The PvP Thread

What made UO so unique was the freedom.
UO to this day still has more freedom than any other MMORPG.
PKing was a part of this freedom.

If RG restricts PKing, it'll end up like any other MMORPG.

I bet you Elder Scrolls Online won't have any open-world PvP (it's 3v3v3).
Plus, they have no housing component.

 

I agree freedom is good, but keep in mind this is not a MMO.

 

I would have to agree with having non-consensual Open World PVP. I agree with the thoughts of Solanthus and Ch0plol.

*** WAll OF TEXT WARNING ***

UO was the greatest MMO I've ever played and nothing has matched it to date, I have very fond memories of the game.

I played on the Atlantic Shard from 1998 to 2000 and quit when the did the Trammel / Felucca thing. Was very disappointing.

I remember my first time playing the game, buying Ultima Online:T2A in EB games in the local mall where I live. Reading the instruction manual on the way home being very excited to get in and play.

I made my character and started in Vesper, I headed out the NW gate to explore and see the new world I was in and came upon a mountain pass, there were 3 people mining, I stop to talk to them for awhile when it happened for the first time, I was a brand new character first time playing UO, haven't been in game and alive more then 15 - 20 minutes and a Red named character came running through the mountain pass and killed all four of us.

At first like most people I was a little mad, but I also thought wow this is fantastic the freedom this game has. Being a complete noob at the game and the mechanics I hit the option to rez myself instantly rather than turning into a ghost or whatever, and he killed me again. I then insta-rezzed one more time and tried to haul ass back to town. He gave chase and ended up catching me right before I could get back within the Vesper city limits and
kills me.

At this point my heart is pumping and my hands are shaking and wow it was a awesome feeling, you had that feeling every time you left the city limits away from guard protection. World felt real and alive, filled with danger and mystery, anything can happen, you have to stay alert, it also helped to show that death mattered.

But at this point I must ask to the people that actually played UO, Was dying really that bad in the game? Was having player bodies fully lootable that bad? I mean the way they designed the game there was really no EPIC gear like other MMOs, no irreplaceable gear. Money and gear in the game was relatively easy to make and come by. Inside towns you were pretty safe, if any trouble happened you could just call guards and they would appear and take care of the situation. But of course that didn't make them 100% fool proof, which at times could be annoying if someone got a quick kill on you or stole something from you with thievery and ran away off screen quickly enough. But that just added all the more flavor to the game.

I truly believe the 3 stage (Blue, Grey, Red) Faction (reputation / Karma) system / criminal system was excellent. And worked really well as a hands off development type way to allow the player base to police themselves. It added a lot of flavor into the game, most games nowadays get so boring and repetitive. UO seemed like there was always something going on, anything could happen, it was dynamic, random and fun, I can remember a lot of times even at Brit bank with my hear pumping.

That moment when your at the bank trying to get some really valuable loot into the bank before someone steals it and you get the message over your head * is looking through your bag* * just stole something* and you see them turn Grey and you chase them down and kill them and get all there stuff in return. I remember so many awesome cat and mouse chases like that in Brit alone.

People worry about PKs thinking nothing could be done, but really the game, the people in it, just the whole community can police themselves if the game gives them the tools to do so and the developers / other fellow gamers could just give it the chance to happen organically like it can and should. It felt like it did from my side of the fight on the Shard I played on.

UO also had a Bounty System where victims could put bounties on their killers heads and people could collect on them which was a fun way to make money as well and helped as players to police themselves.

I played on Atlantic Shard from 1998 to 2000, in a Anti-PK guild called Lords of Krynn, My character's name was Kendal I was part of the Paladin group. Yes this is before there were classes in the game. I was a 6x GM (Swords, Tactics, Parry, Anatomy, Healing, and Resisting Spells) had Magery at 70 and Hiding at 30. It was great fun, my friends and I just roaming the lands killing all the reds we see, saving people, helping people, we RPed alot back then.

