Open PvP with full loot everywhere in online mode?

You guys realize there will never be another UO right? Gamers back then were a completely different breed. The gamers of today tend to gather in numbers where they know they can't possibly lose before engaging even in games with absolutely no death penalty.

 

@Tapion

Games like Dark Souls still give me hope that current generation of gamers can rise to the occasion.

 

@ND3G:

You mean a game where there are multiple mechanisms for never having to engage in PvP, ever, without losing any of the content or the challenge apart from a couple achievements (just don't turn human, or else play offline)?

And where there is a foolproof way to escape PvP even if you disregard the above advice (just turn off your internet connection, which is why I play Dark Souls with a switch to turn off my internet connection within easy reach)?

And where, even if you are actually willing to engage in PvP, there are built in mechanisms to prevent any single player from being specifically targeted, a matchmaking system that absolutely prevents players from ganking "lowbies", timers to prevent anyone from being attacked too constantly, no player looting, and the death penalty can be effectively reversed with a bit of PvE gameplay, or nullified from the start if the player manages to get close to a bonfire before engaging?

I love Dark Souls; I actually love challenging PvE games (though Dark Souls is a bit too easy once you get to learn the enemies' patterns). I just can't stand it's non-consensual PvP, even though it's WAY watered down compared with UO, Darkfall, Mortal Online, etc, given the lowbie protection, reduced penalties for death, limits on how often a player can be attacked, etc.

BTW: I've seen an interview where the creator of Dark Souls was musing about adding an "easy mode", since the reach of his game was fairly small. I just hope it's added as an optional easier difficulty level, not a nerf of the current (or next) game.

 

@Silent Strider

If the makers of Dark Souls come out with an easy mode, I will never buy another game from them.

 

It's not even that hard. You just can't mindlessly hit the attack button. I am almost certain many reviewers must run into the cemetery the first time they reach the Firelink Shrine, get slaughtered half a dozen times, and then go write their review from there. And then focus on how super-difficult it is.

 

Yep, it takes button mashers straight to hell.

 

Wow, you guys are reading a lot into my Dark Souls comment. I was only referring to the fact that a lot of gamers seem to be both able and willing to take on a bit more challenge than they are probably used too. I don't think Dark Souls is too overly difficult but it is certainly a step in the right direct.

@Silent Strider

Most of us here are well aware of the fact that you will not tolerate non-consensual PvP of any shape or form. While a lot of players may lean in your direction I think you represent the extreme example. I think you will have a pretty safe experience but you may want to keep your internet switch handy just in case you don't get every last thing on your wish list of protective features.

 

@Tapion, "You guys realize there will never be another UO right?"

Do you realize there will never be an Ultima 4-9 again?

Makes just as much sense.

 

<blockquote>Do you realize there will never be an Ultima 4-9 again?</blockquote>

In a lot of ways, there probably won't be. <em>Divinity: Original Sin</em> may come close to the <em>Ultima 7</em> ideal, but even then I doubt it will truly hit the mark. Origin made very unique games, which many have taken inspiration from but which few have tried to emulate (let alone exceed).

 

@Acrylic 300:

An easy mode actually makes commercial sense for Dark Souls. I would not touch the easy mode, but most people I know wouldn't even think of purchasing a game as hard as Dark Souls.

BTW, there are already official statements that Dark Souls 2 "will be more straightforward and more understandable", that it will be a less ambiguous experience, something that will be friendlier to new players. If this "friendlier" experience involves reducing the difficulty, I would rather have it made into an optional easier difficulty than having the easier difficulty be the only option available.

Dark Souls is one of the few actually challenging games I've played in the last few years that don't achieve challenge by merely making the content grindy or random. I would hate to lose that due to the game as a whole being made "friendlier", without any kind of option. But at the same time I see no problem in providing players that prefer an easier game with such an option, so I'm perfectly OK with an optional easy mode.

