Flag for full loot and open PVP

I think the "flag" idea might not be a great method, but a full loot pvp island or crater or otherwise delineated zone would be fine by me. I'd know going in that I might lose everything on me, but the value of going there would be potentially leaving with a net gain in loot from kills, plus rare resources spawning even more abundantly than the open pvp zone.

 

About his: " ...think the "flag" idea might not be a great method, but a full loot pvp island or crater or otherwise delineated zone would be fine by me..."

Man you give me hope...

 

There's just too many scenarios and use cases with full loot flags to make it work. Simply make a zone that is very scary looking and tell people there is high risk and high reward. Dont go there if you dont want to. Everyone wins.

 

@Xail if you honestly think I am biased then you have not been reading long. I am all about balanced logical design. Adding full loot simply because someone NEEDS that buzz word in the game doesn't cut it. Specially since it's a square peg round hole situation.

The only possible way it would be doable within the realm of things that have been discussed here so far is a full loot hex. Then we have segregation again.

Why build a system then strap on a hulking band aid on the side to get a cliche mechanic when you can build a system from the ground up that provides the game play desired up front.

Click here

 

Really good ideal Sir.

 

And you believe that players that want risk vs reward as full loot in their game would settle for a zone while other's have access to the full game?

I find that segregating and a game i would never take part in.

There is good suggestion's on loot by Ristra and other's that can let risk vs reward players compete in the full game.

I would prefer that.

 

It might help for me to explain my perspective. I do enjoy full loot pvp. I've played mortal online and darkfall for years and enjoy the actual fear and excitement that comes with it.

Let's document what we all agree on so far.

1. Everyone should be given a choice
2. Nobody wants to lose everything unfairly
3. We ALL want SotA to succeed.

Now that we've level set on what we can agree on, lets look at the way some other games have tried and failed to implement full loot pvp.

Mortal Online

Opted for full loot pvp in all zones, even sometimes in cities. The game was heavily touted as another Ultima Online with classless skill based progression and the ability to do anything and craft anything. There is no population tracking info available, however, Star Vault (manufactures of MO) stock information ISIN-code SE0002149369 is below. June 9, 2010 was the release date. By June of 2011, their stock was at an all-time low and continued to do terrible until the Free to Play release 2013. Of which they saw a small bump in price and attention. This game is now dead and will not likely survive another calendar year.


Darkfall Online

Darkfall Online launched in 2009 and started as a full loot faction based pvp world with an open map, no loading times, and brutal skill based combat and classless progression. You had safe cities, but that was it. The game had terrible technical issues which were patched through 2012 when they released a remake of the game called Darkfall: Unholy Wars. This game had the same rules as Darkfall, but introduced a few classes (which have since been removed for a classless model) and provided safe zones on about 35% of the world map where you could not be pk'd. Only the full loot zones had the rare resources and the rarest monsters along with faster skill progression and unique gear. The game did fairly well for the first few months. Subscriptions have dwindled. The game recently went to steam and has cut its sub price by 30%. Steam shows the all time peak players at 540 at one time with under 100 on any given day recently. http://steamcharts.com/app/227400 The game is also considered dead for the most part.

Ultima Online - Not that we need a history lesson here

It was in the second expansion that Trammel was introduced. A mirror world of the original full loot pvp Felucca where players no longer had to worry about being killed and losing all of their gear/resources. This as an overall change did disenfranchise some of the playerbase, but is what contributed to the game still being available today and still maintaining subscriptions. Do you think EA would keep the servers running if they weren't still making a profit?

Wizardry Online

Probably the most extreme example. Wizardry online launched on Jan 30, 2013 and was very innovative in its gameplay. Not only could you pvp anybody, anywhere, anytime (after soul rank 2), but there was a chance that your kill could cause perma-death to the other players character. This game is an example of a free for all with no attempt at segregating or giving a choice to pvp. Here is the latest update from their developers. https://forums.station.sony.com/wo/...ur-wizardry-journey-is-coming-to-an-end.4771/ July 30, 2014, 18 months after release, the game has been turned off by the devs.

