

 

Sigh, it's pretty clear to anyone reading without an agenda that none of your post was relevant to anything I said, indeed most of your statements weren't just wrong, they were the polar opposite of reality:

You do inhabit a black and white world, where there's no difference between the ability to do something, and a requirement to always do it.
You ignore evidence and facts, and when you lose an argument, you post stuff with absolutely no relationship to the ideas you were nominally responding to.
You do inhabit the same world where people can speculate, as everyone else does.
I carefully explained my loot preferences; my feelings won't be hurt regardless of what the end result is, but I think if you don't get what you want, the story may be quite different.
I'm all about the *ability* to loot, not the looting itself, but you live in black and white so either you can't or won't understand the difference.
I've offered constructive criticism and suggestions within the last few posts and elsewhere, but you're not really interested in hearing from people who disagree with you, and who can prove you wrong, you're only interested in defaming and burning down straw men when proper methods of arguing fail.

Thankfully I have confidence that others here are genuinely interested in listening, and that the devs will separate the wheat from the chaff.

Ho hum.

 

I think the Devs need to first define what constitutes griefing/exploitative behavior as well as legitimate PVP behavior within SotA. They will also need to define how griefing is dealt with and how to go about reporting and documenting it if it occurs as well as any penalties so that everything is out on the table. If those things become clear, then that opens up the possibility for full loot, partial loot, victor choice to exist because then those can be argued for in the light of what constitutes inappropriate player behavior relative to the community at large.

I think so much is being taken away from the RP-PVP aspect of playing as bandits, murderers, vigilantes, bounty hunters, monsters or any sort of character-driven play with this auto-loot/ auto-ransom system. If PVP is supposed to be consensual (through quest flagging, entering PVP zones, or guild flagging), then why all the fuss over whether a player may or may not wear junk items or to what degree a player is looted? If a player wears crap items, then that player should die easily in that gear, and the victor should just leave the junk items and pick up whatever loot may appeal to the victor if at all. The victor should also have the choice to do whatever he/she wants to with any and all loot items whether to ransom, sell to vendors, melt for components, etc. because the loser took the risk willingly i.e. consensual PVP and consequences.

Another point is I want to bring up is victor harassment. If a player in junk gear keeps trying to provoke another player into killing him/her over and over again, then that should constitute harassment which brings me back to my point of delineating bad player behavior, the penalties of such, and what constitutes proper reporting methods.

 

Why wait for the devs? If PvP is by consent only, I have yet to see anyone offer a valid example of griefing. Do you have one?

 

I'm saying it because for players, griefing is subjective (in the manner that you don't see any valid example, but Joe Schmoe might), but it is up to the Devs to make it objective so that we don't wind up with this bubble-wrapped version of PVP that's being offered because of fears of griefing, misunderstanding the actions of PKs, or reluctance of getting looted.

 

They can if they want. Between EVE, Darkfall, Mortal Online, and a number of other smaller games, it's easy to find a game with that kind of unforgiving PvP.

Key word being want. Contrary to what happened back between 1997 and 1999, there are numerous good options that don't have that kind of harsh environment, so most players just choose not to even bother.

Another thing, not everyone that experiences it enjoys it. I attempted to like it, EVE is a game where I like almost everything except the PvP, but it was just too frustrating. My gut feeling is that most players that experience that kind of harsh PvP give up on it, though I obviously don't have any data to back it.

 

I would find it more likely for them to attempt to codify griefing through the game code. In other words, make behavior that is considered griefing impossible, or else make it easy to escape anything considered griefing.

Having to manually evaluate griefing reports and ban players means ongoing costs with GMs, which is not a good idea in a game without a subscription.

 

PvP is by consent only. Only people who want to be there will be there, so by definition, there can be no griefing.

The devs have better things to do.

 

All I can say is... huh? You really are in a fantasy world.

• Giving players the ability to do something means that many will try it at least once and some will never stop.
• I don't believe I was bothering to argue with you, my ideas are valid and supported.
• I tend to keep my speculation to a minimum, although it does happen on occasion. When I know I'm doing it, I say so.
• Your loot preferences are noted.
• Why would you care about the ability to loot if you don't want that loot? Wait, I don't really want to know. It's a non-issue at this point.
• I have seen you reiterate the same points several times. Again noted.
• I didn't start an argument, I made a point and supported it and clearly stated that most was my opinion. You then proceeded to ignore my entire post except for cherry picking a specific line. Instead of attempting a discussion or reasonable rebuttal you chose to be rude and it was completely unnecessary, but there you are:

You are certainly welcome to respond to any of my posts, but you consistently respond in a rude and condescending manner. With that in mind I really don't feel like I'm obliged to acknowledge your ideas or respond any further.

 

Theres some commentary on it in the Multiplayer Dev chat that came out a couple of months back, where Richard talked about Emergent Behaviour also having an element of Abhorrent Behaviour. (At least thats what it sounds like the word he says, and what best fits the concept he was expressing) I'm guessing the Abhorrent constitutes 'griefing', and the primary one I remember was using furniture to block people in so they weren't able to move.

