What PvP Players can look forward to

Hardly comparable to a full set of gear. Or the inventory of people not actively avoiding the full loot mechanic.

Side step the issue if you like. The devs are not.

 

PREVENT WHAT ?? A NAKED MAGE ???

Who realy care about naked mage in PvP ? ? ?

COME ON !

If a naked mage kill u, just so bad.

 

This is exactly the reason I left UO (didn't stay to see Trammell) .... The person wanting to do something besides pvp takes all the risk and the aggressor risks little to nothing. I don't mind the idea of losing what I have when I die, but when I win I expect to get something more than protecting what I have already worked for. You want a battle, I am in, but bring something to risk yourself or you are no different to me than a trash MOB between me and a boss fight.

 

Bad players like to play games too.

 

...but does not break the experience of others.


Or play on the PvE shard !

 

We are thinking, but I don't think we've got it yet...
and I'm no road map to innovation here ether...
Don't worry though, I'll just beat my head against this wall and hopefully come up with something for inspiration...

I could be wrong but;
I think the Tesla Towers are useless as a big brother, other than helping the guards do whatever they are doing, so I like them in that regard. But about the Tesla Towers, I hope they only engage when monsters attack the city.

If encumbrance is a factor, that helps the full loot situation because full loot in the real world is allot to carry. I don't like any ransom system, yet that's where we're going so it's OK with me because I personally don't care about any loot anyway. I do however support full loot ability, yet only with encumbrance as a factor.

The more encouragement there is for PvP/PK opportunities then the further PvP/PK can become an integrated part of the community, yet all I ever hear in any ideas coming from the more separatist PvP/PK community is that they want to change the current concept to UO's, which is completely an issue for whoever owns the UO player base and not for SotA to consider because it's a different game. "If a player wants UO to change, then go change it", because this is not that game.

PvP is the most talked about subject with so little innovation through integration coming out of it. I'm just loosing faith that there is anything stepping forward with such a proses of..... redundancy of absent innovative thought....
But it's not all your fault, it's mine as well to be stuck inside this wheel barrel with you all because I haven't been able to stimulate anything I feel as pushing forward in any ideas

This reminds me of a time in which there was a tribe of natives I needed help from to assault a target; Every time I gave them guns in their own camp, they'd just end up emptying them on themselves. So I ended up having to place the rest of the guns and ammo almost directly in front of the objective so the enemy would start shooting at them first, just so they could become motivated to shoot back at the real enemy instead of each other.
"We get what we get if we do not step forward and integrate through innovation"...
Confounded and disappointed in himself...~Time Lord~

 

The naked Mage existed cause magic resist effectively gave you armor. Looks like going without armor will be a bad idea here. Also seems like this deck system is going to make being a Mage is set combos difficult to play, the randomness will require combos on the fly. Personally I relied on loot for pvp supplies and those naked mages were bad cause I was a warrior... Was always a disappointment.

 

What are you saying? There should be a skill check or play style check to play on your fictitious PvP server?

The naked mage existed because someone found that they could be good enough with minimal loss. Did that mean they could beat everyone, didn't matter, they could run fast and port.

Every game that has full loot goes through this. Players will find ways to control their loot loss or demand the devs add in a mechanic to protect it.

Looting is fun, we all get that. But the human factor can never be ignored. People will pass on the content and go strictly for the easy loot, if players provide that then that's where they go. People will also do anything and everything to mitigate any chance of losing loot if they do die.

So what happens... new players, inexperienced players, and those players that never quite get the hang of things (we all know people like that) - soft targets instead of challenging targets.

 

Exactly..... Losing is fine in my book, but winning and walking away with nothing to show for it but another notch on my belt gets very disappointing fast. And to all those who claim that the risk of getting jumped and losing all their stuff makes the game better.. SOTA will have trading. You get killed, strip yourself of everything and give it to the victor and when all the full loot advocates are doing so I'll change my vote.

 

Damn, I want to be a naked mage, seems like a cool profession. There might be guild of them... strength in numbers and nudity

 

I see what you are saying Rufus, we would need to know more about the Open PVP flag (which we have very little info on) and how criminal activity would interact with Telsa Towers, esc. If there is no criminal/karma/justice/virute system, esc then it would truly be a let down.

I would like to point out that the % would be between Consensual PVP and Non-Consensual PVP. Even a PVP flagged player entering a Consensual PVP hex would not change the hex from being a Consensual PVP hex (they are just consenting). They have to agree to the Consensual PVP ruleset to enter and vice versa.

