Penalizing PKs / Rewarding Blues Instead of Open PvP Debate

First off,
For those people who are concerned with not being able to farm in a dungeon without fear of being killed by a murderer, hear me out.

Dungeons will be loaded with blues... For a long time after release. No single red is going to go there and reek havoc on the entire dungeon.

One of the great things about having Open World PvP was that it allowed strangers and friends to communicate with eachother to kill the murderer who was running through the dungeon attacking people.

It created a sort of RP that people who didn't even do RP, participated in.

Countless times I remember someone spamming, "Reds in Shame!" Then a group of blues would go in and eradicate the problem.

I don't think the question is should there be Open World PvP? I think that it is a must. For the sake of losing a huge chunk of the UO Fanbase. I think instead there should be severe penalties placed on Murderers.

I'm a hardcore Pker. That's what I did in UO, that's what I'll do here. But I don't think Murderers should be able to go around and kill everything they see moving without some sort of penalty to deter them from doing that. Stat loss early on what a great detering factor. I think it was a little extreme when I had to retrain my skills a lot, but it also had me thinking. "Should I go attempt to kill this small group of players? Or do I not want to risk stat loss again?"

A Penalizing factor should be in place for a murderer who dies. Or even who kills. Whatever the system may be. That's what needs to be done. Even if the players who kill the murderers get rewarded somehow along with penalizing reds.

It's like real life, if you're a murderer, you probably don't want to get caught. If your a citizen and you catch a murderer, you get praised and/or rewarded.

Let's end the constant debate about open world PvP. It can be beneficial to everyone if we set our minds to it and think of different ways we can make this issue benefit both parties. Clearly the ability to kill anyone at any time benefits the Pkers. On the other hand, a penalizing and rewarding system will benefit the anti-pks.

Now lets get back to full loot.

I also think that full loot is a must for this type of game... Why?

Because no games are doing it right now.

People might say well, no games are doing it right now because it doesn't work in modern games and nobody wants to lose their gear...

Well I say to you, we can be the game that it does mesh with.

It would be a HUGE benefit to crafters. They were a very large part of UO, and should definately be a big part in SoTA as well. Now crafters don't need to wait for someone's armor they made them to get worn and get destroyed to purchase a new set. If they get looted, they will need a new set as well.

It gives people incentive to become a merchant. And if your Anti-Full Loot. Chances are you're pro PvE and Crafting. You now have a large surplus of revenue being generated..

The rewarding / penalizing factor will also apply to people who are afraid of getting fully looted.

The blue has just as much incentive to risk equipping a good item as a red person would. Does the red person want to risk losing the items and get penalized?

Does the blue person want to use the best gear he has and risk fighting the red person for the sake of bringing justice into the world?

Don't make SoTA the next modern PvE Endgame / Battleground/Location PvP / No Risk Fighting Game.
Make it different from all the rest of the games out like Ultima Online was.
There was nothing like it and still there is nothing like it.

My thoughts,
Punkte

 

When I read that dungeons as "loaded" with people whatever color, the whole purpose of a dungeon is questioned. For me exploring a dungeon is about being alone or with a few friends in a dangerous, mysterious area. You have to watch your step for everywhere there could be a trap or a monster. Maybe None has been here for a thousand years...
A dungeon "loaded" with people is nothing more than a discotheque...

 

man, this horse has been beat to death, turned to glue, bottled and shipped

There is no open world PVP, PVP is voluntary and there will be quests and such to encourage it.

Full looting does not help crafters it only penalizes the person getting looted and makes smart folks question if it's worth doing PVP.

As to dungeons I'm with Lord Darkmoon.

 

I have yet to come across a single suggestion or system that would even remotely serve as a suitable alternative to full loot pvp. Either the game is going to have full loot pvp or it isn't. If it does than great! If not, than those of us waiting for a true successor to UO will simply move on.

Selective multiplay is an incredibly powerful tool that allows players who are not interested in pvp to actively avoid it whenever they wish. Removing the ability to loot players on top of that would completely neuter the game.

 

I agree with Death-Knell:

'If they get looted, they will need a new set as well.'

So whats the other dude going to do with it? Eat it? No.. he's going to sell it: no HUGE benefit for crafters.

An idea might be to split OPO-mode even: PvP and PvE.

 

To beat the horse some more:

In this game if you don't want PVP you will never see a "red". So this is really a non-issue.

 

@DukeDeathKnell - PvP with full loot, open PvP, non-consensual, PK:s with consequences and risk vs reward is a gamestyle just as PvE, taming, crafting and roleplay is. Especially since many old UO players is here for a UO2 game felucca style. Many of us also like RPG, crafting, taming and other features like housing, but without a PvP endgame with similar features as the felucca ones many of us will just move on.