I miss those days terribly, so many stories I can rant on forever, but the Freedom in UO made it the best MMO there ever was. And no levels to grind, it was all skill based, you could live your whole life in UO as a craftsmen, trader, treasure hunter, fisher, doctor, gatherer, animal trainer, chef, a bard with magical musical powers, whatever without fighting or killing a single thing if you wanted.

I had a Treasure Hunting alt and a Crafter alt, mainly for Blacksmithing.

But another thing UO had that most MMOs don't was a really good economy and a crafting system that actually mattered, plus like I already mentioned there was really no irreplaceable gear. Plus gear in the game could be destroyed and items would deteriorate and wear over time / use and need upkeep / repairs.

Crafting in UO and all the skills were relevant you could accomplish what you needed to accomplish with them, you could make a living on them, they seemed very well thought out, detailed, and everything about them pretty much made sense.

The crafting system was so good that GM stuff you could get from them is really about the best stuff you can use, there was some rare magical gear out there as well but it really wasn't that overpowering like the crazy gear gaps there are with in most other MMOs.

Full loot kind of helped the economy on top of the crafting system and Player Vendor system because goods were always in motion, there was plenty of supply and demand, by having real loss in the game created that. Having real loss in the game also helps to strengthen the concept of death mattering. Player bodies also disappeared over time removing items from the economy.

Loss in the game was punishing but not overly damaging or painful again because nothing was that irreplaceable. And it wasn't hard to have / earn / get money in the game to replace whatever you loss.

Some people have had bigger things stolen like houses and boats, it sucks a lot, it makes you want to rage quit forever at times, I was one of them, my boat got stolen, it sucked, after awhile I got another, life went on. Luckily it never happened to my house.

Also Adventuring and Exploring in the game was tremendous amounts of fun and very rewarding as well, it like crafting seemed to "matter" more in the game, I would just sail for hours on my Treasure Hunting Alt and fish and find treasure chests with friends it was awesome.

UO just had that magic, just that you can do anything you want spark, that every other MMO since has missed, no other MMO has captured the hearts and minds of gamers everywhere like UO. It truly was like living in another world, another life in another universe. The Origin "We Create Worlds" slogan was so very true back in the UO Golden Years before Trammel / Felucca.

And look at that the game is still alive 15 years later, happy anniversary UO, Richard Garriott has to be proud even if he hasn't had any say in anything in a long time, his baby is still alive and kicking.

We unfortunately we may never see a game like UO (in its "Golden Years") again. What game other than UO (in that time frame ^^) has had this dynamic, immersive, random, player driven content that was only possible due to the tension caused by organic player interaction in a open sandbox world with non-consensual PVP? Chaos can be fun, real life is repetitive enough on its own.

All Developers talk about building a community in the game, a sense of society, socialization, etc. But then they try way to hard to artificially create it, UO had none of this crap MMOs have nowadays to hand hold players and shield noobs and care bears from harm, all Devs jump through hoops trying to FORCE it, FORCE things, when back in UO it just worked.

Sometimes you have to stop the hand holding and just let go and let players take care of themselves. But of course you have to put the right tools and the right systems into the game to make it possible for the players to take care of it by themselves and I believe UO had those tools during the time period I was playing it.

OK I'm sorry the crazy person will leave the room now

TLDR: UO 1998 - 2000 (Pre Trammel / Felucca) was the Best MMO ever, I want a video game time machine so I can play again in the "Golden Years", and we need to have another NEW MMO just like it right NOW!!!!

 

http://trialsofascension.com/

This game seems like it could be in the same ball park though, I'm keeping my eye on it.

 

I just want to be able to pk people but alas it is not an mmorpg you say? why? im afraid i may give this a try but still be playing ultima online as my main game because i was kind of hoping for a new mmorpg from Ultima not a new single player game with multiplayer aspects.Not only that but ive invested so much time in my houses and characters that i dont think i could quit ultima unless it was like a successor to it, 11 years of playing now, I will still give this a shot though it looks pretty awesome.