@ND3G:

No need for an internet switch for SotA. We are less than $50K away from modding tools for the offline game; if the modding tools are any good I will likely be able to re-enable for offline play anything that is set as an online-only lure to PvP, and make possible - through enabling more hirelings or outright rebalancing the content - any group content that is intentionally tuned to not be doable offline.

Depending on demand I might even make those mods available to others (though I usually don't publish my mods, since they are typically unpolished, meant for only my personal use, and I don't enjoy having to provide support for them).

In short, what I ask for is not meant to make my life easier online, but to actually convince me to play online at all. And I don't think I'm alone in this.

(Heck, I don't even want an easy online game; I want PvE, and particularly solo PvE, to be brutal, Dark Souls difficulty or higher, just without non-consensual PvP. I'm aware that making the whole game like that would drive away too many players, though - likely even PvP players.)

 

I see it as cheating. The reward for getting better is being able to see around the next bend. If everyone has the ability to easily see around the next bend then the game is junk.

 

@Acrylic 300:

If allowing other players to "cheat" allows me to keep my hard mode PvE gameplay, I'm all for allowing others to "cheat"

Specially because forcing everyone into the same experience seems to include making the game easier for me, something I'm not interested in.

I always see options as a good thing. After all, I mod and cheat in solo games all the time (though often to make the game more challenging, most games nowadays are so easy mode...)

 

about Dark Souls: don't think, an easy mode for Dark Souls would be a good idea, because that game has a particular reputation, that they don't want to destroy.

I was a bit afraid, after I heard the first news about Dark Souls2 (more straightforward, etc.). But the first videos appeased me: It looks more Dark Souls 1.5 than 2 (and that's not necessarily bad)

about modding utilities: I still think, a LAN mode would be a nice addition with modding utilities; the modding crowd is pretty strong for many games (Mount &amp; Blade as an example for a dual scale map game) and a multiplayer mode for the modders would be quite fun

 

I know we are getting a little off topic but I'd also rather they didn't make Dark Souls 2 easier. The first game was... challenging, but it was FAIR. If you died, you never felt shortchanged about it. You had to be observant and pay attention to enemies. Caution also paid off - as did exploring. Even the atmosphere and the world lore (as difficult as it could be to dredge up) was good.

If SotA PvE was like Dark Souls, it'd be wonderful. But I'm not sure how the combat system would translate to large scale multiplayer. Even the PvP is fun - though you don't really lose anything and I'm not sure how that would translate to large scale multiplayer either.

But Dark Souls was never Open PvP - the player was always in control of how and when they engaged in it. I like playing in the arena in Oolacile and fighting via my Darkmoon Covenant ring. I wouldn't enjoy it if I had no choice over when and where I participate in that.

 

Open pvp and full loot is the only way to come in my opinion. Nothing beats it. A game with no loss ever is a boring one.

 

My uncle and I played Command &amp; Conquer: Tiberium Dawn (the very first one) every chance we could get. The day C&amp;C: Red Alert came out I went over for a visit. We installed the game on all the computers and fired them up.

I got a game going and told my uncle to hop into the chair so he could take his beating. He refused. He had no interest in head to head battle.

Of course I was confused. We had played C&amp;C for a long time. But simply put his way of playing is start with the single player/multiplayer co-op. Know the character, know the story, then enter PvP.

There is no changing his mind. PvP comes on his terms.

Every piece of logic you can use on him will fail. PvP is the best way to learn... PvE is like hitting a practice dummy to train for real combat... Only small pink bears with a heart on their chest PvE...

If the game only has PvP and no story then he just doesn't buy the game.

None of this goes against his skill as a PvPer. He can handle his own. Slapping PvP on everything only looses him as a player. He will move into PvP when he is ready and no sooner.

That being said, PvP that is kills with no loot is rather bizarre when you transition from PvE to PvP.