So what have we learned?

1. Open full loot pvp will kill a game as the number of people who want it can't sustain the game alone.
2. Providing partitioned full loot pvp zones will still not work if you put items/resources in it that can't be obtained elsewhere.
3. The only successful game that still retains full loot pvp has had to put it in a completely separate and optional instance. Anything obtained there uniquely must be able to be sold/acquired by players without participating.
4. There are no games that currently offer a full loot pvp flagging mechanic.

Solutions:

1. Some games that I have not mentioned have included the ability to loot a character who is flagged as a criminal for player killing. This feature has not hurt a game but does not seem to cater to the "choice" agreement we have.
2. Put full loot pvp in it's own zone/island/instance where you know what you are getting into if you go there. Any and all items received there must be accessible by the rest of the population via either trading or pve content.
3. Design from the ground up, a full loot pvp flagging mechanic. This wouldn't be reinventing the wheel, it would be inventing something that hasn't been used (unless someone can cite a game where it does exist, I can't find one). I am a big fan of innovation, but if the devs aren't listing all of the requirements and going through the use cases already, then it would be a big delay for little benefit/use.

Sorry for all of the text, but I wanted to get some good subject matter into the post. Please provide all the feedback you wish.

~Ex

 

LoL,

Exo, I understand your point.

But you talk of the worst launch games in the history of SandBox. Mortal Bug Online and Dark Laggybuggy Fall Online. And UO died with tramel.

So, I invite you to have confidence in the future and not living in a dark past (who started with WoW)

Peace !


For ur information: Mortal Online still up and ll get Steam relase soon

 

Yes Abydos, I do talk about the ones that didn't do so hot, and yeah they had bad launches but most MMOs do. The key is that those were also the full loot pvp games with the most visibility and biggest budgets. I could have mentioned shadowbane or other niche games, but its the same result. I emplore you to find a fairly successful full loot pvp mmo.

And Mortal Online going free to play then getting into steam really means it's not doing so well. Also, I logged into it a month or two ago and couldn't find anyone in three major cities. Not really the cash cow that I'd like to see SotA become.

 

Comparing Darkfall and Mortal Online (i played both successfully) with the best working full loot game ever UO Renaissance isn't doable since there is no working alignment systems. A red character in those games is just another colour, it don't mean anything being a red character in for example DF. Non-consensual PvP as in MO and DF can't be compared with for example UO renaissance consensual PvP.

I can agree with you that non-consensual PvP wont succeed but you are wrong when you claim full loot wont and never have succeeded.

Non-consensual PvP, no working alignment system and full loot is not the same as consensual PvP, a working alignment system and full loot.

UO Renaissance had consensual PvP, full loot and a working alignment system. During that era of UO felucca had loads of PvP players. Less PK:s though since the alignment system called statloss took it's toll.

UO Renaissance full loot was successful.

What destroyed UO felucca (not UO) was Age of Shadows that arrived feb 2003 with it's insurance and item PvP (UO became close to what WoW later became).

The most successful full loot PvP game was destroyed by greedy developers that didn't understand their own PvP playerbase, instead they successfully managed to make just about all the old UO PvP players end their subscriptions. Subscribers also turned downhill dramatically some months after AoS to never recover. Lots of the players that ended their UO subscription was old UO PvP veterans.

UO Renaissance continued on some very big (+50000) and some smaller private freeshards.

 

UO felucca died with Age of Shadows.

 

I like your idea about alignment, but I"ll get to that in a sec. The post didn't compare DF to MO to UO, it was looking at each game independently and how they handled the idea and what the result was.

Back to alignment. That does work if done right, but this is a free to play game, which means I could simply make new characters and mule my gear to them to wipe my alignment. In other games I have RH101@hotmail RH102@hotmail up to 125 to take care of such limitations.

 

I am not talking about pre-trammel PvP and never had. I like consensual PvP since it is more hardcore.

