The PvP Thread

Richard told us that he listen to us the players, so my guess is that nothing is set in stone yet and the game will continue to evolve.

I have a suggestion on PvP that will almost keep all playstyles happy.

Make PvP hardcore as before trammel or before Age of Shadows for the ones wanting that kind of game, that kind of thrill. Make it optional. If you dont want to participate then dont. Do your thing without fear getting dragged into something you want to avoid.

There will be guildwars and i would like to see an option for real consequences in the game. Remember it would be optional. The ones that enjoy a risk vs reward game, full loot and maybe even statloss for PK:s and while i think of it a bounty board could have those features that only affects them, noone else.

Such an option would suit a wider playerbase. All you guys have to remember that the really old UO players that experienced Ultima Online before trammel and Age of Shadows have been looking for a new similar MMO since 2003. These oldtimers that loved Richard Garriott old UO more then anything else would finally find a new home. And dont get me wrong i loved being a crafter, roleplay, tame and even planted flowers.=) A game need to be more then PvP.

This suggestion would not interfere with the casual player that dont want anything to do with PvP.
I really hope this fantastic developer team at least think about what i suggest. Feels like this might be my last hope getting my old game back, i miss it.

 

What you stated Ultima Aficionado pretty much sums up my thoughts, sometimes the words just don't come out like they're supposed to.

 

I frequently see the suggestion that we should have open PvP but PKers should pay a penalty. what I've not seen is any suggestion for a mechanism that distinguishes a PvPer from a PKer. How does one differentiate one from another without creating a bunch of false positives and negatives?

 

@Mugly Wumple

I dont actually think PKers will exist. All PvP will be loosely consensual. By "consensual", I mean you allied yourself with a guild, faction, or quest which gives you enemies that some how flag you for PvP. By "loosely" I mean that you may not be looking for it right now. But once you've accepted it you can't just hit [pause] and immediately opt out. You'd need to go to town and say "i still want to help faction x but I want to take the version of the quest that doesn't flag me for PvP but may be more difficult in other ways".

I gave an example in another thread of choosing to help the shepherds or help the farmers. Both sides believe they are in the right. You chose to help the farmers and steal sheep. People helping the shepherds will see you as an outlaw and treat you as such.

There can certainly be areas or situations with many factions or even free for all. But as you point out, you can't have an actual PKer without killing the unwilling. And I just don't see the game doing that.

 

What I'd really like to see is a dial for the frequency that it allows Pkers into an instance. While I enjoyed the thrill of danger when it was a 1 in 10 chance of getting PKed, I did not like the eventual 8/10 chance.

For reference, I played UO from release for over 10 years.

 

I think PKs will exist in that there will be players that attack other players unprovoked. Even though those players may be flagged for PvP, in a sense, they are still 'innocents' if they have committed no crimes or are not murderers themselves. In a game founded on the Virtues, this should be a violation of those Virtues, and that is something that should mark that player.

Several times during the various live chats, I asked if there would be a system as in UO where criminals and murderers could be easily detected and differentiated from honest players, but the question was never answered. I guess it's something that has not yet been decided. I think there MUST be such a mechanism, and I hope the dev team comments on that soon.

 

I wanted to throw in my 2 cents on the subject here. By trade, I've always been a merchant first and foremost in games. EQ and its subsequent clones (read: WoW et al) really trivialized the sense of economy that a game like EvE and UO brought to the table.

To that extent, I support open-world PvP to the extent of its impact on economies. Probably the biggest problem with gear driven scenarios like WoW is there is no worry of losing the equipment. EvE provides a significant balance, however flawed it may be in its own right. The system of pre-Trammel UO was flawed in the sense that PKs weren't penalized enough for certain types of crimes and actions. However, skill loss provided a means of opening up a need for more resources to retrain some skills such as reagents in one example.

While I may agree that the open world PvP full loot scenario provides the ideal environment; there will always be abusers of such a system. I never PvP'ed in UO willingly, but I wouldn't trade the danger and circumstances it presented me. The learning experiences it provided. My point here is that unregulated, full blown PvP is going to keep the population from ever reaching its full potential that I think most of us would like to see... however, a Trammel system or opt-in/opt-out system deadens the experience into being nothing more than a EQ/WoW-esque game. A treadmill of sorts.

