Balancing Looting

Looting of players via the ransom system is supposed to be on deck for R22 (I believe), and this got me thinking about what I might be risking in pvp areas. Btw, pvp is always 100% consensual, so don't freak out.

Like most people currently playing, I have a lot of items from the add-on store, quest hats, and pledges. And since these items have already been declared off-limits for looting (which makes sense because people paid cash for them), that means some people could have an entire inventory full of non-lootable items.

Of course, it's a ransom system so obviously if you don't have any lootable items you'll be paying the ransom! But this got me thinking even more. Shouldn't someone that has no lootable items have to pay a HIGHER ransom? I think so. I think that the ransom amount should scale based on what you're carrying around that actually has a risk of being lost.

So I think it should look something like this:

High Amount of Lootable Items = Lowest Cost of Ransom
Low Amount of Lootable Items = Higher Cost of Ransom
Zero Lootable Items = Highest Cost of Ransom

Thoughts?

 

my only fear is that the highest cost will actually not be high at all and no real consideration will happen when you get to choose, it's just pay the man few coins keep my stuff. guess we will know soon enough though 2015 is at it's end... almost stress factor has to be running high at portalarium now is my guess ^^

edit: oh and good suggestion I'm on board with your way of thinking.

 

I'd agree with you, Lord Hettar. The devil's in the details with the ransom system. It may be challenging to balance out risk vs. reward.

 

Having played Asheron's Call which had a death penalty of you dropping items upon death (both in PVE and PVP) and the higher level you were the more items you dropped, I'm really interested in how they will handle this. All we had to do in that game was carry VERY expensive items which we called "death items" which had a higher chance of dropping over your gear or weapons which hopefully cost significantly less. Now there was always the chance that a piece of armor could drop, but you tried to minimize that by carrying several high cost items on you at all times.

I agree with the above system, but I think that system can also be gamed by someone just paying money every time. Honestly, gold isn't that hard to accrue right now.

The penalty definitely needs to fit and be worthwhile for all those who are participating in PVP.

 

I don't follow the part where you say people who have no lootable items will of course pay the ransom.

Nobody pays a ransom to anyone else who has nothing of value they want back (from that person).

 

Because we don't want naked mages

 

So call it something else but if you dont have anything I want back why am I paying you?

= not a ransom.

 

I like what the OP is trying to avoid, but i don't like the way of doing it.

That's true but we should remember that in Shroud, wearing cloth is not the same as being naked. But i like the possibility of taking "something else" (Soul? Will?) from an avatar besides its gear & consumables. The less lootable gear you carry, more chance of the enemy to get "that" and while you don't have it you have <insert penalty here>.

Besides that, i think the ransom should depend from the value of the item looted (the item described above should be pretty valuable). If not, everybody will carry his best lootable gear without almost no risk and

that's what happens then.

 

I am very exited to see the loot system.

Well, as everyone know, like 135 dev+ (45.9% from the pool in dev+ ''Are you for Full LooT ?'' I am for Full LooT.

That said, I hope the ransom system will make us lose a lot of items at a PvP death.

It is imperative that the looter has the last word. I keep the item or I take the cash?

When all spells will requirere reagents, Naked Mage will lose their reagents.


-Abydos

 

Yes, you're correct, the term would not apply to someone that doesn't have anything. But we shouldn't care what we call it. Risk vs. Reward should transcend semantics.

 

We'll see... but with all the talk about affinity systems and stuff, i doubt so. The way gear seems to be oriented is not very lootable friendly, imho, but maybe i'm wrong. After all, PVP is consensual isn't it? if you're there for the rewards, you should take the risks; that's what this is about.

 

The ransom system was called that because it was described as taking someone's item and forcing them to pay to get the item back. If there's no item to take, then there wouldn't be anything lost. Thats what Kvow was on about.

The idea of holding an item ransom was considered as a way to prevent people from looting things they dont want or need and ease up on the grief-looting (I.E. I know your sword isn't worth much and i have no desire to take it, but ill take it and let you watch me throw it in the trash anyways). If the looter has the option to decide whether he takes a ransom or the item (or even is givent he ability to SET the ransom himself), then it doesnt prevent any of that.

With a ransom automatically set based on (NOT matching, jsut based on) the items value, then items will be looted based on their ransom value, and your reward for PvP would be instant financial gain, or a new item, based on whether or not the person beign looted can afford or wants the item.

If a person only uses store baught stuff, they are at a big disadvantage to anyone using crafted things (supposedly), so assuming someoen is using ANYTHIGN crafted, you can loot that, and either get a ncie financial return, or some equipment added to your inventory. We'll have to wait and see how many people are willing to run around and use no crafted items or consumables at all before we can see how the ransom thing will work.

If you use a good weapon and shitty armor, you can bet your weapon will be ransomed. If you use armor and weapons near identical values, it's a toss up what will be looted (but given the decision, im guessign alto fo peopel woudl choose a tunic or a weapon.)

 

Right of course. That's why I said I agreed. My point was that it doesn't matter what we call it, we don't want people avoiding the risk of losing stuff by just running around naked or having an inventory that can't be looted.

Call it Orange Julius, call it Monkey Folk Singer, call it 1010101110110001...I don't care. Just don't create a system that allows people to opt out of the risk. If they don't have anything on them, they get to pay the fine. It's there choice.

 

the ba'heer sword and the elven armor are the items i would keep an eye on, with that in mind.

 

So archers are already penniless, and now you want to selectively take their undergarments without any say so too? ;-)

 

I've come to the conclusion that non-lootable items shouldn't be used in pvp areas or by players that are flagged for pvp.

I understand the impact this would have on pledges and the add-on store, but it's unbalanced if we leave it in. I think there would have to be a VERY strong compensating control put in place to mitigate the risk of exploitation and having watered down PVP as a byproduct.