PVP & Death: Current Thinking Megapost

well if loot flags were implamented that wouldnt be an issue now would it?

 

Wealth? that's like saying everyone who gambles wins.

 

I think the only way for people to get what they want is to have two different server types. One that is open pvp with full loot and another for people who want keep their precious gear and deal with pvp flags and loot flags. I can not see any way to balance the two onto one server. I know I want a open pvp world with full loot. The encounters are completely different and way more intense on open pvp full loot. I can tell you right now I will not play this game if there is pvp flags and loot flags. All these flag ideas have already been done on every other mmo.

 

I have not seen pvp and loot flags in this manner in any MMO and I have played quite a few of them. Loot flag meaning you opt for full loot wich is kinda rare in mmo's, darkfall has full loot but not any flags cant really think of any other game with full loot.

 

I have not read every post here, but I do want to respond to the original post. So my thoughts very well could be re-posts.

I would classify myself as a PvP'er when the need arises (IE node harvesting, guild war, protection, etc). So the original ideas posted would entice me to participate in more PvP type encounters. I'm not sure I'm sold on the ransom loot mechanics. I think I would be more open to limited looting. For example. Seeing the complete inventory of the player that was killed but only being able to select a few items. This would allow the victor a little more leeway over what they wanted to take as their spoils of war. I'm not sure about the automatic ransoming though. If it was more along the lines of the victor choosing to initiate a ransom, I think this would be better. In this modified example, the defeated will know some of his items will be looted, but not all. As a potential loser of a battle, this would allow him to realize that not everything will be looted, so he may choose to equip better gear since he can only lose a few items. As a victor, he would get to decide what to loot off the body or choose to not loot anything except a trophy. He could then also decide if he wanted to initiate a ransom on a specific item. This would also allow him to set his own price. Knowing that too high and he won't get anything, too low and oh well, he should have set the ransom higher =) This would also allow the victor to decide if the items were of great value to keep them outright, but if they weren't to seek some kind of monetary compensation instead through a ransom. And worse case, he could just vendor what he looted.

Also, the more emphasis that can be applied for a specific purpose (securing a node, taking ownership of a "hex", guaranteed resource harvesting bonuses, guild battles, etc) and not just hitting someone in the face because it is a face to hit, the better the PvP experience will be IMO.

Great to see the ideas and I can't wait to try and help flesh them out!

 

My opinion-list:
1,3,2,6,4
!5

 

And she's also part of UO lore... She keeps the righteous people informed of whatever dark dealings may be going on in the chambers of Castle British...

 

Ah, the joys of vacation.

Just to be sure it's been said..

Any system that encourages death is a bit incongruous and illogical. Designing a death system that is at the same time a travel system, when such designs have been perceived negatively in the past, seems like a mistake.

Whatever the ghost visibility timers/features are, they will be exploited until removed or reduced to the point where there is no value in having the timers, which raises the question of why such a system would exist at all?

Allowing any combatant-to-combatant interaction (allies or enemies) post-death (as described, via the ghost mechanic) is, by design, permitting negative social interaction. There is no logical reason to permit such negative social interaction, however limited.

Allowing in-scene rez'ing (self or not) will reduce all pvp "skill" to zerg rez'ing. In other words, given the information to date and the system as described, any group/guild/alliance that brings the most/fastest rez'ers will, given similar skill of their opponents, win more often.
As such, any adjustments (imposed artificial rez restrictions) will be seen as incredibly negative post-launch, and will also be necessary, post launch. This would seem to be leaving nothing to chance in the perception of failure, from a customer perspective. :|
Closed set combat is, by design, more strategic and tactical. Allowing zerg rez'ing and/or in-scene self rez'ing removes any and all chances for closed set combat, trivializes death at the hands of other players, and repeats the same demonstrated mistakes of the past, in the genre.

I urge the development team to consider temporary hex banishment rather than permitting in-hex rez'ing and the ghost-death mechanic. It's a logically proven system that achieves all the goals outlined, with no chance for negative social interaction post-death, nor spying, nor zerg rez'ing. It also allows every player-player-conflict death to be meaningful, tactical, and strategic.
At the very least, please consider removing all in-scene rez'ing for pvp scenes.

