Want more funding? Add real PvP.

Im all for consensual PVP, i am also for full loot PVP, not because i roll up on a newb and kill them, im quite the opposite, i go after that guy/girl that did that, take all their stuff give it away to the new people preferably the one that was rolled up on. If you say you want to PVP you have just consented to it, that is my point. Nothing more and nothing less. When i loot a jerk that killed off a new guy/girl, that is my satisfaction, i dont really need their loot but i want them to know they lost something other than face, and i want them to be mad, I also want them to know they will not be out there grieving people without repercussion for their actions, and i invite them to try and kill me back! If i lose, oh well it will go on and on until we get tired of it! Revenge is best served cold! I dont mind dieing! so im at peace with whatever the outcome!

 

Is full loot the best option?
What is the defining line that sets someone as PvP or PvE?
What is it that PvE is getting?
What is it that PvP is not getting?

We do not know what PvP is getting or PvE for that matter, we have seen very little in the way of content. If all that is desired is full loot non consensual PvP then yeah you might be right. That's not the best options there are so many things that can be done to provide a better game. We all come in here with our own play styles it's pretty hard to pigeon hole anyone into one style. The ones most likely to voice that one style is the full PvP style. Those players get to flag open for PvP if they choose. (They get what they want)

If you are upset that someone that does not wish to PvP can opt out of PvP and that you can not attack someone that wishes to not be open to PvP, can't help you. That's a business choice, those players leave and never come back. PvPers will keep playing if the PvP is entertaining. Having some pre existing model for PvP and demanding they use that model is not productive in any way. They have a plan, let them run it through the process.

 

I am honestly curious to see what they come up with, hoping that i will be able to enjoy and stay with this game and its designers. If not Personally i have other games to go to. But i am giving them a chance to come up with something good!

 

I was talking about the reward and clean looting the opponents backpack felt as a real reward. Getting some money in your bank isnt rewarding/interesting. It is a insurance system like UO introduced with Age of Shadows which definetly killed felluca. It was the by PvP players the by far most hated expansion pack and seeing just about the same being presented as the PvP compromize here at SotA feels like a slap in the face.

When also a majority of the PvP interested players want full loot and we instead get Age of Shadows insurance i will not be surpriced at all that we will have a hard time finding real PvP players (UO veterans) taking part in SotA PvP.

And with full loot i dont mean anything bought for real life money. That type of gear/items should be newbified/blessed.

 

And yet UO is still making money off of subscriptions and occasionally selling expansions. I've always seen the trouble with AoS being the introduction of linear gear progression to a game that's simply not built for it. And of course "the" PvP players, as defined by you, didn't like it. When have they ever liked anything? They even hate games tailored specifically for them.

Ah, so we finally get a definition for "real PvP players": you and your friends from back in the day. How unfortunate for SotA that they will be limited to only the other 500 million or so gamers in the world.

I don't disagree, but... why? If it's all about the thrill, then what could be more thrilling than getting someone's crystal sword or whatever? If you're conceding that Portalarium has an interest in preventing losses from deaths from being too extreme, well you're already halfway to my position.

 

Old UO after trammel was the just about perfect PvP game. It was consensual, demande huge playerskills and had full blown risk vs reward, the better player got rewarded.

After Age of Shadows there havent been a game that is even close to that old UO game, either it was mainly a unskilled gank feasts or it was games like Darkfall that had no penalties for murderers, it was just a player with a different colour. UO had severe penalties for murderers.

So since no other game as old UO after trammel been on the market, + 11 years now i can understand that many of those oldtimers feel fedup with what's presented.

I am interested to hear from you what games you consider being tailored for the old UO PvP veterans? I cant find one.

Yes me and my friends in the guild are real PvP players, we like the rule settings post trammel had and there havent been another one on market after Age of Shadows killed felucca UO. We dont like gank feasts, we like skilled PvP and we like risk vs reward. And there have to be severe penatiles for murderers, a working alignment system.

We tried just about all new promising MMO games like Darkfall 1 and succeded to create the first tier 3 on the europe shard, had the best crafter. We never lost a fight and we sold our city when we ended the game cause of the severe cheatings going on, the never ending grind and the no alignment system, add no skillcap and it was turned out to be a disater. So if you ment Darkfall as tailored for real PvP players your way wrong. Mortal Online also had severe problems, technical ones mainly.

 

And the other hundred million people who delusionally think they enjoy PvP, like me, are just fakers I guess. And you wonder why almost nobody wants to make a game tailored for you? Here's a hint: constantly spewing insults and invective at everybody who wasn't in your guild back in UO does not make you a desirable customer. It makes you a liability. It's impossible to satisfy you and also impossible to satisfy anyone else if the game producers try.