I would suggest increasing the penalties associated with specific crimes, however that will unlikely satisfy the "dying makes me feel bad" crowd. I believe it is the closest thing to a middle ground possible is to create drastically severe penalties like inability to own property, towns are inaccessible, characters are KOS and bounties rewarded for their death. I would support certain off limits areas such as towns with guards.

Full disclosure, my agenda is to see that all equipment, regardless its power or rarity (with Kickstarter reward exceptions... maybe), breaks and crumbles to dust after a given amount of time. Anything less will leave the economy in a perpetual cycle of inflation for eternity. PvP can be a part of that by destroying some of the equipment of victims/dropping the rest, etc. PVP is a means to my end, but my end is not open-world PvP specifically. It isn't a make or break feature for me. A functional economy is.

Anyway, that's my opinion. I'm invested in this game regardless of the decision.

 

As I said in another thread. I'm thinking the faction / flagging system works like "Sid Meier's Pirates!". As soon as you take up the cause of one faction, you will be considered morally justified in attacking their enemies. But they will see you as a ruthless criminal. This gets around players being evil (as was the goal of ultima iv +) but allows them to be ruthless if they want. This will effectively get you the PK vs anti-PK wars but with a story behind it, everyone contributing to the campaign, and everyone opted in.

You then just need to make an approach (or multiple) that doesn't flag you, but has a slower grind to it or is more challenging in other ways. e.g. you can help the cause by attacking their enemies, crafting / gathering a bunch of stuff, or slaying the trolls nearby.

 

PK'ing in UO plain didn't work - it was highly asymmetrical, meaning 90% of the time you had characters skilled, equipped and prepared for PVP on one side and people who tried to do non-PVP stuff on the other. The setup alone made sure it had few to do with skill, and often this was amplified by opportunism (let's wait til the guy is down from a monster) or ganging up on them. It was plain one-sided robbery and allowed for the red's playstyle to completely dominate and ruin the fun of the other guy. It drove players away by the thousands as PK'ers not only kept them from playing the way they enjoyed but also destroyed hours of work in a mere minute.

In short, PK'ing in UO was so lopsided it basically boiled down to sheer victimizing of others 90% of the time. If this makes a comeback in SotA, Episodes 2-5 are effectively doomed.

Ironically, I like PVP - if it's consensual and symmetrical. I've enjoyed the UT series and I currently enjoy Mechwarrior Online 'cause there, both sides are on even footing and prepared for PVP. It's exactly NOT specialized murderers vs. questers, explorers and gatherers who were plain being victimized. Learn from the past. -

Imo having a separate PVE server and a PVP server would be best - that way non-matching player groups are both being kept apart and around. I would also be much more likely to get a copy for my gf who enjoys fantasy RPGs but disdains PVP, if I knew there was a PVE server.

 

@Calem - That is why they should make hardcore PvP optional. If you dont want to take part, then dont.

 

The reason PK'ing in UO did not work is because there was no consequences for a PK initially. I know in SoTA there is going to be a way for players to opt out of PVP and I think that is unfortunate. But, there certainly is a lot of leeway in between. I do not think players should ever be completely safe at all times, the threat of getting PK'd should be there. One thing Ultima Online did get right was creating safe zones within towns. A thing UO did not get right was that to do almost anything in the game a player was the risk of getting PK'd.

Calem, the game is not "doomed" with non-consensual PVP if it is done right. Many games did not adopt the sandbox style gameplay, they chose to follow Everquest and create "theme-park" style games. The solution to getting PK'd is definitely not an easy one, but it is probably vital for an enormous group of gamers; especially old-school Ultima fans.

I know several players who simply refuse to play this game if there is not open PVP. They do not enjoy games that hold your hand. It just isn't an enjoyable type of game for them. I am not sure how PVP will be implemented, but I am not in favor of the "opt-in" style in any way whatsoever.