 

I'd like to point some key problems I've been noticing on the topic of 'Open PvP' and the frame of mind people seem to be wrapping around this project.

1) Open PvP will not make or break a game (maybe just for you personally). If it's not present, it's not going to 'flop'. It may for the vocal few that adore Open PvP systems; but by and large Open PvP is a minority group of a very vocal few. If it seems to flop, it is only flopping for the supporters of Open PvP, or that the game doesn't have any actual redeeming qualities otherwise (which doesn't seem to be the case). Do not overstate the importance of this subject against the success of the project.

2) This is not UO Redux or UO2. This is a new IP with a new line of thinking on the way multiplayer is handled. Too many people seem to be framing this in an MMO structure. While what the multiplayer side of SOTA entails is still fuzzy, it sounds like people are going to be able to pick and choose who they are going into Multiplayer with. RG has already stated that the game is going for a smaller pool of players (as he describes - "In the tens or dozens" quite clearly a couple of times) in an MP environment rather than a few worlds with hundreds or thousands of people. In such a system, Open PvP the way you think of it in the original UO doesn't logically apply to what you all seem to be imagining.

Stressing the point here: Not an MMO. Just a game with MMO elements in it.

3) While Open-PvP has it's merits and can be quite enjoyable; more often than not the casual crowd will shy away from such a system. If you don't have the casual crowd - you limit your market
greatly. That is not a good business model these days in a market that is crowded and looking to put players in seats. Whether you want to call them care bears, or whatever your favorite term of endearment is for casual players you cannot ignore them in the market these days. While YOU may not care about casual gamers, smart business people do.

--

So if you're going to argue about the PvP system, do so logically and soundly.

 

Good points GrimGary!

Catcher - nice try - I was a UO player at launch and for years following. I think I was PK'ed once, so I have no specific bitterness towards it, but I can say I did not find the joy in knowing that any time, some kid that has more hours to spend leveling up could ruin what may have been hours of my real-world time. I enjoy games for what the games themselves offer, and for the companions met. I can get murdered, mugged, or robbed in real life at any time. However, I don't find that to be a highlight of life and thus I don't want to deal with it (and pay for it) during my entertainment time.

For people that want to engage in PVP (which could include myself at times), there should be areas where that is possible. People who want the thrill of being hunted, or people who take pride in besting others, can be free to do so - consensually. But being constantly on edge with no choice in the matter, forced to travel in numbers, or forced to run through areas instead of exploring - I can go to any number of neighborhoods in RL and experience that. But I don't :3

Nor does that mean the game would be boring, as there are thousands of single and co-op games that have proved to be very challenging and fun without another dude showing up out of nowhere and ganking you. In those games, the challenges are appropriate to your level (or you were an idiot and wandered into an area you shouldnt be in. But a monster 10x your level doesnt just show up out of nowhere. That would be a pretty shitty game IMO)

In the end, consensual PVP would be a success if enough people want to PVP. And if there aren't enough people, if they are in fact only a very vocal minority, then there is no reason to appease them by giving them a free-for-all on players that are just not interested.

But as was pointed out already, this could all be completely moot as the mechanics of the game could simply not provide for what PVP folks are looking for here.

 

^^ What she said.

and that being said.. I myself played UO during beta and the 7 years following. Seen and heard about a lot of PvP and nearly all of it was not consentual. Strictly open PvP may be fun for hardcore folks and PKers but when you're just out minding your own business the last thing you want is some guy waiting until you're half dead from a fight and then running up and stabbing you in the back. All I ever saw was stuff like that and rampant looting.

