Pointless PVP before & after official release

Correct. It was a learning experience for many of us who pledged during kickstarter because of the name Lord British expecting something as fun as UO and the early ultimas only to find out "this is not the game we were looking for". NO more kickstarters for me.

 

I think its jumping the gun a bit to predict that all of the new people that join between now and after release will all be friends, but it isnt "everyone is friends" thats preventing PKing at the moment for most people.

PKing WAS going on when more people were flagged, but currently the combat system is non-diverse for PvP. I>E. Everyone who PvP's is a mage with similar builds. The incentives to PK (the TEMPTATION to) is not in game yet. Looting, territory control, Town vs Town, and whatever other incentives, if any, they have planned. Right now, the only reason to PvP is to kill a guy, theres no real penalty for dying in PvP, and nothing tangible to gain from it.

I dont think it has too much to do with everyone being friends.

 

I agree with Empstrike. Although not a rabid PvPer, there are no real incentives like there were in UO, IMHO.

 

Im with you my Lord !!!

 

One of the things that I loved about UO back in the day was the total and complete realism of the PvP system. Soon as you left town you were free game! Which meant you had to play smart and really adapt to your environment in order to survive. Sure, I might have gotten frustrated when as i'm just about to make it back to the safety of Britain, *poof*, some assassin emerges from hiding and one-shots me. You get over it (only after multiple expletives and signing a blood pact of revenge with the devil) and hopefully learn to increase your spot skill lol.

Point is, full and open PvP makes the game more real and again i'm not an avid PvP but the dynamic makes the game so much better. Unfortunately, in order to capture a broader audience within this "market" i'm not sure full and open PvP would appeal to everyone. Most of us are here because of our ultimate love of all things Ultima (see what I did there? ) and I would hate for someone who loves the Ultima games as much as we all do, to not try SoTA because it is full PvP.

It's definitely a tricky discussion and one worth having, for sure, but I can say this...as someone who is predominantly PvE I am fully supportive of total PvP world!

 

Actually since there is no player looting right now the PK's don't really care to PK. . .when player looting is enabled the PK's will most definitely start PKing I'm sure of it.
Also there is already lots of PVP happening just for competition sake. .have you checked the Community Calanders? There are lots of player run events already, such as this one. .

 

Cordelayne, I'm not sold on the idea that the market doesn't like full and open pvp (I think anti-pvp is just very vocal). The example that comes to mind is WOW vs DOTA, millions more play DOTA that have ever played WOW and that is, albeit a different type of game, purely PVP. A major company in the mmo word went... OMG how did we miss that and boom HOTS. If you build it, they will come. But there are different ways to make a paycheck.

MMORPG GV 8.22 UO 7.84 SotA 7.82

 

All we have to do is look at Ultima Online . .here is a passage from Wikipedia about issues faced with the game in it's early years specifically mentioning the effects of the Renaissance expansion (the one that introduced Trammel.)

Issues faced[edit]
Since the designers wanted to provide a great deal of freedom and sense of agency, it was important to allow players to act in a villainous role. The consequences of in-game criminality were adjusted over time, but maintaining the general commitment to player freedom. As explained by designer Raph Koster, "Being safe from evil is, in my mind, an uneven tradeoff for the fact that you don't get to be heroes anymore, in that you can just opt out of fighting evil. It may be nobody wants to be heroes except when it doesn't count, when it isn't challenging, that people would rather fight 'pretend evil' than the real thing, but I don't personally believe that. I still think people are better than that." [27] Eventually, the Renaissance expansion created large areas of the game in which it was not possible to harm other players. A significant spike in account reactivation was attributed to this aspect of Renaissance.[citation needed]

Ultima Online was sued by former player volunteers ("Counselors") and settled in 2004 without admitting wrongdoing.[28] AOL had their volunteers train customer service personnel it hired, then shut down the volunteer program. Concern over future lawsuits led Microsoft to shut down their volunteer program for Asheron's Call.[29] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_Online#Issues_faced

 

Agreed, that's why one of the reasons my POT, Rats Nest, is so close to a Shadfall and other pvp towns. You can get easy access to the best loot and anyone that tries to stop you has to accept pvp.

