A simple solution to the Open World Full Loot PvP conundrum. In 2 sentences.

Owain, don't just read the quotes that I threw out. The entire point was for you to listen to his views on the subject, not just read the couple 1 liners that I quoted. Otherwise theres no point in further discussion if you are unwilling to review evidence that suggests something besides what you believe.


Also, still, dictionary? Doesn't fit even if I hypothetically misquoted or quoted out of context, which is clear I didn't do if you take 15 mins to listen to the portion of video I quoted from. You can see basically the same exact thing being said in the lengthy quote that was provided by Ultima Codex as well.

Did you forget that we were talking about whether or not PvP "incentives" were in the game or not, and that you were under the impression that they were not? Also, didn't we argue that exact same thing in another thread? Nice of you to come out and admit that I was right afterall.

 

Is this the video you are talking about?


If so, Richard Garriott isn't in this video. You have Markee Dragon (AKA Marcus Eikenberry) , some guy from Battle Vortex, and Frank, giving their opinions on PvP. Cool. Everyone has opinions.

If this is not the video you are talking about, post a link.

This is the correct video, right?

 

Nope the first one is not the video, its not #11 it is the pilot. The second video you linked tho is infact the one I was talking about.

 

OK, I listened to the video, hence my suggestion that you invest in a good dictionary, because everything Garriot was talking about referred to consentual PvP.

Yes, you can make your living by killing people, but that does not imply the killing was of a person who did not consent to Open PvP. Garriott goes on at length about how he has to provide incentives for even the local tavern keeper to get out there and put themselves in harms way. Provide incentives for what? Incentives to take part in consentual PvP.

I don't think this video is saying what you think it's saying.

 

It is a pseudo form of non-consentual PvP where they set up the circumstances that draw non-PvPers in, that he describes after saying specifically that he is not a fan of completely consentual PvP. Just because a person is going into danger to capitalize on PvP incentives, does not infact mean that they want to run into any PvP at all. They could simply want the reward. Getting into the "scenario" of being vulnerable is consentual, as in it just won't throw you into it, but past that and within the confines of that specific scenario there can be any number of non-consentual PvP encounters.


Which was and is my entire arguement, that they will have incentives to "lure" or encourage people into PvP danger, people who otherwise may have had no desire or reason to do so. Something that you argued was not only not true, but you have also said elsewhere that it would flat out not work because non-PvPers wouldn't be lured. I strongly disagree.

 

There is a difference between PvP by consent and wanting someone to kill you. I will be flagged for open PvP (I consent to the mode of play), but I do not give you the consent to kill me, and if you try, I will strenuously resist. Same thing with a lumberjack who consents to PvP (however that is done), but he doesn't do that because he wants to be killed. He doesn't want to encounter a PK, but consents to run the risk for reasons that are entirely up to him.

The fundamental thing is that the lumberjack first consented to take the risk. If another lumberjack does NOT consent to accept that risk, there is no way for you to touch him, and that is how it should be.

I don't think the 'lure' is to entice someone into an 'open PvP area' for some kind of reward, because I don't think 'open PvP areas' will exist, or are even necessary. The lure is to entice someone into flagging for open PvP in the first place, and the reward is the assumption of the risk with the additional excitement and gameplay that open PvP affords.

 

They are called Powerscrolls and do you know what happened with those? pvp guilds camped the areas you could get them and essentially controlled the whole Powerscroll market. No one who wasn't associated with those guilds were able to get them without buying them from a vendor for the most part. Because of this, casual players gave up trying to get them at all.

Making certain items only obtainable in pvp areas is not the answer. Making items and resources more rewarding, suck as you get 3 of an item in a pvp area instead of 1 you get in a normal area, is a much better concept.

 

@Owain
Well we just have to agree to disagree then. You are now resorting to splitting hairs about the definition of consentual PvP, even tho we all know that "traditional" non-consentual PvP is entirely impossible in the style of game that SotA is. It's about recreating the atmosphere/scenario, and giving incentives to go there.

PvP "areas" are in no way part of my arguement at all by the way, and they are completely unnecessary to accomplish what I am talking about.