I don't know if 100% loot is best either. Maybe something along the lines of Asheron's Call. You drop gold and a number of items (# increases with level). Asheron's Call used a priority of highest value has the greatest chance of dropping. A more unpredictable priority list might be in order. Highest value isn't much different than an insurance system. Keep a pack full of high value items, greater than your equipped gear, to prevent the loss it that gear.

 

People keep talking about having risk with "True RP Environment" and "Real/Realistic RP" and "Realistic" game play (with or w/o RP). Here is my issue...

In the real world I am not mugged once a month or even once a year. People don't wait to steal my crafts on even a semi-annual basis let alone monthly or weekly. I have never been jumped when gardening. In a multiplayer online game such as this the number of 'crimes' committed will be disproportionatly larger than anything close to realistic numbers. Why? Because there are no strict or stringent consequences like the real world. This is NOT realistic RP!

I AM ALL FOR REALISTIC RP! I play on a shard that has Perma Death, where if my character is attacked they will be dead. Period. I think this is realistic. I am excited for the RP. I accept these risks. However, note there are risks for the person attacking me as well. Real risks. If they go on a murderer spree other characters will notice and there will be a man hunt. Guards will search for them (NPC and PC). The murderer either have to go into complete hiding and stop the murder spree, or they will be caught, killed, die and be gone. It won't just be dealing with the temporarily "inconvenience" of lowered stats, Rez wait time, gear replacement. This BALANCES the whole PvP with realistic RP aspect.

Many "anti-pvp" rp players aren't really anti-PvP, many who haven't done it before would be willing to try IF it was balanced. However, because of how PvP and the death/consequence system is currently understood here in SoTa, these people are anti-pvp in SoTA BECAUSE of the imbalance.

I am 99.9% sure that, due to this being a game where story content is important (I mean, it's Tracy Hickmen folks. ) the kind of balance needed will not be in place. (Restarting the story content every time you die would kill the game and drive everyone away). Hence, there is currently no good way to prevent a huge influx of UNREALISTIC violence that will likely ruin the actual emmersion RP experience for many so called or actual "anti-pvp" players.

You guys want to have OPO be open PvP all over... stop arguing and solve that problem!

(Also, sorry for all the edits. It's was a 15 hr work day and my fingers are plagued by typo-demons.)

 

Your exactly right, but it is of no use. The anti-PvP'ers don’t even want a mode for RP-PvP'ers.

They need to remember, the Dev team made it clear... this game is the spiritual successor to UO. A huge component to UO was player driven story lines... and that included thief’s and murderers. With Tracy this game will have a good story, but there is a huge part of the game that will still be play driven experiences. experiences that are the good with the bad.

The anti-PvP'ers need to either A) stop crying "if there is any open PvP mode Im not playing" or B) start figuring out what safe guards they want in place for the open PvP mode if they want to participate in that content.

In for players in situation A)Their opinions will not be listened to, cause well, whats the point of implementing feedback from players that arent playing your game... in situation B) they can actually be open minded and think about how they can play with this world and give feedback for that. As of right now, any of their responses to my suggestions have been "if its like that, Im not playing". It just like... "Fine, then this post wasnt made for you."

But your are right... a world that "RPs Back" to thiefs and murderers is a world where open PvP works. I cant see Perma death working, but I get your point. They can initiate simple and strict measures to make sure the people playing those roles are actually RPing... griefers are going to get frustrated and leave, OR they will need to re-roll at which point they no longer have their skill strength to grief others.

 

Man, I love how much griefers-in-PvPers-clothes hang their hats on that quote. 'SPIRTUAL SUCCESSOR!!!! He *wants* us to kill you all!!!!'

As for your first point, please quote a SINGLE post from a PvE person asking for PvPers to not be able to PvP. What you want is something, anything! that allows you to PvP with someone who does not want to. Period.

 

You know how this works Phredicon: diehards for their causes always invent mythical enemies. Because they can't justify their extreme opinions, they have to create a justification. So many examples from history spring to mind its not worth noting here!