Yeah, I'm talking about DF and MO and even freeshards; all games whose issues stem mainly from a low player base not bringing in enough money to properly fix problems. Online games of all sorts have to reach some threshold of active players in order to afford proper maintenance and updates, and so far in 15 years that's never happened with a nonconfulloot game since players have had other choices. I don't want that to happen to SotA in the name of shoehorning in a proven failure of a PvP model.

Supposedly there are other options for you, though, if you like what you laughably call "real PvP." Blaquerogue was talking about them. Why not ask him what they are? I would guess games like LoL, but since you don't get to steal anyone's stuff or otherwise pile humiliation on a loser, I'm assuming all those players are fakers as well. I'm really not sure what he was talking about.

 

Risk:

• Full Loot - Uncontrollable dynamic
• Item Decay - Controllable dynamic

Reward:

• Full Loot - Uncontrollable dynamic
• Ransom - Controllable dynamic

Lets look at this a little closer.

For full loot to be initiated the player must choose to loot. What happens if no one loots? What happens if the player loots but is killed and looted also. Can this set up what it's run on and on with items changing hands but never any actual loss?

Item decay is on death. It is assessed every time and no matter what method of death is used. Die in PvP, decay, die in PvE, decay, even death by snu snu, decay.

Full loot does not remove anything from the game, it only changes hands. Decay forces a visit to the crafter. The decay increases on every death.

Full loot as a reward is lack luster. It does not have an inherent value. If the looted player carries nothing then there is zero reward. If the looted player is fully loaded with high value items there is a massive loss. As a game mechanic, this is too uncontrolled and trends to be less and less valued as the game ages. (players learn how to avoid the loss by carrying less)

Ransom as a reward, as described so far, carries a specific value based on the ransom amount. If the loser carries zero there is still a value as the system levies the value onto the player even when they have nothing. There is still potential to gain items instead of currency.

Both full loot and ransom as a reward system still require the looter to actually choose to loot. The difference is the option for currency when there is a ransom.

Be honest here, how many sets of gear will you keep before trashing gear looted or not bothering to loot at all?

I posted my suggestion on the PvP and Death mega thread for a hybrid ransom/loot system that is more time based. Link for reference

I think I would add in one more thing to my looting suggestion. To build on the decay system the looter should also have the choice to scuttle the looted's gear. This would add to the looters ability to render the players gear unserviceable until repaired.

The current system they have proposed may need some tweaking but I stand by it over a full loot system.

 

how about this... for those people who wants full loot then maybe portalarium can add a feature that will enable full loot on themselves so that when they die other players can full loot their carcasses... hehehe

 

I don't like the ransom system at all. It seems somewhat fake.

I would rather be able to loot the equipment that is currently equipped albeit with severe damage and is really only valuable for smelting. That would both give a purpose to looting as well as support crafters.

 

An insurance system is fake. A ransom, if controlled by the looter, is pretty realistic. The key is the ransom must be in under the control of the looter. The looter should not be required to hold an item for ransom.

 

Any ransom system that is supported by game mechanics where two people don't actually have to interact after the kill is odd and unnatural.

 

Yes, I remember reading about that approach when it was brought up in the PvP Megapost thread. Sounded perfectly reasonable to me: "If you want to be hardcore, you have the option to do so."

However the way you worded it makes the concept sound like a hilariously bad idea.

 

You mean like a party looting system with rolls for winning items or a rotation through out the group? Yeah some things are best kept away from "realistic" to keep fair play as an understood instead of wide open to abuse.

 

I would be surprised if this forum still had more PVPers than PVEers. Look at the people who continually post and reply. It's always the same group of people who have indicated they have no interest in PvP, yet feel that they have to reply to every single thread in this forum.

 

I've not suggested that at all, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.

Allowing the looting of severely damaged equipment is fair, encourages crafting, and is a fair bit more realistic than the alternatives.

 

It's pretty unfortunate... a lot of PvPers have already left.

I can't blame them.

 

I brought it up because of the odd and unnatural comment. There are many elements in games that are in place that have nothing to do with realism, the functionality if more important.

Looting of severely damaged equipment does not encourage crafting. The damage of the equipment does that. Looting just changes the hands of the item from one player to another. Fairness is debatable.

 

The damage component does, yes. There are, however, many people who wish to have looting and I see this as a fair compromise, and one that doesn't cheapen the value of armour.

 

If you look at the reasoning of the dev team (posted a link earlier in this thread) This team in building things from the ground up so they are all balanced together. Full loot shifts that balance.

I understand the desire to loot. There are failings in that system though, some of them I posts just a few posts before.