What PvP Players can look forward to

I have always thought that weapons that specailized instead of being all powerful are a lot more interesting. Also, equipment should never give you a near perfect level of victory, unless of course it is specailized say a goblin slaying sword gives you a large bonus against goblins but is just a sword against others.

There is no reason you couldn't have negatives to go with the positives on equipment as well...say that same goblin sword was crafted by dwarves so is less useful against dwarves. There are many options...

 

Even though non-consensual PvP is dead in SotA, I still wanted to post the wish list I had previously posted in the Dev+ forum with some minor modifications.

Player Types Discussed

Hard-line Blue – Does not ever want to be forced to participate in non-consensual combat / Open PvP.
Blue Adventurer – The average player (This is where I fall in).
Blue PK Hunter – Enjoys non-consensual PvP without having to deal with negative consequences.
Blue Opportunist – A Blue player who might occasionally murder someone if the right situation arises.
Red Murderer – Player that enjoys being the villain and the extra challenges it brings.
Red Griefer – A player who revels in the misery of others.
*Criminals should be mapped out after murderers. Provide Some Protections

• Blue towns should be extremely safe from murderers.
• Place roaming guards and guard encampments in and around low level resource areas.

Promote Positive Player Interaction

• The key is to enable the Blue PK Hunter. They will play the role of protector and leap at the opportunity to team up and take down nearby Reds. The closer you are to large concentrations of Blues (towns, some dungeons, etc) the safer you will be.

• To assist the Blue PK Hunter, create 2-3 skills (Tracking, Forensics, Investigation, etc) that will give that Blue player the general sense of direction and distance of the nearest Red player in the hex. This has the added benefit of having Blue PK Hunters converge on a Red player without previously being organized. Red players may use this tool as a decoy for diversion or ambush, but that’s all part of the game. I foresee groups of Blue PK Hunters spending the day sweeping hexes of Reds.

Provide Early Warning Mechanisms

• If a Red is seen by a patrolling guard, that guard can make a notification in local chat and if another guard is within hearing range of that alert, they can also make a notification in local chat and so on until it reaches town or low level resource areas.

• If a Hard-line Blue player does not want to participate in non-consensual player combat, they can learn the same tracking skills as the Blue PK Hunter and keep a vigilant eye on the location of the nearest Red player. To avoid interfering with character development, these skills might not apply to any skill caps.

Discourage Negative Player Interaction

• A single character slot per account increases accountability for players with one account. There will be Reds that have multiple accounts but I still think the single character slot will reduce the overall number of Red players.
• Negative Consequences for playing a Red should include:
  • Stat loss – 5% to 10% skill and stat loss should be sufficient.
  • Limit resurrection locations – Dark shrines and Red towns. No player resurrection.
  • Limit Recall and Gate – Dark Shrines and Red towns. This coupled with resurrection penalty will help maintain separation between Reds and young Blues Adventurers.
  • Increase casting time for Recall and Gate
  • Lost Souls – These mobs can only interact with Reds and will spawn in and around dungeons and agro on Red players.
  • Lengthy Repentance Quest – If a Red wants to revert to blue, they should go through a long series of quests (weeks) without murdering.
  • Probation – If a recent Red murders within X time after turning Blue, they automatically revert back to Red.
• Blue Opportunists – These actions will need to be linked to Criminal flags after the major Red and Blue rule sets are worked out.
• Bounty System – To limit exploits (a Red friend collecting bounty), create an Angie’s List, to be discussed later.

These suggestions will maintain the spirit of Ultima Online freedom, while creating greater separation between the Reds, and the Hard-line Blues and young Blue Adventurers.

Instead of using game restrictions to attempt to control nefarious player behavior, enlist the help of the community by placing rewards and consequences for actions. This increases playstyle options and the players provide in-game content so the developers are not forced to constantly use the carrot and stick (gear grind treadmill) approach to maintain player interest.

Player interaction is what will make this game great.

 

I just dont think they should even allow changing modes. You pick PvP, you stay in it. You pick PvE, you stay in it. You pick something inbetween, you stay in it.

Yes this divides the play base... but CLEARLY the player base is already divided. Why not give each type of player what they want and increase the whole player population.

Now you have people that are just not going to be "in to" the game and go some place else anyway. That was someone that could have filled another spot for that player type. Games that try to do Utopia worlds are bad... its why they are gone in a few years.

This game doesnt need to be ONE game... it can be MANY games for many types of players if the dev team just thinks outside the box.

 

I think the proposed system of you must flag for pvp, you can pvp with other pvp people in non-pvp zones, and some zones that have resources or certain dungeons require the user to flag for pvp to enter would really work.

But since we can't test, I reserve judgement until we can see it in game.

 

why would someone want to penalize people who pvp? 5-10% stat loss for people who like to fight people over monsters? that is absurd, PVP the way it was constructed on UO was a huge fact in it's popularity. Making a bad land like Fel, and a good land for each their own was a great idea and taking away form the PVP would be a huge mistake. PVP in WOW is atrocious, PVP in any game i ever played besides UO was atrocious. PKing and Clan, Guild, Faction wars was amazing. If you don't make huge additions in this area i think you will lose last numbers of players and people who would venture from UO to Sota. i dropped 800$ to support this game, and i paid another 150 or so to get my friend an acocunt. But the more i read the more i have been disappointed in the direction this game has been going. I hope it is far better then UO, i miss taming, bards, and the huge amount of things you could do in UO. And PVP was a part of that. Not every one is a Trammie, so be open minded and ask for a game that draws everyone in, not just non PVPers.