That's how it is and i cant understand why so many that is interested only in the PvE-game and have very little interest in the PvP system we oldschool UO players prefer tries to influence developers to not develop a game for us? That is something i cant understand and it sure make me upset.

If you dont want to take part in PvP then you will have that choice. Let us that want the harsh PvP version of the game have our game, thats all.

Full loot helped crafters alot when i played UO felucca, a game with full loot. Many items were saved in chests and was taking out of the market. Others were smelted or put in trashcans arround banks. Full loot increase the demands for crafters alot. Some items were not looted but decayed on corpses. If you dont believe me then explain why NPC vendors outside homes needed to be restocked every day with weapons/armor, potions, regs, furnitures, spellbooks, rares and on and on. Being a crafter in full loot games is alot of fun. You feel needed.

 

@Umbrae, exactly. Posts like this demonstrate that many people still don't understand how the game is going to work.

@Ara, I think that there will be plenty of us who will elect to participate in full PvP. Complaining about people who only want PvE is like complaining about people who not only playing on a different server than you, they are playing on a different game entirely.

 

@KernelPanic
If by "Eat it" you mean Salvage it, then yes players will eat equipment. Salvaging will likely be a BIG part of the game. The destruction of property will be good for crafters. If full loot is allowed, the debate should not be whether it's good for crafting. The debate should be: Will Full Loot cause crafters to be too overpowered?

@Owain
It's hard to compare the slider in a persistent world to a different server or a different game when the available housing slots are shared by all players. The economy is also shared by everyone. We may not see each other in the game but we will definitely be effected by each other in ways that separate servers would prevent.

Balance of rewards will be crucial.

 

@Owain - Well might be i misunderstand whats written since english isnt my first language but as i understood it was that some of the PvE players on these forums dont want us the oldschool UO players to have our game even though it wont affect them.

That is far from alright.

I am glad these guys have their PvE game that they look forward too and i expect them to be as cheerful towards my expectations, but i surely dont feel that. I feel more and more a wish to remove my gamestyle from the game. Remove that option alltogether.

 

@Acrylic 300: not the balance of the rewards has to be crucial, but the balance of the difficulty levels between the different game modes (I believe, this can be achieved in Alpha/Beta ;-) )

@Ara: those players are a nearly negligible minority [to be honest, I don't know anyone here on the forums (that was no incentive for namecalling ;-) ); there are people, that don't like PvP, but I know none who wants to prohibit it, when they aren't affected]. Also Richard and Tracy have stated several times otherwise. I hope, they'll do the PvP hangout at some time, so those concerns will be put to rest. And I'll surely do a summary of that hangout, too (if Lori isn't faster ;-) )

For me, PvP isn't very important and it was surely no incentive to pledge for this game. I was never interested a lot in Ulima Online, because it lacked so many things, I loved in Ultima 7 (the great and fun epic storyline, NPCs with schedules, who live their daily live, my companions with the substories, etc. I'll probably play a bit PvP, if it's fun and there is a good motivation for it (I always found evil because of evil strange), but surely not most of the time (I love much more exploration and discovery, going on cooperative quests with my brother and maybe a friendly guild, crafting and housing)

But I'm far away from telling old UO fans, they have to look for another game. I hope, we'll all get happy in the end and I will do my best to promote my suggestion for a game during development, where people have options, so they can play what they want to play and will get rewarded through fun gameplay and not penalized.

Cheers,
Andreas

 

@Ara

Actually it is the other way around. Many PVE players are defensive because old UOers have come in demanding that all PVErs be forced into PVP. This makes them respond defensively especially when a new post like this shows up so often. The FORCING of players into one camp or the other is a small minority of the active community and is, IMO, just an attempt to divide the community in hopes they will be the last standing. Its stupid and we need to move past it.

In this game, you would be reshuffled and resharded every time you enter a scene (or area/instance) based on several variables one being PVP. There will be very few areas that will be PVP or non-PVP only, and most will have PVP-enable status determined on the fly based on this information. So you could have a scene that contains both a PVP and non-PVP instance and you will go where you prefer.

This makes the Open World PVP, Full Loot, PK all the time arguments useless because you will see the world you want too. Full loot is still the most up in the air because of how items work in SOTA. The Devs are interested in allowing it, but we will have to wait and see.