If "PvP is its own reward" as you say, and if that is actually what RG is talking about, then what about the hypothetical contraband run that they have mentioned a few times, and which Ultima Codex quoted? Pretty clear that the reward for completing such an activity would be in the form of payment for your services to the NPC that asked you to do it, and furthermore pretty clear that it would be in the runners best interest to avoid PvP at all costs if they are simply after that reward.

Agreeing to disagree, tho I feel its pretty clear what RG is talking about in that video, as well as what he is talking about in the source from Ultima Codex. There are more examples but I'll try to dig them up later this week for you, I have to head out for now.

 

The example you give is of the worst possible implementation of such a feature. I do infact agree with you, ultra powerful items like that are completely inappropriate as PvP incentives. HOWEVER, you quoted the absolute extreme. Do you really not recognize that they can just make the items less about power and more about profit and/or resources? A power scroll is an incredibly specific game item, and not really comparable to pretty much anything else.

 

I think we are in violent agreement with each other, but you are quibbling over trivial details.

With respect to the contraband run quest, I don't consider that to be open PvP. For one thing, since it's an introduction to PvP for PvE players, I doubt that it would include full loot. This is a quest designed to allow PvE player to test the waters, and so yes, a carrot is dangled, but that is not Open PvP. If the PvE player runs the quest successfully, they may investigate PvP further, perhaps take part in a duel or two, or maybe a arena match. As their experience and confidense builds, they may eventually decide they enjoy the mode, and elect to flag themselves for Open PvP, where PvP is its own reward.

 

Correct; either by flagging yourself OR by going into that ONE particular HEX that the quest said hold danger from fellow players.

Before UO had the Trammel side of things, PvP was non-consentual meaning you had NO CHOICE (other than to NOT play the game, which many did). Once Trammel was installed, players could play on one side or the other (choice). The UO Devs put carrots on the Feluca side to try and draw people over; that is the same approach RG is talking about.

So now, we know that under certain circumstances, players can fight each other (I think this is a given) BUT what we don't know is what will happen after the fight. Loot or not loot; full or partial...all still up in the air. Hopefully, we can find a true middle ground that will satisfy a majority of the player base.

 

You are splitting hairs, and by your logic PvP servers in modern MMOs are 100% consentual simply because you chose to play there, so you obviously consent. For that matter DFUW is 100% consentual, because you consent when you subscribe. Nevermind the countless situations that can occur within that construct that would involve non-consentual PvP. The difference here is you can chose to go back and forth, and you are encouraged to do so by economic and story drivers as RG described.

NOW I'm really out of here, but I want to say once again how badly we need a new Dev Chat discussing these basic principles and the framework behind these systems within the scope of PvP in SotA. I hope we get it soon so people can stop interpretting "incentive" as "excitement", debating the meaning of "danger", etc.

 

I've read what MagiK wrote, and I have read what you wrote in reply.


We could start with the part where you called MagiK a troll without cause or provocation. Because, recall, MagiK's stance against your preferred style of PvP, and the articulation thereof in this discussion, constitutes neither trolling nor sufficient provication to merit the sort of response you offered.

If you find MagiK's presence and statements here to be that objectionable, might I suggest you avail yourself of the "Ignore" feature?

 

Don't over-interpret Garriott's words in that quote. He makes it quite clear that anyone who is going to be enabled as a potential PvP "target" will do so knowingly. Which, in turn, implies the consensual nature of the situation. Portalarium seem determined to ensure that nobody can be attacked by a PvPer who does not want to engage in PvP, and yet at the same time seem determined to ensure that those who desire the risk, danger, and role play possibilities of PvP will be able to partake thereof.

 

As long as you don't eat the fruit you can't be harmed.
But the fruit tastes very very good and you will receive knowledge and be rich.

 

GimmuUOPlz, this is part of your problem. You say you want something, and that you want it real bad, be when asked specifically to define just what it is you want, you refuse.

I am in no way interested in arena PvP, nor am I interested in duels, or in any other PvP as a sporting event that may be an option. By Open PvP, I am looking for PvP anywhere and everywhere outside of town. I am also looking for a resumption of the PK/Anti-PK wars as they existed in UO prior to the Trammel/Felucia split, and on UO Siege Perilous and Felucia after the split, to include murderers, thieves, and that entire set up. But in SotA, with Selective MultiPlayer, participation in Open PvP is entirely by consent, and people who are not flagged for PvP will be invisible to me.