Comparing MO and Darkfall with consensual PvP games as UO Renaissance isn't doable.

And i must say it is surpricing you don't see the difference btw games with consensual (UO) and non-consensual PvP (Mortal Online/Darkfall) games when it comes to loot.

Alignment systems all make a huge difference when it comes to loot. If i loose all my stuff but i can report and place the criminal player that killed me closer to for example statloss (UO Renaissance) and the trouble he will have with that then i can easier accept loosing gear. If their is consequences for criminal then it is easier to accept loosing gear.

Full loot also make PvP more interesting, it is risk vs reward.

I can compromise on this and one i like and i think you should read is this one -

https://shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/ristras-loot-suggestion.12912/

 

I think that Ristra's suggestion is a new and innovative way to approach it.

I don't think alignment matters as it's Free to Play, just make another account and character and mule your loot off to them when you're safe. Even with the loot rules Ristra suggested, the game would still boil down to a pk fest.

I do want it to work, as I do like full loot pvp, but my biggest fear is that this game will die as a result and I personally want it to be alive and well for a very very long time. I am on the side of full loot pvp and I think it MUST be in the game in some fashion, but it seems every game that does it puts a knife through their own heart while trying.

 

This is an excellent well thought out post! Thank you!

 

If you want to have PK:s in SotA (doubt there will be any) you need to have a working alignment system as for example UO Renaissance had.

And again i understand why games like Darkfall and Mortal Online crashed, i experienced both the technical issues, the awful grind and the never ending cheating. These games were like UO before trammel - non-consensual PvP games and can't be compared with SotA or as i mentioned before UO Renaissance. Claiming full loot don't work in non-consensual games is not something we have to discuss cause i totally agree with you that non-consensual PvP don't work. It didn't work with UO, DF or MO.

What you don't mention is that UO Renaissance - a consensual PvP game with full loot and a working alignment system worked very well and was as i see it the best time of UO Felucca. Felucca shards were full of fun PvP during UO Renaissance and that is a good example that full loot can be implemented successfully.

I want risk vs reward and consequences in PvP and loot is a part of that. I also like to see a alignment system that works (without a alignment system there wont be any PK:s and i doubt we will see any PK:s in SotA). PvP will be consensual and you wont become a criminal when attacking flagged players.

But most of all i want a combat system that is not a random card game that force me to watch my hot bar instead of my opponent and watching these random skills the game have chosed for me don't make it any better.

Full access to all my learned skills and no hot bar (skills/spells should be on my keyboard) i need to focus on is for me a minimum of game changes needed for me to play this PvP game.

 

Excuse me... I ask because I'm confused. Is the "it" in the sentence above meant to be Shroud of the Avatar?
If so, that's incorrect. Shroud of the Avatar is "Purchase to Play." You're required to purchase the game but are not charged a monthly fee. Presumably there will be some common free to play elements such as micro-transactions for items and such, but the game is not Free to Play.

Free to Play titles typically monetize less than 1% of their installed userbase. 1 to 2 percent is a high performing title, and anything over 2% is a phenomena.

I might be wrong, but I don't believe Shroud of the Avatar can attract the installed userbase required to support a Free to Play model.

 

My mistake. I didn't read up on the release model of buy then play. Still may make a mule account like diablo 2, but most will not

 

In regards to the OP, Xail, I simply cannot imagine LB allowing a system whereby YOU are flagged for full loot, and *I* am not, and yet I am able to kill and loot you. That would be monstrously unfair. If I'm not flagged, then I cannot enter PvP combat with you, and as I understand the system I won't even be able to SEE you. If I flag, then I am able to attack you, but I am also able to be murdered and looted.

 

Personally, "unfair" is not the word I would have used: More like "ridiculous".

I mean under those conditions, why would anyone bother setting the option at all ? Unless perhaps they were interested in experiencing a "hard-core" mode for combat. "Look at me, I'm super leet! I play with full-loot enabled!"

I believe the "current thinking" is that instances will be mixed, as in PvP and non-PvP enabled players will indeed see each other.