 

"I know several players who simply refuse to play this game if there is not open PVP."

This is short sighted. There may not be open PvP in that everyone outside town has to PvP, as in UO, but if the servers steer PvPers together so that there is always a fight to be had, and the fights are of high quality, and there is ample loot (ideally full loot), then what would someone care if they can't kill lumberjacks unless they are so lame that lumberjacks are the only players they have a prayer of beating.

 

Quote: ?I know several players who simply refuse to play this game if there is not open PVP.?

*chuckles* That?s like saying ?I know several people who then won?t decimate your playerbase?. Good thing!

Lobbying for ?open PVP? is just a thinly veiled way of saying ?I want to pester players not consenting to PVP, either to steal their stuff or to plain ruin their day.? It?s exactly the kind of attitude that needs to be prevented as else, you allow your playerbase to cannibalize itself.

To me there?s a lack of good reasons as to why you should have ?open PVP? opposed to consensual PVP (reglemented as in guild vs. guild, PVP arenas or plain by opting in). The only thing that has been brought up is ?It adds to excitement? which is also just an euphemism. Suppression and fear are not positive excitement. If I have crafted a good sword I want to be able to wield that. If I cannot as there?s a realisitic chance I?d get mugged and the sword stolen, that?s not fun. Open PVP would plain have too many suppressing effects on the way the game was played, and way too much potential for frustration. Theft only benefits the thief, not the society.

Having a hard no-PVP ever option (as it seems to stand) will be good, as will be having single-online mode (see the video). There?s a fair chance this game won?t appeal to Pkers due to said evasion modes.

A separate PVP server would have advantages ? for you PKers, too. There, you could get your open PVP as people opted in, and the server economy would reflect the special circumstances.

 

Lobbying for open PVP is lobbying for truly open game world. A world where anything is possible, which is the essence of a sandbox game. An example of which is the original Ultima Online of 1997 and EVE online, both are excellent examples. There should not be some in-game mechanic preventing you from doing those actions. This takes the player out of the experience, when they are simply unable to perform an action they should be able to do.

Suppression and fear are not positive excitement?

Then, can you please explain to me why horror films are so popular which live upon this premise?

You have not provided an adequate reason for there NOT to be open PVP, if you want to keep a sword you worked to get then make sure you can properly defend yourself and you know how to use it. The game should not protect you, this responsibly should be on your shoulders.

 

There will be Open PvP in SotA if you elect to go that way. From the sounds of it, anything will be possible. You won't even see those not selected for PvP, so they will not detract from your experience.

There are nearly 25000 contributors. There may be 100,000 or more players on release. There should be plenty of people for PvPers to fight, so there is not need to force the unwilling into PvP. I think we will all have quite enough to deal with as it is, since the servers will be working to actively bring us together.

 

@Ultima Aficionado:

Horror movies are a whole different story ? you?re watching paid actors, and the excitement/thrill comes from watching what happens next. Your watching doesn?t harm the actors in any way.

In persistant world games, however, you have real people in front of their PCs. Real people who invested time/resources to get their stuff and thus feel attached to it. Do you own a car? A house? A pet? Anything of value to you? If so, you can relate - you value what you worked and care for.

Good game design utilizes that bond as it keeps your players p(l)aying. You however just lobby for plain, real theft ? the virtual nature of the goods in question doesn?t alter that. You ask to being able to just take within a minute what took other, real people months to acquire. It?s plain antisocial and shows you have no respect for other people?s time and affections. Bad karma buddy ^.^

Game design wise it?s a horror vision. Player loss is guaranteed since - were you granted your wish ? PKers would sever said bonds that help keep people around. Game design wise any meaningful ladders/accumulation systems would be undermined as there?d be no point in serious resource investing if anything could be taken away on a whim.

I guess we can agree to disagree, which is why separate servers would work best. I don?t trust optional PVP too much as people have tried to exploit that in the past, too, by insulting, harassing and provoking others into PVP. It?s just one more layer of grief I can do without.