Now take Dark Age of Camelot as an example. It had safe areas and war zones. You go into a war zone and you're free game. You could run into a raiding party at any time.. and it was fun because it was optional and when you died your corpse didn't get swarmed and picked clean in under 10 seconds. Yes I had fun out there from time to time but if I needed a break I could always leave and go home where it was safe.

When you have the option and know what you're getting into. Fun. When you've got punks waiting behind your house to kill the first poor sod that comes along and take all their stuff. That's not fun.

It's NEVER "just a game" folks. You have to remember that when people play a game it's to relax and have fun. This is how they choose to spend their free time and relieve stress. It's a very personal thing.. and as much as some folks love PvP for whatever reason.. there are many who simply don't respect that not everyone feels the same way.

 

For me, SotA ll need Open PvP except for few location like Town. No more.

I wanna be like in a real RPG.

Thanks my Lord !

 

I don't think the non-consensual open world PvPers are the minority.
I think most people are here because of the UO (a non-consensual open world PvP game).

Will this game's PvP be the same as UO?
Probably not, we have two types of game view for this game.

Maybe they can give us the option of having PvP or no PvP (with an option to switch available in towns only)
The PvP players can be grouped/linked up to other PvP enabled players.
The non-PvP players can also be grouped/linked up to other non-PvP players.
Everyone wins.

 

I wonder how playing single player and maxing out your character will work with pvp when you do go online. I guess if everyone does that pvp will be like a fps as everyone will more or less be equal.

I guess the real question should be how many people will actually play this game multiplayer.

 

I too understand the value of having an open non-consensual PvP system in place. That fundamental system, among other non-consensual systems, gave UO the tension that it needed to be a very unique and successful game. By making other players the "end content" your interactions with a dynamic individual made for a rich experience where your willingness to take risks could be rewarded (I'm talking about the early days of UO, pre-2000 or pre-2003 at the very least).

However, SOTA is not UO and as GrimGary pointed out, we must consider that SOTA is designed as a single player game with multi-player components. Given that, the approach to PvP must be considered in a different light. One strong system seen in some MMO's can be adapted to work in this environment: PvP and non-PvP servers.

Instead of focusing on the system from the server perspective, the system can look at it from the character perspective. Assuming that multiple characters are going to be available to each player, newly created characters can be flagged as either a PvP or non-PvP character. This choice is supported by a back end system that maintains the online elements for PvP and non-PvP worlds. One version is non-PvP, while the second is a PvP enabled. This would be a fully separated environment, including housing, encounters, playing with friends, etc.

This type of system would allow those who find enjoyment in non-consensual PvP interactions to exist in a world from the ground up where they are embroiled in that type of interaction and vice versa.

 

I played UO when it was the best: At launch.

There has never been another game that was so truly open. The truth is, that there were 3 factors that were far and beyond the most important in creating UO addiction and love.
<b>
1. The openness of the world
2. The social factor and interactions
3. Massive adrenaline releases as a response to real risk
</b>

<b>PVP</b> - There were no safe zones. Sure, there was a modicum of safety in towns because of the very powerful guards who came to chop heads. But it was never completely safe. Towns were a place where the attacker had to spend time and effort planning and setting up for a kill and they had to be ready to die to get their kill. In return, towns were peaceful, but if you really deserved to die a grudge could be settled. These rare events had great entertainment value.

The rest of the world was open to PVP. This means, just like in most of homo sapian history, you approach people with caution and size them up. There's a big social value here, you had to indicate to them you meant no harm and learn to collaborate and build trust. Trust is what made friendships last. If someone was really untrustworthy (a pker) it was immediately obvious by the large red 'Dreadlord' title over their heads. Believe it or not, many times you could still use your social skills to befriend them, if it didn't work you could run away. Always rewarding by points 1-3 above.

<b>Scammers</b> - Among the high entertainment value activities in the game was to watch the scammers. Just as in real life, there were people who spun stories like a nigerian scammer or sold people boats and houses that didn't belong to them. These were rich social interactions with high comedic value.

