Thieving, looting, PKing etc...

Yes to all. Because I am a thief, and that's what thieves do. Sometimes I will steal something of little to no value just to be chased. Why? Because it's fun.

 

What leads you to believe it's fun for the victim?

 

If it is by mutual consent, why do you care?

 

I don't, and I believe I've made that abundantly clear on many occasions, including in this self same thread.
However as the poster of whom I was asking the question has never stolen anything from anyone in Shroud of the Avatar, my presumption is that he victimized players in other games that allow theft from non-consenting players, and was asking if he had ever considered the enjoyment or lack there of of his victims.

Please cease pointing out that SotA is most likely going to be PvP by consent only.
We both know that and it's becoming annoying.

Thank you.

 

What was wrong with the Tram / Fel model from UO (PvE in one version of the world, PvP in the other)? I thought it was great and to this day I haven't seen a better model since.

When in an area in Trammel that you were trying to do something in was overcrowded, some brave players would take the risk and go to a much less inhabited Fel to have a better chance at loot. Of course, there were usually PKer's lurking... but that was the fun and excitement of it.

Games need to have risk / reward to increase the adrenaline and fun of it all. This is where so many modern MMO's have gotten it wrong and why everyone (or at least me) remembers UO with such fondness... everything is too SAFE nowadays.

It's a two way road. Chasing down a thief or a PK is just as exciting as stealing or killing with one. Don't forget that!

Another thing... UO had thieves and it was still very successful (until people started being able to bless stuff... then there was no purpose for a thief).

Why not use a similar model as UO? Didn't that make everyone happy or am I missing something?

 

The original Ultima had it right. If you strip away all risk then what is the point of an MMO at all? Might as well just play single player games. Risk adds a dimension of excitement to any game. All the most boring games I can think of had zero risk: DAoC, D&D Online etc. An open world with all its consequences makes the most compelling experience.

All but the most cowardly agree even if they say no to stealing and PvP. These same people go to movies and watch action movies, mysteries, horror films variously. Without the dark in these too the light cannot seem so grand.

Consensual PvP or stealing? You flag yourself in MMO format as being willing to be a target or not? Then nobody will hardly allow it to happen and might as well not even waste the coding time on it. No darkness vs light; boring game.

 

Might ask that question of 8 Million+ subscribers of World of Warcraft... A Very small percentage of the people in WoW participate in PvP. A much larger percentage of the population participates in PvE and Cooperative Play in the form of Raiding.

I quit around the time of the first big expansion, but was part of a raiding alliance that regularly fielded 40 man raids and conquered every instance in existence prior to the expansions. I earned a full suit of Tier 3 armor through those raids, when that was the best their was.

There are Many Ways to Play. Saying that Your Way is the Only Way that has any value is a very narrow view of the world.

 

Not quite so abundantly clear as you think, I guess.

If you do not wish to be continually misunderstood, then when you object, make it clear that you object to non-consensual activities.

If you don't include the word NON-CONSENSUAL, people rightfully assume you are talking about the normal game play, which is only by consent. As it stands now, there is no non-consensual PvP, which included stealing and thieving, so when you say you have a problem with stealing and thieving, people naturally assume you mean the ONLY kind of stealing and thieving there will be in the game, which is game play by consent only.

Since everything is by consent only, and the devs have made no indication that is going to change, EVER, it make one wonder why people keep complaining about non-consensual PvP/stealing/thieving. It isn't going to happen.

 

PK-ing & Getting PKd, in a single player game is called playing the game, fighting the npcs and the npcs fighting you, there is zero difference between getting killed in a single player game for myself and getting killed in an online game. Yet those who are against it happening online seem to have peer-pressure type reasons for not wanting it to take place online while other humans are watching, or the fact that a human PK'd you as opposed to an NPC. I guess I just have a good imagination and see an NPC as no different than a human.

But in UO, 1997 style, don't want to risk getting attacked? Don't leave the guard zone, or do what we did back in 1997 if we wanted to scout out the main PK hangouts, go out there with a naked newb mule character and purposely get killed risking nothing and losing nothing. It seems harsh to those who didn't play UO in 97,98,99 but back then a good 90% of the players were Not afraid of leaving the guard zone, because we knew nothing else, there was no trammel, the original 3 servers, Great Lakes, Atlantic, Pacific all had the same rules, leave the guard zone risk getting PK'd, because all 3 shards had the same rules it was normal to not fear leaving town, it was normal to take a stroll, it was normal to get PK'd every now and then, it was normal to PK a thief or someone bothering you or someone wearing a nice pair of boots or whatnot, it was all normal, fun, and will write about why it was fun but to summarize, all kinds from all backgrounds were in a melting pot back in those days, that's Why it was so fun, separate everyone and you're left with a stale non-fun atmosphere.

