Consensual pvp???? Stay a While and Listen Why this is no fun.....

And what would be the lure to get players to check "I want people to be able to take all of my stuff when I die"?

 

Again, you miss the point. You suppose that someone that has their PvP flag set will never see an Avatar that is not opted in to PvP. This, unless you have information I haven't seen to the contrary, is not a position supported by any documentation I've seen published to date.
If you do have more recent information, please share it with me as I would very much like to see it.

 

I believe they want story elements to draw people into PvP. I know they do not want segregation.

 

Right, but what would entice someone to go into the "lose all your stuff" zone?

And a follow-up question would be, what would entice someone to bring all their stuff into the "lose all your stuff" zone?

I can't think of anything that would reasonably compel someone to do that unless "all your stuff" is worthless, and then you have to ask the question "why would we bother playing a game where all your stuff is worthless and it doesn't matter if you lose it?" Then we'd all go play Planetside because that game is free and already made.

 

There are many players for whom no lure is necessary. Those who want the additional challenge will accept the additional challenge. If that isn't for you, should the option become available, don't select the option.

It is part of our purpose here to provide feedback to the devs. It sometimes becomes cumbersome to continually include disclaimers. I am not alone in this. I am suggesting that this would be a good way to handle things, given what we know of the current design. I think it would be odd indeed if they didn't choose this existing mechanism.

 

I'm sure that "all your stuff" means "all the stuff you happen to have on you", don't you think?

 

A better question is what "all of their stuff" do you want and why? Are those wants being met with some other method already (or is in the plans)

Strategic removal from the field
Profit
Punishment
What else?

 

First, we all is not accurate.

Second, I agree darkfall was a great concept and terrible execution/management.

Third, come visit us in Malice... the player owned town. Don't change the whole game when there is no need to. There will be lots of pvp right there. During R9 we'll have a "Malice" player in game and if they don't remove the /zone feature you can zone to him and kill anything that moves!

Additionally, if you want player moderated PvP join us in Vengeance. We are a guild big on pvp and we have two player owned towns just for pvp... the whole game doesn't need to be changed... just come where you fit and stay awhile

 

Granted. However posting a statement as fact when it is not, especially in a thread begun by a person that is not familiar with what has gone on for these last 14(?) months is misleading.

I think it would be a disservice to the game to so segregate the population and greatly reduce the chance of the PvP Community ever adding to their numbers. Especially when someone new opts to complete the Blessing of the Oracle quest, have all the people that were in the hex disappear while a whole new collection of people camping the Oracle appears, kills them, loots them dry, dismembers their body, collecting parts for trophys and stew pots, and dances on the remains of the corpse while chanting "Pwnd, N00B!"

 

LOL now THAT is UO2 lol I had to edit to fix your chat macro

 

You can't turn back the clock.....unless you're timelord.

 

And yet we keep being told how PVP should be given extra resources etc to make it worthwhile....seems like incentive is required for even basic pvp.

True that there will be those that do it for fun, but it seems that it isn't the majority.

 

For the innumerate among us, if SotA has 100,000 players (a low estimate in my opinion) segregation will be a good thing, otherwise we will be sitting in each others laps.

In the recent R8 PvP test, I never saw more than about 15 to 20 people in the Island Open PvP hex at any one time, yet for those of us fighting it out, it seemed quite busy. I think the game will be able to cater to a great many player options.

Personally I don't subscribe to the theory that you need to bribe people to get them to participate in PvP, but I am not all players. As the alpha/beta tests continue, we shall see how participation works out. There may be no need to bribe people after all.

 

The Majority ! Let me laugh a bit plz !


Hahahahahahaha !


/Done

 

Honestly, I agree with the OP. Foot loot PvP can be very fun for 12 year olds. Because it's very easy for them to sit around all day and camp people. They don't have the same kinds of attachment to things in the game. And generally, they are very good at being bullies who don't really understand social boundaries. You'd call an older person who acted this way a "sociopath", but it's pretty normal for someone in junior high school. Bring on Lord of the Flies.

That said, this really isn't necessary to make a competitive game. You can do perfectly well making the fight about something like a castle or mine, or even something specific being carried like a trade bundle in Archage or simply "the flag" in WoW battlegrounds.

 

Well, two posts by you now with absolutely nothing added.

Was kind of hoping that would spark a conversation not a response like this. Unfortunately, it seems this is the best you can expect.

 

A more realistic algorithm without full loot would be:

see an enemy;
while (1) {
Kill him;
wait (5 minutes); //or whatever the res time is
see the same enemy;
}

 

I have the feeling that... this is not a totally new thead.

 

I'm not sure what you're talking about.

PVP is a core element of this game. It needs the same support that all the other core elements of the game need.

Release 1 through 7 were devoid of PVP and supported other elements of the game. You're not really complaining about the attention PVP is getting, are you?

 

Ho Ho Ho !

The wheel turns.

Full loot for the win.