 

What they currently have no is good for all parties....those that want sometimes pvp have it/ those that want PVE have it/ and those that want to flag for open pvp have it....

I honestly don't see an issue with that setup.

 

People shouldn't be penalized for PVP, but they should for PKing, griefing and other nefarious pursuits that drive other players from the game.

PVP can definitely be a huge draw to a game when it's fun for everyone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

You can't really punish someone for PKing if a player cannot PK to begin with. So, if PvP is all purely consensual... then theres really no need to have negative consequences for a player who "murders" another player.
I guess if you go into a hex with a volcanic eruption and everyone is trying to battle for the rare spawns and resources you could say that if one murders another here then they are a PK. Even though if someone is against non-consensual PvP, they are consenting to the risk when they walk onto a hex with a volcanic eruption. And im sure some of these people will occasionally feel in the mood for the risk, bank all their most valuable items and try for the major loot in the area, and then end up getting PK'd. Now, I think most would define that as consensual PvP. I guess in a sense it is correct... But the attack from the other player in this dangerous area was most certainly not something that the player specifically consented to. They likely went into the area hoping that they could get all the treasures and goodies without being attacked, or they had the idea that they could just be sneaky and get the treasures without being discovered. But in the end, I feel that anyone who gets killed in the game is NEVER consenting to it. They are fighting it to the bitter end, running away, or casting the healing spell repeatedly. They want to survive and fulfill their intentions they had from the beginning, which was to go into a high risk zone and get good loot. So if instead they GET killed and looted, it was done without their ok. I doubt many players who consensually walk into the PvP zone are going to shake hands and say "good fight" after something like that happens to them. I sure wouldn't! If I saw them again after getting rezzed all im going to do is make my battle cry and charge at them with my two handed sword.
And as for the penalties for the one initiating a non-consensual attack... I think that this just won't do in a game like SotA. Same goes for the Red vs. Blue nonsense that was in UO. Why should we have some artificial feature in the game that allows players to determine wether or not to run and hide within less than a second after a "murderer" comes along? Who says that just because they have murdered hundreds that means that your going to be the next? What if the person is in the process of redeeming themselves? Perhaps it should just be something thats all about "reputation", not some game mechanic programmed in. I got lots more to say, but this post is already getting to long. Im trying to break the "wall of text" habit.

 

Please none of this. PvP should be competitive and symmetric. i.e. 2+ "sides" trying for the same castle. Your guild gets it or it doesn't. Both sides think of the other as "the bad guys".

 

Yeah that is fine for competitive or team based PvP, but what if you're more of a lone murderer type that hangs around, Oh, I dunno, say Kiln.

I'm assuming blackblade is going to be a PvP area from the book and the deep dives.

 

UO-style PvP is still the best PvP implementation to date, but I think it's possible to do better. I posted more of my thoughts on PvP here.

Not sure how well a PvP system similar to UO would jive with SotA, but that's largely because of SotA's other design decisions which I think were ill-conceived, like the dual-scale map.

Turning PvP into a consent-based system is just another cop-out--in other words, a cheap way to avoid the problem.

 

If it was the best then it would be copied all the time... Heck, if it was the best then UO would still be using it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

By that logic, U7 would have been copied over and over and we'd see more RPGs like it. Instead, there is no other RPG like it.

UO, being the first MMO, wasn't copied at all, in part because it was such an innovative, ambitious and different game and investors or publishers who back games do not like the level of risk that comes with that. In fact, EA didn't even want to back it to begin with, and it took tens of thousands of fans sending in $5 to save the project, but it turned into a cash cow for EA afterward and it is still running to this day, although they've since sold it to another company called Broadsword that is bringing it to Steam.

Also, I don't know what you're talking about, but UO's official PvP implementation has changed a bit over the years, but it is still alive and well and there are even unofficial servers with the original, classic implementation run by passionate fans.

 

OP. What you're describing still boils down to non-consensual pvp, no matter how you sugar coat it. I see nothing wrong with the system they're currently planning here https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/pvp-death-current-thinking-megapost.8247/ unless they decide to do a little tweaking after it's tested. It allows everyone to play the way they like, not just one group.

 

AFAIK there are some games that copy most of what U7 was, just not as popular. And plenty of other games "copy" certain aspects of U7 while using more casual friendly implementations of other mechanics, like the Elder Scrolls series.

Actually, much of UO wasn't copied because it was bad for player retention. The open PvP, for example (or, rather, the way it was exploited by griefers).

Keep in mind that most of the big MMOs from 2000 to 2005 had previous UO devs in their teams. If UO's PvP was seen as a good thing, as something that attracted and kept more players than it drove away, at least some of those games would have copied it.

He is likely talking about how Trammel now exists (and is hugely more popular than Felucca), as well as item insurance. Apart from Siege Perilous, PvP in UO is nowadays mostly by consent, and item loss on death is greatly minimized.

 

Just discovered this. Incredibly excited, like many of you I have been playing UO from the beginning. I'm wondering if this will have a similar open world pvp system?

 

simple answer NO...

but I do suggest you go through all the PVP threads to get an idea of the current thinking about PvP

 

oh... here is a Deep Dive about PvP and Death...

 

Welcome
There is a very extensive PVP Subforum.
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?forums/pvp.39/

 

You might want to give this a read. It's the current plans for PvP and death:
https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/pvp-death-current-thinking-megapost.8247/