 

The Trammel/Felucca model from UO is the absolute *WORST* model I've ever seen in my life in all of online gaming. I will tell you why...

It has been copied time and time again, PvP-Shard, PvE-Shard, you've seen this with countless mmos, they all got the model from UO's Tram/Fel model. It Fails 100% of the time when it comes to the Fun Factor.

For those who never played a melting pot shard, you have nothing to compare to, therefore you think the maximum amount of fun is the segregated shards you are so accustomed to. UO's beginning there were 3 shards period; Atlantic, Great Lakes, Pacific. All had the same ruleset, all were PVP outside of guard zone shards. All shards flourished, 90% of players didn't fear leaving the guard zone because it was all we knew, the result was the Fun Factor. When you combine all groups from all backgrounds, when you have a melting pot shard of PvP fans PvE fans RP fans, what you have is a *MAGIC* combination which equates to fun, when that formula is non-existent and it's purely a PvE shard PvE only the fun is vacuumed out of the world and ends up being stale, the countless model copycat mmos? All gone, their persistent worlds are but pixelated dust, never to be explored again because they were not fun and nobody was willing to stick around, the same goes for a PvP only shard when a PvE shard option exists because all the PvP haters leave and when you have a shard with only PvP lovers, you end up with a shard with few varying backgrounds, few like to RP few like to explore, few like to do this and that they only want to smash kill, the stale anti-fun atmosphere is there as well. The only magic formula is to combine PvE fans PvP fans and RP fans into a world where everyone can accept that outside the guard zone is a place where anything can happen. It adds a depth for roleplaying, it adds a depth for PKs, it adds a depth for anti-PKs, it adds a depth that can't exist without the *MAGIC* formula.

The above is why UO early years had an amazingly magical Fun Factor and why post Trammel/Felucca the fun was dead, the fun died when that expansion came out, when you give PvE fans an option to never get PK'd they will take it, but what they don't know is they've robbed themselves of the fun that would have existed if they didn't choose to isolate themselves, the same goes for the PvP fans, & RP. Without all of them the magic can't happen. This is coming from someone who has seen game appear and disappear time and time again, I've seen first hand the segregated shard model fail over and over and over, because it doesn't work, and as for WoW, that game is an exception, I was on the #1 RP shard for that game and guess what, zero people RP'd, zero. The reason it doesn't dent that game much is because of the mass amounts of players and the mass consciousness they all seem to have, their all obsessed with the same thing, grinding for gear, it's a gear grinding fest and all shards despite the label are the same. But I've seen the model fail with every other game out there I could name dozens of mmos but I couldn't begin to without writing a 20 page thesis on the subject and I doubt you'd want to read it.

 

Except that many people in those forums that oppose non-consensual PvP have played on this kind of server/shard. Between old UO players that disliked the PK activity, and players that tried other MMOs where non-consensual PvP is forced (the later one my case), many people experienced that kind of gameplay and came to the conclusion that it's simply not fun.

The reason I will not play, at all, if I'm subjected to non-consensual PvP — at least if the death penalty has any sting — is exactly because I've been exposed to it in the past. I know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that it would completely kill my enjoyment of the game; I've tried it more than once, hated it every single time, and I'm not willing to try it again. Not even in a Richard Garriott game.

Do also keep in mind that some of the devs, including Richard Garriott and Chris Spears, have acknowledged that how PvP worked back at the start of UO was driving players away.

Keep in mind that different players have different preferences, different things they find fun or frustrating. I used to read encyclopedias and do math and physics homework for fun when I was a kid, for example, activities that I believe most kids would find utterly boring.

 

And the former in my case.

I played in the earliest days of UO. I was a Knight of the Silly Skirt in the Alpha trial. I was in the Beta. I was there on Opening Day, and one of the first 9 Counselors selected.
I lived and breathed UO for a long time before and after launch.

I left because it was NOT FUN. It was horrid.

The Felluca/Trammel split wasn't something that the developers just came to them one day as a good thing that might be fun... It was a reaction to a problem and an attempt to correct the hemorrhaging of players in great numbers due to the "Amazing Magical Fun" that was being had by the PKs.

If Pre-Trammel UO had indeed been the Golden Days for the majority of the player population, the split that occurred with Renaissance never would have been implemented. It was an attempt to stop deep wounds being inflicted on the game by the PKs on those that didn't wish to play their game and keep the game from dying.

 

Well, not everyone is as informed as some of us.

After the deep dive I have a much better idea on how PvP is gonna work and it's a good compromise.

I didn't understand the zones... I thought safe zones meant you couldn't PvP, but you can as long as you are both flagged for it.