It sounds to me like that is what you want as well, but it's hard to tell because you insist on playing "I've Got a Secret", and won't spit it out regarding exactly what it is that you want.

If you are looking to convince people to come over to your side, whatever that might be, you are doing it wrong, because how is anyone supposed to be able to tell what you want if you won't tell them?

 

One interesting bit to keep in mind: among the objectives clearly stated by RG is a desire to make players that usually play offline opt to play online instead, possibly in the Single Player Online mode. IMHO the only way to make that work is to make sure that players can earn, online in single player mode, anything that can be earned offline, which likely means that they can't hold back from players that play in SPO - and, thus, are exclusively PvE players - any piece of PvE content or any reward that can be seen or obtained offline, which would be all of them if the game isn't arbitrarily cut for the offline mode.

Anything less than that and I would bet most players that could be convinced to move online will just not bother. After all, it's not like the possibility of playing with others is such a huge draw for anyone that was planning to stay offline anyway.

If that "mere presence" means that part of the PvE content, or some rewards useful in PvE and without any equivalents that can be obtained through just PvE, are only available to PvP players, then that "mere presence" is affecting the PvE players and limiting what they can do. If the game launches with part of the PvE content locked behind a PvP requirement, I will simply refuse to play online and stay offline.

It's why I'm waiting to upgrade my pledge, BTW. I already have the largest pledge I'm willing to make if I'm to never play online, and the money earmarked to push that at least to the Edelmann level, but I'm not going to spend a single cent more with the game unless I'm sure the game won't push me into staying offline. So, I eagerly await some clarifications on how PvP will work and how it will interact with the selective multiplayer, preferably before the pledge upgrade window of opportunity ends early next year.

You are aware that, besides power scrolls, collecting any resource in Felucca gives players twice the amount of resources they would get in Trammel, yes?

You can't get the players that legitimately dislike PvP to opt into it, no matter the incentives; UO proved it. Push too hard and those players will, for the most part, just leave the game instead of giving PvP a chance.

I'm one of those as it pertains to non-consensual PvP, BTW. While I love fully consensual PvP, you will never see me exposing myself to PvP while doing PvE content.

 

Bringing up Fel/Tram is a completely mute point, as it was the first ever attempt to seperate them and it was done by EA, who as we all know NEVER screws up game mechanics. Trying to say that EA can't do it so RG can't do it, priceless. Trammel/Felucca failed BECAUSE they offered all the same content to both, just at different rates, which is a hardcore failure and is the entire reason why RG should keep a handful of things completely seperate. Not completely necessary or completely OP, just seperate. If they don't do this and they follow the failure of the Tram/Fel system, then they will fail just as hard.



PvErs can and will have access to anything no matter what happens, by purchasing the item(s) from other people if they don't wish to get it themselves. No one is going to completely supply themselves, so this isn't even an arguement since you will be buying from other players, buying items you do not want to create or obtain on your own. Even SPO players will be able to buy from other people.


No one is asking for ultra powerful, ultra expensive items to be tied to PvP which is literally the only way that it wouldn't work. I don't get why the people opposed to this tend to blow the entire thing out of proportion, citing examples like Tram/Fel that really don't apply much if at all or trying to say that I want to "force" anyone to do anything they don't want to.


Last word from RG says that there will be economic and story motivational drivers to encourage PvP, I invite you to watch the video some of us discussed earlier and read the large quote posted by Ultima Codex. However this fact is not nearly as scary as you seem to be making it.

 

It is extreme but that's what happens when you make items available in a pvp zone that isn't available elsewhere.

The one thing they did smart was more resources in Fel than Tram. 2 ore per smack over 1 in Tram was enough to make many people go to Fel to mine instead of staying in Tram. However, they messed that up with LRC suits, insurance and recall mining.

 

Ah so I see your logic. Apparently even if they hypothetically added a colored cloth in SotA that was only obtainable to find in PvP situations, that cloth is just as damaging and terrible for the game as scrolls that let you raise the cap on a skill. I see your logic, or illogic rather, but it makes my head hurt.


Double resources in an identical map is THE reason that no one went to Fel, because they could just min/max Tram in complete safety. How do you cite literally the worst part of fel/tram as the BEST part in your mind? Mind blowing to me.