<b>Consequences</b> - There were all sorts of in-game consequences to engaging in evil activities. You could no longer frequent towns, or you could get a bad reputation in your game world among players. This tended to keep the majority of players in good behavior. It was only when realms were divided into care-bear vs pkers that things fell apart. Now the only people in PVP realms were the ones that wanted to behave badly.

<b>Victims</b> - Believe it or not, at launch it was not so bad to be a victim of scammers or pkers. Doesn't matter if you were on the receiving end of these activities, they still hit the addictive points of 1-3 above. It was thrilling to fight for your life in a heroic attempt even if in the end the good guy lost. It was a formative experience to be scammed or pickpocketted.

Whether you came out of it amused or with a grudge, it made you care more. There were always steps you could take to avoid the same thing happening repeatedly, it didn't take much, you could temporarily go to another town or avoid a part of the game world, or recruit other people to form a grudge party. Anyway, items were not the entire focus of the game, even if you lost everything you still had your avatar and those skills were more important than items. In fact, if you really cared about losing an item you just didn't take it on a dangerous adventure or a suicide mission. More depth.
<b>
1. The openness of the world
2. The social factor and interactions
3. Massive adrenaline releases as a response to real risk
</b>
You greatly diminish all 3 of these factors if you restrict people from role playing evil. The challenge is to create the right ecosystem. <b>Anything</b> should be possible, modulate things like difficulty, rewards and consequences. Realism is very rewarding.

 

Agree 100 % whit u flashburn.

 

You have to realize that there were a LOT of people who wanted to behave badly and a LOT of people who wanted nothing to do with them. It's not so simple to say that open PvP is the reason UO was great. It may be the reason it was great for YOU. There is a distinction that needs to be made there.

Those who victimize other players are many times ruining the experience of gamers who just want to be left alone. Few people enjoy being out mining for hours example only to have some mage come around and kill them and take hours worth of labor. Where you find thrill, others may find frustration.

Some would argue that the complete freedom to be crappy to other players was not UOs strongest suit. 7 years in UO and the only folks I met who enjoyed that level of PvP were PKs and some rare hardcore folks which were few and far between.

From there moving to a game with PvP areas and safe areas seemed to work really well. Later they ultimately opened one or two PvP servers with no safe zones but that represented maybe 1 in 4-6 servers?

The challenge is finding the right balance between PvP and opting out without either being abused.

 

<code>Few people enjoy being out mining for hours example only to have some mage come around and kill them and take hours worth of labor.</code>

Few people enjoy mining for hours in the first place and if this repeatedly happens to you did you give any thought to changing your behavior?

<code>..ruining the experience of gamers who just want to be left alone</code>

I'm starting to see a pattern here. If you just want to be left alone why did you elect to play a game that's all about multiplayer?
Let's say sometimes you wanted to be left alone and sometimes you wanted to play with your friends (I'm assuming you had some, but if so why didn't you go mining together and put up a fight?) but nowhere did you want to have a pvp experience.

It just sounds like you'd be happy with a more restrictive game. Those are everywhere. You could go play lord of the rings online, where there is no pvp, or something else, I mean the choices of games where pvp is curtailed is endless.

If you enjoy mining for hours, with no social interaction, I hear windows has a great game called 'minesweep'.

Here's the problem, every time I"ve heard the crying game from your side of the argument it's the same: I kept repeating the same behavior that led to and it kept happening to me. Oh the agony.

I ask you why do you not learn from your experience and change your behavior? There was a rich set of really deep role playing options you could chose from.

1. Stay in town and buy your raw materials. I knew several crafters who did this and ran successful businesses and were very well-respected.
2. Group up with other people having this problem and create your own story of self-empowerment. That was a proven strategy.
3. Break up your mining runs into less monotonous shorter trips. I mean you could teleport anywhere in the game with a few words.
4. Raise your fighting abilities and tech him a lesson.
5. Go mine somewhere else.
6. Join a guild for security.
7....... and on and on. The beauty of the open world is that there were always many choices.