And some zones require you to be flagged for PvP to even enter... so I think everyone will be happy, except the most hardcore, strident people that want to return to 1997 era UO, and well, sorry but it's not going to happen because nobody else wants that.

I would argue we'll have better quality players as a result of this

 

Because it was an event out of the norm. A potential for revenge, or a parley to return the items. Or they would keep talking hoping to hold me up long enough for back up to arrive. It was the anticipation for revenge which was fun.

I usually offered their items to be returned, for a small fee of course. If they played my game and danced or sang the potential for me returning said item was quite high.

oh, and I have played both sides of that coin. I have been a victim and I didn't care losing items or dying. When people were pk'd or stolen from I found everything in the game had value no matter how small.
You look at the insurance/bless system in Uo now and watch how many people leave corpses full of gold and items. Your goal has become making a better suit or gaining a new item, but the flavour is lost because barring a server crash you know you will never lose it.​

 

Fun for you, perhaps. I've left games in the past because of the exact scenario you describe, and hate it with such a passion that nowadays I refuse to even start playing any game where it can happen to me again.

Knowing that other players can't take the items or gold from me is exactly what allows me to even care enough about them in the first place to go after said things.

 

I personally don't find being the victim of theft, or extortion enjoyable.
I personally don't find hunting down a thief and threats of violence to be enjoyable.
I personally find knowing that what won't be taken from me very flavorful... Quite tasty.

 

Well I just disagree, see, I was there, I saw and heard and absorbed the reasons why people left UO, A LOT of UO players left on March 16, 1999 because of a game called EverQuest, guess why? Because of the "amazing 3d graphics yeah!", that's why, the simplistic reason was the masses saw 3d as far superior to 2d (not to mention New = better than Old). Guess where the EverQuest masses went on November 23, 2004, WoW, in-between there were games here and there, Asheron's Call (November 2, 1999) etc. But to assume everyone was thinking as you were, and were fearful or saw the PvP outside the guardzone as horrid you'd be incorrect, every single guildmate I had loved with a passion the unexpected PvP. As for myself I personally enjoy PvP both killing and getting killed, losing everything is a good thing, for if you lose nothing and have no risk of losing anything you don't value what you have as much, it forced me to be creative with how I played, caused me to use my brain to avoid losing something valuable. I lost server birth rares, a number of them, the animated hourglass, the serpent scale from wind, among others all due to being PK'd but I don't look at those experiences as being negative, I guess it all has to do with how someone reacts to a situation, I personally always try to get something good out of it no matter how virtually devastating, I learn from it and move on, sometimes I became friends with the players that PK'd me 100 times in a row after I struck up a conversation with them they decided to not kill me and asked me to join their IDOC guild. Any bad situation can be turned into a good learning & growing experience, but we all have our own style of play and that's mine.

 

Very well.

I never assume everyone thinks the same way I or anyone else does... To do so would be foolish and can be disproven by a single counter-example. For example, you and I obviously have very different thoughts and feelings.

Massive series of comma splices there... quite impressive.
I view everything you've stated as things you like in this ... passage ... above in almost the exact opposite light that you do. I accept the fact that you enjoy it, and there are others that do also. Can you accept that there are a large number of people who feel the way I do, or similarly?

You never, though, answered the question... if PKs were not a cause of exodus from UO, and only the reasons you mention were... What then, was the inspiration and reason for the splitting of the world that occured with the release of Ultima Online: Renaissance? The only logical rationale I can think of for doing something so drastic as splitting your game world into two mirrored parts was to give those that did Not wish to participate in Open PvP an alternative.

Can you offer another theory?

 

A business decision was made to attempt to keep the dollars flowing from two disparate types of customers. Hemoragging paying customers is never good for business. I'm sure that at first glance it seemed a solid decision. However, their systems were not keeping up with technological progress. THAT is the major issue. I would still be paying a subscription if those systems kept current. But they didn't, and I don't. Surely, you can see that as more than just a theory.

 

Yes... I accept as truth that people left UO for Everquest and all the other titles mentioned. I played Everquest and Ascheron's Call myself. Everquest for quite a while. I don't however see how the Felluca/Trammel split as an attempt to lessen that drain. I'm open to suggestions if you see it differently.

If the disconnect/argument is over whether competition or PKs were the larger drain, I can only put forth that the drastic attempt at a solution that was implemented seems to have been focused on combatting the latter as I cannot see how it might have been thought an effective counter to the player drain created by competition.

UO lost players to both causes... Origin only attempted to combat one of those with a massive change to the game... To me that implies that the PK problem was seen as the greater of the two.

Edit: There was an attempt at a 3D client if I recall correctly... so I will correct my last statement... I don't recall the timeline, but I believe the 3D client, which would clearly been an attempt to combat loss to competition with superior graphics capabilities occurred some significant time after Renaissance. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.