If we share instances, I would like civilized areas and the areas around them protected by Tesla Towers and prominent roadways protected by mini towers with a system where increased pve activity expands protected area. Far flung wilderness and possibly some unprotected players towns open for pvp. The PVP protection would be tied into the Towers, with some in game notification of when you'd be leaving that protection. Like Civilization vs Wilderness were Civilization is consensual PVP and Wilderness is Non-Consensual. It could be possible for people "feeding" the towers for protection to expand the protected areas by increasing activity in those areas while areas that are neglected would fall back into wilderness with a certain decay rate. Interesting thing with this would be there is no PVP that controls this conflict, Consensual PVP players would be engaging the environment and Open PVP would have to work around tower protection and could waive the tower protection (Consensual PVP Areas are not Open PVP if a attackable players enter cause the ability for a player not to be attacked makes the area Consensual).

If we don't share instances, I have no issue with consensual pvp players exploring the whole map with maybe the rary resource/smith nodes disabled. I'd still want Telsa towers to give protection in towns that have them via some means from criminal pvp activity either way.

 

In all fairness, at the time magic resist was difficult skill to raise so the physical damage resist was a nice bonus to the skill, even though the skill was literally magic resist and not blade resist.

On weapons, so enhancements to Damage, Durability, accuracy, slayer for specific PVE dmg increases.. What about hit lighting, dmg type mods, leeches, swing speed, stats

 

I am for the spread of criminal activity into any city's limits. I just love the idea of Bank Robbers and the ability to encourage Rogue activity. This is one of my objections into the use of towers as a police force against players and would rather see them used for monster invasions. But this does not mean that I am totally against the tower idea, yet when I invision a PvP/PvE area, I think of it more as somewhere that Lord British's troups have not been able to secure and thus change depending on such LB Realm Security.
There was another idea from another player that suggested that the PvPness of an area could become a 3 teared system bywhich some areas are PvP/PK enabled, while others are spicific for PvP in general. I don't agree with that idea, but the rest of that player's idea was intersting; They sugested that PK, could effectively "infect a hax", thus changing it to a PK enviorment by being the only player/s in it, for a spicific time, and if no other entered during that waiting time, then the hex would become PK controled and thus a PK area as long as they wer active inside it.
I can't remember what player had suggested all that, but it seemd enough to re-mention it here.

Sorry, I'm on a business computer here in merry old Thailand
(where they just dissarmed 3 PK in the country today that had stockpiled their weapons....
so, that rememberance of that player's idea popped back into my brain
ลอร์ดเวลา

 

Then you would deny a majority of the game to those that do not wish to participate in PvP.
I find this unacceptable, and should your desire come to pass I would sell my account and move on.

 

Rufus D`Asperdi <---<<< he's right, we would loose many, if not a drastic amout of players.

PvP has always dominated RG's game's, yet here it is sought to become an "intergrated part" with protections of choices, rather than any police force to keep area's safe.
I myself try to keep a "Robin Hood" style of thinking, where it's mostly an infection, or small moving areas of danger that can be then reported to any inquiring player that asks a town guard about local or known areas of PK infestations.
PK of our past, have not been forced to gather in numbers before and insted been more of lone wolves. I am not in favor of the lone PK player, thus I would like to see "gangs" form to effect the infections of lawless areas. Thus it becomes more of an effort to keep any hex/s as being a PK area. In this way, as the number of players that are PK, can thus have or be aforded an area that matches their forces size and therefore influence.
Then there is the "contraband" transport quest, that enables that transporter to be flagged as a combative to everyone, yet is a seperate issue fom the PK. Yet if this combative flag, is extended to taveling merchants that have goods they are transporting for higher price to another town, then they too are combative flaged, yet only to PK or those that would become one to hijack the merchant's goods.
Time Lord...

 

Rufus, how so? You are making a statement that is absolutely not true. Do you need complete access "on demand" to ever inch of the game world? The thought I had would allow access through the expansion of the tower protection based on pve activity and I would see it as a dynamic compromise between 100% Consensual and 100% Non-Consensual AND be built into the game world logic. Your idea that a flagged PVP player gets access to 100% of the map with their ruleset is flawed... they are consenting to Non-Consensual PVP in those areas while giving their consent. What is a compromise to you? Or is there no compromise and just filter us out in hex instances? I'm interested in finding a way to allow protection to all players that want it that compromises with the Non-Consensual side as well, and the devs are looking for that as well per the videos.

Time Lord, Rufus' is worried about retaining Consensual PVP while getting as much access as possible to the map. The Devs are seeking a compromise and don't need to tip toe around players in fear of scaring them off in the process (they do it cause they are considerate). The fact is this isn't a subscription based game... they only need to move 100,000 units and housing to keep things moving, which is an extremely low bar considering it's probably considerably less than 1% of the market for this type of game. RP Single player, Multi Player, MMORPG any of those modes by their self moves units. I'd much rather they make an amazing immersive game World and see how the market responds.