 

@Ultima Aficionado:

I would say horror movies are more like fully consensual PvP with no death penalty than non-consensual PvP.

You have to choose to engage in the experience in the first place, you can stop it at any time, and you are guaranteed to not lose anything apart from the time you had set apart to have that experience.

And, lo and behold, fully consensual PvP not only is in the game, it gained a renewed focus when the $2M stretch goal was met

BTW: there are other reasons to watch horror movies besides experiencing fear. Some people watch them not to be scared, but to watch other people's reactions when they are scared. I myself watch them for comedic effect; I have the ability to instantly disbelieve any movie or game, completely removing any fear from the experience, and the ridiculous excuses and idiotic reactions from the characters are usually comedy gold

 

The point is the feeling of being afraid is exciting and fun, especially when it doesn't actually cause harm to the person who is participating. One of the reasons humans enjoy watching horror films is because you get to experience a feeling we normally keep suppressed in a civilized society; in the end, however, we are still human.

I am tired of the excuse that it will drive away the player base, it simply is not true. You can take a look at the day-z mod for Arma. The day-z mod is an open world with full loot and it has a huge player base. It actually became a best selling game on Steam. I find that excuse to be poor and an easy one to use.

Strider, to each his own. There are some people who watch horror movies because they are "funny" in a sense, but that is the exception not the norm. Most people who want to watch a funny movie watch a comedy. I do agree that some horror movies are funny though. = )

Calem, if you are foolish enough to carry around all your belongings deep into the wilderness then you deserve to lose them. The same thing is true in real life, you don't walk around with $3,000 in your pocket because it could be easily lost. You can safely store your belongings within your house and they can never be touched there, the only thing that open PVP would require is that someone prepare before they leave their safety zone. Do not confuse open PVP and PKing with griefing. A player who griefs is intentionally seeking to destroy another player's experience.

 

@Ultima Aficionado:

Actually, it's not just players saying that non-consensual PvP drives players away:

Chris
March 22, 2013 ? 10:04 am
PK, brings a ton to the table but was also the number one reason players exited UO

( https://www.shroudoftheavatar.com/?topic=qa-with-chris-and-richard-in-chat-2 )

Enjoying non-consensual PvP isn't for everyone (or, apparently, even for the majority). Some persons obviously love it, but for other players it can completely ruin the game. I'm part of that second group, to the point I would rather not play the game than be subject to non-consensual PvP.

 

Ulima Aficionado, you seem to basically want the pre-Trammel UO back. I played during that time, too. I remember the miner-killing, blue ******** scouting for reds and all the lame things that took place. Spawn-hogging, opportunistic kills, ganking. Precasting. Rogues snoop-provoking. House break in exploits. UOE users. Those were ridiculously broken times and UO would?ve tanked sooner, harder had it not been for an absense of competition at that time ? Everquest wasn?t out before 1999 and had its own issues at the start. Today, this is no longer the case, and bad design just gets abandoned.

Funny you latched onto the Griefer tag - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griefer is still a good read. But even if we go by your own definition: ?A player who griefs is intentionally seeking to destroy another player?s experience.? ? This is just what you?d do if you attacked John the Lumberjack who just left home to chop down some trees. You forcefully imposed your playstyle onto John, forcing him to react against his will and intention or die (waste of time and potential loss of resources in both cases). You basically destroyed his peaceful gaming experience which would?ve consisted of peacefully hauling some logs home. Maybe you?d even camp at the trees, further overriding his intended playstyle with yours. Your interaction basically messed his gaming session.

There?s simply no *good* reason why you should be able to have fun at John?s expense. There?s no good reason for SotA wanting to accommodate for problem players trying to cannibalize the playerbase. If you want consensual PVP, that?s fine, as then there?ll be two to dance. But for you, it?s about you and the loot, isn?t it? You don?t actually care for a viable PVP implementation or metagame considerations like many others in this thread, you just want PK back for the loot, right?

Oh well. Let?s hope we get clear-cut design specs for PVP soon. Without, I cannot feasibly decide whether to up my pledge and/or possibly get a second account for my gf, too.