PVP & Death: Current Thinking Megapost

Hmm, thats your whole argument? Expected the usual mantra of 'But I want to ROLEPLAY a bandit'...that was the usual excuse for PvPers griefing newbies. Strange how when Trammel arrived in UO, alot of the griefers just stayed on the Forums and whined about ******** land, instead of creating a new character on Seige Perilous to live their dream of a great Non consentual PvP UO.

Im all for Consentual PvP in SotA, and quite rightly support incentives to make players 'dip their toes' into PvP including greater rewards for PvP zones (eg better loot drops/extra resources even quests or decorative drops) , however all Non consentual PvP has ever brought to other games Ive seen is massive griefing, especially of newbies.

 

Lol. I wasn't even talking to you. I had gotten halfway through a long reply to Rufus & Rune74 but my phone took liberties with copying and pasting their quotes and I don't need an overpriced piece of junk to muck up my communications. I can screw that up just fine on my own! I'm completely ambivalent about PvP being consensual or whatever but their crimes of being wrong on the internet will be tried when I can quote more than one of you at once. Keep your jokes about me taking 2 guys at once to yourselves! See you two when I get home... If I remember... If Koldar hasn't suspended me for that other thing.

sent from the future using my Coleco Adam

 

If

If you weren't responding to my post then then I stand corrected re answer to my argument I'm sure you'll have something to say about it though.

 

I look forward to my education.

 

According to chronology and the people who made the game, this is not the case.
UO usage peaked after the split, not before. In addition, the developers of the game said the #1 reason for people quitting was non-consensual PvP and to make the game sustainable they had to split the game styles.

 

All this PVP stuff. Complicating the game design. Why not just make 3 shards (I know, just hear me out ). Then there would be more house plots as well.

PVE shard - consensual only
PVP shard - open PVP fest full loot
Hard Mode Hybrid Shard - slow skill gain, slow economy, with open PvP and looting but with penalties for dying as a criminal (if reported.. so you can roleplay with your good or evil friend without losing stuff or at least not being griefed)

And you never see the people from the other shard choices.

They seem bent on making one game world everyone is forced into... and trying to make everyone happy in it. Just seems so difficult.

(I posted this somewhere else but it really belongs here. That's my simple solution opinion, whether possible or what. Sorry if anyone else already suggested similar, 104 pages is a lot to read.)

Edit: And I'd like to point out that it worked before it could work again. As others stated just above my post, the height of UO's subscriber numbers was when all 3 styles were available to play separately on UO. Trammel, Felucca, Siege ruleset. Subscribers started going down when more and more crazy expansions started going in like 3D, Samarais and Ninjas and skill scrolls.

 

The only real reason I was a fan of open loot is because I hate games that are centered around who has the best items....when UO was open loot it prevented.... or at least discouraged people from wearing gear that was better than average. I believe SotA has handled this problem well with by not putting over powered artifacts in the game.

 

SoA should have their pvp system be a replicate of the Pre UO-R's system because, in my opinion, the pvp was what kept the game a live for so many of us. Although pve'rs believe it to be necessary to separate the two, not separating the two is precisely what made the game not only difficult, but enjoyable.

 

+1

 

For you. Not for me. For me it's the reason I left Prior to Renaissance.

Riddle me this, Batman, for no one yet who hold your opinion has answered it...

If Pre-Trammel UO PvP was the be all and end all and the greatest game ever that met the requirements and expectations of the developers and was a healthy and financially viable game, what was the motivation for implementing the Trammel/Felluca split?
If everything is working as intended, designers to Not make such drastic changes to their games.
What, if not imminent death of the game because the PvP rules were driving away paying customers, was the reason for the split?

 

Land.

(returns to shadows)


Sent from my EVA Unit-01 using Tapatalk

 

Sorry if this is a repeat of what has been proposed... but...

The likelihood of an object being held for ransom should reflect it's value vs the total value of their stuff. The greater value of the object, the more likely that object is the one held for ransom.

Also, it would be nice if the ransom was calculated based on the combination of the player's current monetary wealth & the player's level. In the real world a heavy ransom is expect of a wealthy person and / or someone who could get that kind of money.

 

This is a great idea!

 

.
I like the idea of a PvP advantageous weapon that has no advantage to PvE.

So the weapon just gets an additional plus, say 1-5, when fighting a PvP flagged player, and is also somehow 'creatable' at a crafting table.

The weapon would also be a lootable item, so a +5PvP weapon would be a good prize. Then, leave all the other armour, etc unlootable.
.

 

That seems like it would discourage non PvPers from joining the arms race later in life. I don't know how enthusiastic PvPers would receive it either. Those of us who aren't regular at that can only speculate. It's funny how rewards seem counterintuitive. You have to kill stuff forever to get a weapon better at killing things than you already have. Same with crafting. I know the idea is to be able to kill bigger things but it still seems backwards.

sent from the future using my Coleco Adam

 

I don't want an arms race or gear grind just to PvP. I want to be able to use, for example, the same sword to kill both NPCs and other players. Adding enhanced stats to PvP weapons simply makes those weapons a pre-requisite for PvP combat and splits the players between those that have and those that have not. It then becomes a game not about skill but about who grinded the longest for the top gear. SWTOR or WoW are the games for you if you enjoy this type of gear progression.

 

I will never play or support any game that has mandatory PVP. It is nothing more than sanctioned and rewarded bullying. There is absolutely no way to make a mandatory PVP style "fair" or attractive to me.

 

UO back then died because OSI purchased it. Nonetheless, you all are entitled to your opinions. If staying at a bank and selling items tickles your fancy, than so be it. As for me, pvp was all I cared for since it was the only thing in the game that involved actual skill and timing by the user and not just the grinding of hours to gm a specific trade skill. Furthermore, perhaps those that have the same opinion as myself haven't responded because they've seen the route the pvp system will take due to players such as yourself, and they will remain playing UO-Gamers or other such free play shards for the pvp.

 

UO has never been bought or sold. EA funded it and owned it from the beginning and OSI could hardly buy a game they developed in the first place. I don't understand where this idea comes from.

 

Likely the idea comes from people that think Origin and Richard Garriott intended for UO to be a cutthroat PvP game from the start and assume they would never do something to curtail that aspect of the game.

Early UO was not what RG and Origin envisioned. According to interviews with team members I could find, the team thought the game would mirror the real world, where most players would cooperate and PK attacks, including stealing from players, would be few and far between. The end result was far different — and far worse for player retention — than the team expected.