Put simply, where is the value in killing someone when they'll be back to the battle in minutes if not seconds? If that's possible in SotA, there's no genre-changing innovation here, with this mechanic, as described.

 

Sincerely, as long as PvE players are never forced into PvP (which includes not being strongly enticed through rewards useful in PvE that require PvP to obtain) I don't care, because any of those options — including the one in the original post — will make me completely avoid PvP in the game.

For me to engage in PvP willingly there must be absolutely no looting. No way for something to go directly from the loser to the winner, at all, not even gold or easily replaceable consumables. Looting anything from other players would make me feel like a real world thief, and having someone else loot me would make me feel like I was mugged, so under those conditions I'm absolutely not taking part in the PvP.

Thus, my main request about PvP is for some PvP mode without looting to exist, even if it's restricted to just some mini-games. As for other kinds of PvP, I leave them for players that enjoy them, but I will never take part.

 

I could see how that could be fun. Maybe they could set up special free for all tournament type events. A big brawl, no looting, and once you die you can't get back in. They could have some sort of prize, and last man standing gets it. They could even set up a tier system, like last three to die get different prizes. What do you all think?

 

For people interested in a sporting event, sure, why not?

 

I'm not interested in PvP as a game style. I think it should be possible, but it shouldn't be a stand-alone aspect of game design.

I would much prefer a simulation approach to the whole thing:

I play a character in the world, I can wield weapons in the world, and attack things in the world with these weapons.
Choosing to attack things has consequences based on what I'm attacking, where I am, and why the act is being performed.
If I'm in town and attack a person, NPC or Player, Guards should be called and I should be dealt with according to the law of the town.

There might be a 'lawless' town where people are murdered in the streets, and everyone knows they must be self-sufficient enough to protect themselves, or make friends who can keep them safe.
In this town, a tavern might hire bouncers and require all weapons to be checked at the door, just to keep their place of business relatively civilized (since there isn't a city guard).

If I'm in the wilderness and I want to attack what appears to be a bandit, or some other criminal, I should be able to verify somehow that they do indeed have a bounty on their head before engaging in combat.
If they do not, attacking them would make me a criminal.

Criminals should be tracked according to their number of kills. A criminal who's only killed or stolen once or twice, should be marked, and have a bounty on their head, but a criminal who's acquired a 'high' number should be constantly hunted with organized hunting parties.

If the bandit I find in the woods does have a bounty on their head, then I can attempt to bring them to justice, or kill them for the reward. Looting a criminal or bandit should be allowable under the law, but any stolen goods they had should be marked such, so that I could return them to their rightful owner, or to the guard house, where the owners will be able to pick them up later. If I choose to hold onto, use, or sell these stolen items, it should reflect badly on my reputation, marking me a criminal and placing a bounty on my head.

Looting should always be possible. Loot should also be a matter of law. If the attack which lead to the killing was seen as an act of murder in the eyes of the law, then the subsequent loot would be flagged as stolen property (and still rightfully owned by the murdered).

Choosing to knockout but not kill or loot your enemies, whether they be NPC bandits, or player criminals; this choice (not to loot/kill) should always be seen as an act of mercy, and reflected well on one's virtue.
There is valor in engaging your enemy, and defeating them, not in the killing and looting of said enemy.

Long story short, I think killing and looting should be possible in all counts, but the consequences of true Justice should be severe.
Also, items should be categorized.. so important items should be forever marked as yours until you choose to sell it to someone else, meaning if it is stolen, it will always be possible to retrieve it. Whereas other items like generic gatherables should be fence-able, where, with enough time and money their ownership could be transferred.

This is the system I would want to see in-action. I don't like all this PvP flagging, consensual nonsense. I only call it that because I don't like separating players from NPCs. Ideally, we shouldn't be able to tell one from the other, we all live in this world together, look the same, we should act the same, talk the same, fight the same, and die the same as well.