In the end, I am just tired of people asking for UO. I want SOTA and what the devs having been detailing for us. I don't want a re-hashed version of an old game: whether that is U7 or UO. Honestly, I am a big PVPer, but I like RP in PVP which does not include FPS competitive mechanics like red vs blue or kill on sight.

 

@Umbrae - "In the end, I am just tired of people asking for UO. I want SOTA and what the devs having been detailing for us. I don?t want a re-hashed version of an old game: whether that is U7 or UO."

+1 many times over

 

@Umbrae

I know you are tired of hearing UO this and UO that. UO is so famous that it shows up in almost all game forums of all types. Ive even seen it show up on the WoW forums several times.

Most other games have taken a small part of UO and used it. It stands to reason that people would ask for a large part of UO to be used in this game.

 

To Umbrae's eloquent reply I'd like to add - claims that "Old School" UO players were PvPers, that Trammel ruined UO, that UO players want a UO2 like the original UO; these claims are at best misguided, at worst intentionally misleading. I, my guild, my friends were players of the original UO. We did not actively PvP and we played enjoyably on Trammel for years. We were many. PVP was often a nuisance.

Despite claims to the contrary, PvPers were only a subset of the people playing UO. Please reconsider such lofty and inaccurate statements of UO being at root a PVP game.

 

@Acrylic

I understand that, but when UO is mentioned here it usually stated like a flog to force this game to be a clone, and only a clone in the openness of PVP. UO had some great concepts and is worthy of being mentioned in the scope of gaming and MMOs. I have seen it all over, but it usage here seems to be special. Some of that I understand, but UO seemed to be used mainly a threat or a demand on how SOTA's development needs to follow as far as PVP goes: usually followed by its model should be force on all users "for their own good".

It is that mentality that I get tired off; especially since the PVPer/Non-PVPer mechanic of SOTA has been stated that people that don't want PVP will not have too. Obviously I am not the only one with fatigue on this; probably just as many people are tired of me mentioned I am tired of this argument.

 

I don't even know why I bother. This debate was settled nearly 15 years ago. Even if PKers faced perma death and blues suffered nothing on PvP death, you still wouldn't have any blues left. No one wants to play the sheep.

I wouldn't want either side to your PvP match. Because there's no strategy, no point to it. Ganking people questing can be fun when you're 16. It just isn't when you become the person who has limited time to play. You still love PvP, but you want to accomplish something. Which is why modern games have objectives, control points, castles, etc. to siege. The PvP aggressors are no longer the anti-social crowd. There the one who get the stronger guild together and move the direction of the map.

 

+1 PrimeRib

 

@Umbrae "Actually it is the other way around. Many PVE players are defensive because old UOers have come in demanding that all PVErs be forced into PVP."

I guarantee you the people that have donated the most to the kickstarter fund and backing of the game, were old UOers that want a similar game.

@PrimeRib
PvP Objectives and matches destroy the PvP aspect of the game.

You're hitting the same routine over and over. Queue up, or walk to the pvp area, control the points, win.

It's great to have a faction control point or whatever that gives bonus' to all players when they are capped compeltely, but "battlegrounds" are not the way to go and neither is zone pvp.

You want PvP that could be anywhere and at anytime. You want to be able to raid a dungeon or a guilds land.

The fact of the matter is, if I go into a PvP point, I know there's a chance ill get into a fight with another player, you know its coming. One thing I loved about UO was actually being attacked by someone and running away and getting away while my blood was pumping.

Everyone who complains about the PvP aspect of the game has been poisoned by modern MMORPGS. It's not fun to sit there in set locations and do the same thing over and over again. The fact that UO battles took place anywhere and at any time were great.

Without a system like UO, your going to lose a great deal of people. And most of them are the ones that backed SoTA and are the mature older people that played UO from its birth. Everyone else is too used to the stupid simple systems that WoW brought people... We don't want another modern MMO like WoW. So don't ruin the game for the people that want a new fun game like UO.

And why would the debate of open world be over?
There's still alot that could change at any time.

 

I guarantee you the people that have donated the most to the kickstarter fund and backing of the game, were old UOers that want a similar game.

Really? I'm not sure about that. I donated a lot...not one of the higher ones, but enough to be a lot and I am a fan of the older Ultima's. I think it is a stretch to say all the high level backers want UO2. IF they did, it seems like they wasted their money becuase RG has come out and said this is not going to be UO2. He flat out said that in a few interviews, and he wasn't refering to the name of the game, but the overall spirit.

I think the way they have described it is fine as an opt in PVP game with areas that just by participating I'm opting in. You make people sheep to pleasure a few and you will have a game that well hemorage players. This total arguement is the same one that has been going on from the start.