It's a microcosm where there's really no easy way to avoid pvp.

 

Yes, Anti -PvP are few but very vocal.

Players love Sandbox PvP game for sure. Good exemple is Albion Online. I was in the Alpha last week and it was fantastic.

A Bit of stats:

 

You could very well be right! I find fully PvP MMOs to be more enjoyable myself even as a PvE player, mostly because it just makes the game more real!

I've never played DOTA, but there are a couple of factors to assess here. One, it's free WoW is not. Two, DOTA and MMO's like this, WoW and others are different games. If memory serves isn't DOTA more of a Starcraft or Warcraft type game? That's more of strategy game than a traditional RPG like this. Again, never played it so I could be wrong here. Regardless, I do agree that there is a market for full PvP players, but I would hate for that to exclude any Ultima geeks like me!

 

DOTA is a MOBA i think it was called, 5vs5 on a small map not really comparable to an MMO but there is EVE, Darkfall and many others.

 

We can have a good idea on twich. A lot of PvP games (mmo, moba, survavor etc.) are very popular. In 2015, killing A.I. in safe mode is really boring.

 

Jordizzle, I like Koster quote (thank you for that). As far as the Sub boost there are a lot of factors. To blame UO sub decrease on the PVP aspect is deceptive. Computers became more powerful, internet became faster, way more comp and UO was still graphically out dated and not taking advantage of the tech boom (3D attempt was laughable). So the deceptive way they increased subs was HOUSING. I had 4 or 5 accounts at one time, you could run around for hours and not find anyone, but usually a TON of empty houses. Online players were just AFK characters in houses and banks, few were actual playing. So do you measure success by the Subs or the Players Enjoying it? They didn't bring more players they just squeezed more out of the ones they had. I argue if they threw money at a true revamp ES type quality with original UO ruleset it would rock the industry and easily blow past that kiddy looking WOW. Of course people don't spin it that way in the board room.

Yes, DOTA is a MOBA and is free to play... and it GENERATES like 80 million in micro transactions yearly off a free game!!! They created a pure pvp genre off a MOD to someone else's game.... and created $100s million in revenue... PVP pays cause AI is boring and predictable. If E was greater than P than PVE wouldn't care about PVP. Bring that back to MMORPG and you will dominate the industry, we can't convince the money behind the industry that though. It's proof that PVP doesn't destroy games, the biggest most successful games in the world are PVP. They are Story building not world building.

 

I am enjoying reading about the PvP/PKer's take on UO and the many reasons why it did not take succeed, why it did take off with only its existing player base, why PvP is the only good option, why the numbers when Trammel was released went up, and how you think EA wrecked it. Very interesting.

My memories are completely different than yours of the last 17+ years of UO. Thank you for sharing from the other side of the fence.

 

More PvP there will be, the game will be more interesting.

 

There's a massive difference in PvP and PvP though. In a MOBA you know that your opponent hasn't macro/bot-AFK gained skills/level/gear. It is only player 'skill' (and team choice) to determine success or failure, so it's 'fair ground' on every new round. In a MOBA there is no full loot. While you are going to be slightly handicapped and your team is going to suffer from you biting the dust, the consequences are short term.
These two points make for a far higher range of acceptance.

 

This argument is flawed. Because we are talking about a game that is not to the likeing of PvPers due to different reasons as you assume.

 

Mind to enlighten me?

Edit:
P.S.: I hear we want full loot. I hear we want open world PvP and skill based combat with progression from actions. All of these are offered in that game. So, if that's not enough, people should rephrase their arguments.

 

Duke, can I ask you if you had multiple UO subscriptions and if so why? Can I ask if you noticed a higher % of the population of your server afk post tram? I can agree that it doesn't matter if they were active or how they got subs up. I would also argue that it could have been done without trammel. If they had created the micro transaction fees for rare hues or $$ for castles or custom housing, they could have generated more revenue. I know there is no way to prove that, but I would think the industry is proving that for me.