If griefing is really a problem, (too many player bandits attacking people who are just trying to follow the main story), then combat that with a stronger justice system. Have more Guards troops walking the roads, protecting the people of the land. Throw these bandits into pits and jails and stockades and cages. let them battle each other in arenas as gladiators for our entertainment for a while. Let's keep the world alive and realistic, and making sense. Bandits should be a problem in a medieval land. I shouldn't know that if I stay on the road, and don't enter a wood without 'consenting' that i'll be safe. That's nonsense.

 

Well, in this instance there should be NPCs that can't be attacked, such as the regular ones in town. One of the keenest way to grief players in MMOs where there are factions or the ability to flag is to kill and camp kill NPCs that give quests, or are handins for quests. Imagine if you would, logging in to start the game... and find desolation. Guard Michael is dead, the Fire Lotus tavern has become a slaughterhouse, every NPC that could be killed out of line of sight of guards has been, and even some that are. Every time theres a flicker of life, it is beaten to the ground and killed.

Is it immersive to have the NPCs just pop back up after a few minutes? Of course not. They're dead. Is there skill in killing NPC villagers? Unlikely. So why do it? To grief the people trying to play through the game so they're unable to continue. Its one of the greatest failures of games like World of WarCraft that allow almost every NPC in the game to be attacked, and this will be so much more involved than that. Imagine you're in the middle of a conversation, about to complete a quest line you've spent the last week working on, and someone comes up and kills the NPC. NPCs such as that should be protected and unattackable, and as such, wouldn't it be a simple side step for players to have the same protection if they don't want to experience the same assaults except directed on their person.

 

This is dependent on the implementation. Firstly, I seriously doubt death will be "encouraged" but rather there will be consequences to death. If time travel is the main concern here then porting the player to the last location prior to hex entry would in all likelihood solve that issue. However, see later comments.

Ghosting the player and subsequently removing from his or her field of vision the location of all non-grouped player participants strikes me as one valid possible scenario.

Respectfully disagree.

This is not necessarily true. Your idea of hex banishment would only work if traversal time through the hex is of a significant duration. If banishment were to warp the player back to some starting area I could see that. However, with overhead map travel that would not be possible since the player could easily return to the action in a short period of time.

Rather, an accumulative "rez-sickness" condition that detrimentally and severely impacts the rezzed player for some configurable time will help to keep them out of the action as a main aggressor yet still allow that player's somewhat very limited participation. This is especially needed when travelling to an objective located a far distance. Otherwise, if the territory is especially harsh, as we all know the PvP hexes will be, then that player will be completely unable to regroup thus aborting the mission for potentially the entire group. I agree that self-rezzing should never be permitted.

Ghost death mechanism can be workable while preventing exploiting. Rezzing can be implemented without all the negative connotations.

 

Since we have one-on-one duels, why shouldn't that be extended to party duels? Tag team steel cage matches in basement arenas!

 

After reading a few pages I'm glad to see the majority of the options make it clear that.

1. PVP Flags wont work.
Anyone that plays or has played PVP knows that flags will not work, nor satisfy a PVPers needs. The only use for PVP flags IMO is for guild vs guild pvp without consequence.
2. Full loot is desired
To me this is what the majority of gamers desire now days. I've been a fan for full loot since UO. Most gamers are only becoming aware of this lately, look at Rust and DayZ, and for those that don't know these 2 games have zero consequences or rulesets for murdering another player and they have something like $60+ Million in alpha sales. So to say people don't want full loot is not true. It IS what people want now days.

There are some good posts here, Miracle Dragon had made a good post with some ideas for guild lines on how to build an open world with a good ruleset and consequences if your break them, but still have the freedom to choose. I think most of us want to be free to play as we choose knowing that there could be consequences for negative actions we take, and rewarded for virtuous actions. We want to freedom to play without restriction.

 

Not a bad summary

 

But that's open PvP. If people want a lord of the flies kind of world then give it to them whole. Protecting NPCs is just a way of protecting those players from the consequences of their actions.

 

There is no reason PvP flags can not work, plenty of reasons why they wouldn't or have not, but it can be done right.

In PvE, no one complains when you kill a boss and 100% of it's loot doesn't drop, why should it off a player?

 

Ding Ding Ding!