Why Open PvP with full Loot worked in UO.

Yeah, supposedly the way that the mini-sharding will work is that you'll only ever see people on the same wavelength. People who have set themselves to full PvP everywhere by whatever method will only see other players who have done the same, and people who opt for no PvP will only see other people who chose the same. Of course, the actual implementation details are still sketchy, but that seems to be the goal.

 

I see. Takes some realism out of the game, but it gives me the adventure and risk that I want...

 

These threads always amaze me, and then ultimately they alienate me.
As a player I:

1) Want open PVP​

2) Want full Loot​

3) Don't object to being the sheep/prey​

4) Don't mind losing some time, items, effort​

5) Consent to immediate non-consent.​

I think on paper, they "work".
In practice, what I don't want is to have these things all up in my face all the time. It seriously makes the world, and the societies therein, stop making sense to me.
And if I have already conceded that the world is not making sense, I might as well choose the option with less annoyance.

I personally think that in addition to the current proposals for addressing "everyone's" preferences, they should seriously look at an update to the dated fame/karma/noto systems.
I also think they should consider setting a target for good vs evil distribution, and I think it should be lower than UO was. And I think they should build mechanics to help compensate for times when players force this to be "off balance".

 

That is our understanding too. There should be open PvP, but it will only be by consent, but the server should only allow you to see those who have also consented to open PvP. You won't see those who have not consented to open PvP, so there will be no non-consentual fighting, but everyone you do see will be subject to attack outside of safe areas like towns.

 

Not to speak for the SotA team, but if I were a developer, I'd be scared of PvP. Especially what was promised in the 2m stretch goal. It multiplies the vectors for people exploiting / trying to gain some advantage, it makes balance much more important and difficult, it raises all new kinds of issues with stability / lag.

Allowing players to attack other players isn't hard. Dealing with it is. UO players saw the evolution of this over many years with layers of changes that upset various groups. As the title of this thread, PvP "worked" in UO. But it worked for some and not others, over years of very different rule sets.

I know what I'd like to see. But tbh, I'm OK with them releasing episode 1 first and then adding the PvP part. People will be very unforgiving if they get things wrong.

 

Since PvP in SotA is only by mutual consent, I don't see how it can present a problem. If it becomes a problem, players will not participate in PvP until the problems are addressed and corrected.

So, why should the developers be afraid of PvP?

 

Maybe there are problems seen with PvP, presented by people that can foresee.

 

If people have identified problems, then let them present them.

"I don't like PvP" isn't a design flaw.

 

I fully agree with you Owain. Although, it's best not to design flaws into the mixture. How exactly does one, blend PvP into an RPG.

I would like to see the Role player killer myself, contained within a Notoriety system I have referred to in this thread, but the problem there is you can run low on the Role player hero. A Black hat & White hat imbalance.

 

In a game based on Virtues, it would seem a natural to fit PvP into that particular RPG.

If SotA offers no kidding open PvP in the style of UO, I fully expect the KGB to easily field 100 anti PKs, if not more. I also expect some of our members to come out of retirement for the opportunity. Our problem might be insufficient targets.

http://oracle.the-kgb.com

 

Boldly spoken.

 

If you follow the KGB link, from our history, we have boldly played.

 

Aye! Owain. I have reviewed this game in the past. Looks fun & maybe the origin of the "Can we Jump" question that was posted on this forum.

That being said, it's just a matter of how many Gold Talents you wish to wager.

 

another good reason it worked:

No uber lewt.
There were no unique or ultra rare and powerful items in the game. There were 5 levels of +'s on both armor and weapons and no one really used any of them in PvP. All you stood to lose was some crafted armor, a weapon, some bandages and like 30-50 of each reg. Not a big deal. In fact, very few people used metal armor in PvP at all, I'll go so far as to so almost no one did (and leather was very cheap to replace). Those who lost more were morons for the most part. PvPers knew to pack light cause you could die in an instant. If you were running around the forest alone with thousands of gold worth of gear and loot, you deserved to get killed and robbed for it.


You are right there wasnt much crowd control because even in PvE you didnt fight a bunch of monsters at once. There was the one stun spell and that was it (which people who PvP'd prepared for by having some 'trapped' pouches - they exploded dealing no damage but unstunning you).

And yeah, most newbs had only 50% less HP than their attackers. If you were on a mount you could easily escape. If not, well, you learned a lesson and were more careful next time. Critical thinking, my dear Watson.

 

Good points. Open PVP was just reality and people planned for it. When people complain about PVP when all you lose is the time it takes you to res and pick up a new suit of armor and weapon/reagents, they just sound whiney.

 

I remember there being a lot of PK's, but in a game where you can possibly only create one character being a PK severely limits you as I am sure you will not be able to partake in housing within city or town walls. Along with ruining your reputation. Don't get me wrong i'm sure people will PK, hell i'll probably PK and i'll definitively get PK'd but I think people are overstating how much of it will actually occur

 

I would love to see "Dread Lord" (or similar titles) and "Bounty's" again =)

 

OMG Crowd Control in PvP. I'm in favor of having NO hard stuns, sleeps, or lockdowns. Slow me, yes, interrupt me, yes, but if you have the ability to make me stop moving at all for 5 seconds, realistically it's over. I don't even need a group, I just run up, do a stun, and while you are staring in paralyzed helplessness, I slit your jugular and back away. In game terms, being chain stunlocked was SO frustrating, especially since, almost by definition, if three people are fighting you by constantly impairing your ability to act as they wear you down, then without those stuns you would be wiping your arse with those jokers. People who are actually strong enough to beat you don't need two and a half minutes of free hits to do it.


Please please please, Devs and Mr. Garriott, never put in a power that lets players "turn off" another player while they are taking damage.

 

Totally agree.

I would add, if there is any PvP it should be able to be toggled on or off. This way if the PvP elements aren't balanced, people can opt out for the time being.

Maybe even give people who have it toggled on a 5 or 10% drop rate increase to bring onboard the percentage of people out there who are willing to take the risk for a little extra gain. Otherwise, there really isn't any point to risking your time and effort aside from the thrill of PvP, which only attracts a smaller group of people.

I think you have:
1. people who love pvp all the time and are hardcore PKs
2. people who love to be anti-PKs and occasionally slay others
3. people who don't mind some pvp but, don't want it all of the time
4. people who don't want pvp at all

 

@krellian, you are aware that PvP in SotA is by consent only, right? There is no PvP unless you want to PvP. That being the case, why should the dev team be scared off by PvP?