Do you want to create an open world that emphasizes:
1. The openness of the world
2. The social factor and interactions
3. Massive adrenaline releases and excitement as a response to real risk

Or would you like the game to be restrictive based on the preferences of joe, jack and bill?

 

I don't know joe, jack, or bill but they sound like jerks.

 

And every time I hear the arguement from "your side" it's pretty much the same thing. "The game is supposed to be this way so go play something else" and accusing folks of crying or being haters or some such just because they don't play the way you want to.

Why must someone change their behavior to conform to your view when they didn't do anything wrong to begin with?

Now let me look at your options.

1: Just who the heck to you think those people bought their raw materials from? Someone had to go out and get it and it wasn't PvPers. Which reminds me.. who made YOUR armor so you could go out and fight in the first place?
2: Not all your friends always play at the same time.
3: Not very profitable.
4: Not every game allows you to master both craft and fighting skills.
5: When the PKers actively seek out victims, there is no safe place unless it's a safe zone. Which you are apparently against.
6: Refer to #4

I can't help but wonder what would happen to the world econonmy if every player was into hardcore PvP and just spent their time running around hoping for a fight.

Why don't "we" go play something else? Let me counter that one.. why aren't you playing some FPS where all you do is run around killing people?

I hate to break it to you but games are not successful because of openess, socializing or constant risk. Nor are they successful because of an small groups preferences. Games are about one thing, and one thing only. game-play.

Now, game-play can incorporate all of those elements but if it's not fun then no one will play no matter how open or social or risky the game is. The same can be said about a restrictive game. If the gameplay is good the game will be good. If it's not the game won't be. Simple as that.

If the game being what YOU want limits the enjoyment of the game to only people with your preferences. That to me is not a good game. If it's my ideal game but nobody else enjoys it, that's not a good game either.

What I want to see if a balanced game we both can enjoy. Is there some reason why some people can't seem to respect that there's more than one way to enjoy the same game?

 

Thanks for your response.

I don't think I'm advocating for a game that caters to my preferences, rather a game that is truly open and diverse.

Something that UO did have at launch.

 

We can agree on that much. PvP can be a touchie subject. Some love it, some absolutely hate it and everyone has their own reasons. I'd love to see a balanced game that maximizes what PvP has to offer but allows a measure of security for those who want something different. It's a challenge and SOTA's solution is hard to address with the current lack of information.

I know what I don't want to see is the ability to turn PvP on and off at will.

Ok I'm having a thought.. it happens a lot when I'm posting.

Let's say.. there are several areas out in the world that are simply dangerous. If you go into those areas it's no holds barred. Now let's say in more "civilized" areas the player has the option to simply turn off aggressive PvP options. The can't attack or be attacked.. can't pick pocket or be pick pocketed etc.. changing the options could require a grace period of several real world hours. The only truely safe zone would be private properties.

This should allow the PvP that sense of risk while others can still venture out in relative safety.

The concern I have with being completely "safe" is those "trolls" that like to bad mouth and harrass people for kicks.. We've all seen them I'm sure. When I was DMing a NWN server we had some general guidelines for PvP. If you don't want to get involved.. don't. You open your mouth and provoke the wrong character and they're perfectly within their right to thrash you. (I had a character that just couldn't help it.. took a few undesired beatings but that was that character's personality). It was an honor system but it worked because of the relatively small playerbase on a NWN server. If the player has some measure of control as to who they see in their game in the first place.. it may very well be feasible to have that complete openness for PvP and still allow people to opt out. Someone doesn't want to respect your playstyle.. ban them from being able to even see you.. or however that's going to work. I could be happy with that.

Of course it's been said before but all of this could be moot. I'm getting more interested now to see what RG has in mind. Maybe I'll go watch those videos I keep hearing about.