I'd add that I believe they genuinely care about the players on both sides and will attempt to make something we both can enjoy. Threatening them with lost income to try to get a point across is pointless though, I really don't think that matters as much to them.

 

Well, it's a PK issue, not a PvP issue because we cannot assume that PvP issues are PK issues. The developers have spoken about both, yet not in the same context. Not all PvP are PK and PK are both PvP and PK, so there's a conflict when it comes to understanding what anyone is talking about on the PvP thread, because most assume that the 2 subjects are the same and equal.
PvE will have access to the entire map, just as PvP will, unless it's a battle area that is PvP exclusive, which hasn't been addressed because of our quagmire of conflicting terms. Yes RG has said allot, but he's also said nothing at all (don't lawyer me bro LoL in effect).
That's why it's so important to define if we are discussing PvP or PK.
Rufus is correct about PvE access from what he sees as his rite when he bought the game. People didn't pay to be able to play half a map...PvP or PvE.... but PK is something entirely different, which is the very confusing issue, just like Cannibalism was, which is just a PK that eats the player.
Time Lord

 

Please point out my untrue statement.

No, nor do I expect it. I expect 5 to 10% of the hexes at any given time to be designated as PvP hexes. Entry into these hexes would constitute consent to PvP.
So, I expect 'on demand' access to 90 to 95% of the game world without needing to consent to PvP.
Flagged PvP players will have access to the entire map at all times and be able to PvP with any flagged player.

Which, in and of itself is a form of Non-Consensual PvP. PvE players must do something to earn the right to have access to the map, where PvP player will have access to 100% of the map at all times to PvP with consenting avatars.

I'm giving up 5 to 10% of the world to PvP... PvP is giving up Nothing. And there will be no Non-Consensual PvP so there is no compromise required.

No, it's not.

Too many pronouns... Are you talking about PvE players consenting to PvP when they enter a PvP designated hex?
Yes, I agree with that statement. If you mean something other than that, you will need to restate for my own clarity.

Giving up access to 5 to 10% of the map so that others can have the choice of engaging in PvP temporarily by entering them while PvP flagged Avatars have access to 100% of the map with the same rule set... being able to attack any similarly flagged Avatar at any time for any reason or no reason at all.

There is no compromise on my ability to opt-out of PvP. There is no compromise that will allow Non-Consensual PvP to exist in the game. I've made this point unwaveringly and abundantly clear. Do you expect me to change my mind on this point?
This is what I bought into. This has been repeated and made clear by the development team. Violation of that promise means I sell my account and move on.
I see the need for there to be some areas of the map that are designated PvP, either permanently or in moving random hexes for a while, as has been the seemingly stated intention of the developers. That's what I bought into. Increasing the amount of the map that is denied to the non-flagged Avatars will decrease my willingness to continue association with the project proportionatly.

I've never been a proponent of an absolute filter as I've stated on many occasions. I would like to see PvP activity, and if my mere presence in your world so offends you when I can do nothing material to affect your game-play, then please... filter yourselves out of my existence.
The only filter I thought might be amusing is filtering Avatars that you've killed permanently out of your existence. I doubt that will be technically feasible, however.

There will be no Non-Consensual side so I've no clue what that statement means.

 

I think you are giving too much credit to the tesla towers. They are only in large cities and only the ones that have the natural resources to support them. It's a theme RG has been touting from the begining.

They do not extend to outlying hexes.

The way you would depict things would imply that Lord British has more control in the land. What I am picking up is that Tracy Hickman and Richard Garriott have a story of striff and struggle. The Avatars are new to the land and are at odds with people that feel invaded. (I have not read the Blade of the Avatar so I could be off base - holding off to read it all at once when it's complete)

I do get what you are saying. It's a good concept but I am not sure it's the direction they are going. They might but they are showing a little more uncertainty in the land.

Basically, they developed a story and then after seeing the demand for open PvP they added it. I don't think they have decided how to implement open PvP with the filtering. So I am not saying to stop your line of questions, I like them, brain storming is the foundation of solutions. I am just tossing in my $0.02 on how I see their plans vs where you are going with your logic.

 

All the live videos during Kickstarter did in fact have Richard Garriott saying there will likely be specific PvP zones and he even mentioned open pvp and pvp quests. So if they choose to not allow a PvE person into a zone, then it is still the game he paid for.

Like it or not!!! MUhuhahahHAHAHHAHAhaahaha! BUT I suspect they will have some access to those zones for SPO players and the like.