Thats... a new one. Why would someone do that? Is that an actual example of gameplay that you've had in another game? I've heard of twinks deliberately dying to lose XP to avoid going into higher PvP brackets but. I don't get that. I mean you could /ignore them to cut off anything they say, and they'd have to keep going away for a while every time you killed them but... Bizarre. I mean, yeah, there are definitely the bad sports in PvP when you've got two matched players and the loser goes into a huge abusive rant, or worse, tries to MPK the victor when in mixed PvE environments. Definitely needs to be a reporting mechanism that is impartial and ignores whether the offender has dropped $45 or $10,000.

 

Just had to ask, how can the actions of PKs (player killers) be misunderstood? I certainly don't mind getting killed every once in a while, but there really is very little that can be done to stem the ability of players to kill on a whim if the mechanic is in place. It's up to the personality of the player to decide if they are going to kill, how often and who.

IMO if you give people too much freedom in the game it will be abused. Not by the majority perhaps, but it will happen. Worse, the scenarios will arise where these abusers will have a valid argument that they were working within the parameters of the game mechanics. Didn't RG tell a story about a thief in UO who threw this in his face?

I'm a big proponent of controls to keep the game on track and protect those who want it. It curbs some freedoms but for the overall good of the game and it's community, everyone has to make sacrifices.

 

If you don't want to risk being killed, unflag, or don't flag in the first place.

PvP is by consent only. If you consent, how can you have a valid complaint?

 

My thought is that it comes down to nuance; Corpse Camping and the like. You might want to be there sure, but that doesn't mean you want to be subjected to abuse from other players. There's certainly consent but if too many get too much more than they bargained for they will not participate for long.

Aren't we trying to build a vibrant PvP environment? If so then I think some hardcore mechanics might need to be toned down just a hair.

 

Haven't been keeping up with current events, have you? How can your corpse be camped if it comes to you upon resurrection?

 

Thats exactly my thoughts as well.And frankly if we start with an already cencored PvP,to what it will evolve later on since every game i have experienced nowdays tends to lower the hardships/difficulty of its gameplay cause some people
just cant follow up.Its like banning all the characters from neutral good and down and enforce "lawful good" type of questing and player interaction as an only way to play the game.I would love to have the same feeling like in UO when i have farmed quite a bit and quickly teleported to bank my goods so i dont have an unwanted encounter.It gave my time meaning and passion.I was looking to improve my gameplay every time i logged on with that char so i avoid the hardships.Why?
Cause like the poster said i actually had something to lose.That did all the difference.And this thing is that is abscent from every mmo (in the same manner that misses from many single games irrelevant if they are FPS or RPG etc)
The feeling of being full or satisfied cause you came back from the X dungeon with your loot and without anyone messing around with you.Cause this time you were better and fought him/her back or cause you have made friendships and connections (guildwise) that helped you do that....
Nothing cant beat the satisfaction of an earned achievement.At least old school gamers can understand that
And until this point at which most of us proposed something either with the form of a meteor event,siege,flag etc,cant really understand the problem of people losing some part of the loot from another player if the game doesnt focus on items.
If from a weeks farm you get 30% losses in terms of repairing/death from aggro/changing equipment,whats the problem if the losses are more or less the same and a player has a piece of that percentage instead of another pve factor?
If the game focuses on items, in the long run pvp will be either way abundant cause none wants to lose something that needs even 1 week of pve-grinding.
And if RG didnt want UO vets to connect this game with UO why the word Ultima and Ultima On Line is refered to every possible video/post considering the game?Didnt UO vets hunger fueled a % of this game (like mentioned before if it is the biggest percentage or not i dont know) ? Would Torchlight have the same impact if it wasnt mentioned that it was made by former diablo 1 and 2 team members and pointed out on that gameplay as well even if none(like in our case)said that it will be exactly 100% like diablo gameplay?

 

IMO the ransom system will only be meaningful if there is a reason for the dead player to prefer NOT to give the ransom money and consider leaving the item. Otherwise this will only be an over complicated insurance system and nothing else. I do not know if this has been suggested before but perhaps the amount of ransom for each item should exponentially increase every time it has been paid for. This way, there is a certain risk and a PvP'er cannot keep using the same items indefinitely. It is not as unforgiving as instant-loot and the player still has a choice while keeping the risk factor at a fair level.

 

I think Ned is right about this. While the option should exist to live in a dangerous world where abuse is allowed, PvP should also be available in other forms, including open-world non-loot PvP and dueling/arena PvP.

I'm liking this idea, but I'm under the impression that the insurance system is in place to allow players to have super rare items that they can grow attached to. Hopefully these items are more GW2 swag-oriented and not central to combat like items in WoW/TOR/Modern UO.

 

Give the thief something more fun to do than pick pockets. Make chests have unique items that no one else can find.....Oh, but then PvE players wouldn't get every single item in the game without the skill for it...never mind we can't make the game fun.

I guess we will just have to put more restrictions on the game to please the PvE players then.

 

They by all means we are driven to a WoW motive no matter how you call it.Maybe not at the early stage but for sure in the long(short)run.
Super items that players can grow attach to?What about relationships that players attach to in order to prosper in the game?