Consensual pvp???? Stay a While and Listen Why this is no fun.....

lol what a horrible idea make a loot slider really ??

full loot for every pvper , or no loot . if its a sandbox game with crafting , loot is a must

i hate those alternatives . who the hell put his loot slider on max if people can loot him , but he cant loot the people ?

reading this forum drive me crazy XD


why we get only themepark games , if i look at arch age (again themepark game /no loot) why sota not go back to the roots of ultima online sandbox style to separate from other games. atm i see people play more archage then sota m even when archage is a stupid grinding non loot game . only chance i see for sota is attracting the old uo players with loot open world pvp and a nice combat system

 

This isn't a theme park game. But if it makes you feel better you can call it what you want.

 

I didn’t read all pages (sorry if there was an alike suggestion) and I am not that much interested in PvP but wanted to add some sentences.
If there really is a need for it let them implement a system of choices.

We get a new in game window “PvP”. Maybe with some statistic information but basically to adjust your PvP-settings.
There you will find some checkboxes:

- basic PvP (Simply turns on the PvP mode in currently thinking)
- Partial loot PvP (just items you have not equipped can be looted)
- Full loot PvP (Every item can be looted)
And maybe some other options like “Automatic try to rebuy looted items”.

Below these options is a button “Activate” that is just active if at least a cross is made at “basic PvP”.
If PvP is active the button changes to “Deactivate” and on clicking it is starting e.g. a 5 minutes timer till your PvP-status disappears. (reset on doing a PvP fight)
The command /pvp is activating/deactivating your currently adjusted options.
(Just for a short fight without looting the command /duel would be enough to let (after acceptance of your opponent) you and just you two fight each other. This duel-mode disapears ofter one participant is victorious.)

Just if you and your enemy took the same options like “full loot” you can really fully lot each other.
If one choose “full loot” and the other one just “partial loot” both fall back to partial loot.

Changing of your PvP-options is just possible if PvP is deactivated or if you are in a “safe zones” e.g. your own house/guild hall/...

PvP zones could now get the same separation e.g. a player owned town could get a "full lot PvP town".
For each PvP-zone-type they would just need a different symbol e.g. one red sword for “normal PvP”-, two red swords for “partial loot PvP”- and three red sword for “full loot PvP”-zones.

With such a system PvP would still be consensual as everyone knew what could happen if he is activating PvP and still every type of PvP gamer would get what he wants.

 

Just out of curiosity, who came up with the loot slider idea?

 

Originally, for this game? It's likely lost in the forums. Webteam was the one that first put out the first coherent, if simple, proposal I saw, but I believe the idea was surfacing time and time again since nearly the start, when (still during the kickstart) the devs said they weren't planning on adding full loot.

Keep in mind that full loot for all PvP seems unfeasible, at least taking into account what the devs said, so for full loot proponents the most likely outcomes right now seem to be either resigning themselves to what the devs have proposed (limited loot, with a ransom system that is closer to UO's insurance), or find a way to add optional full loot without disrupting what the devs have planned for the rest of the game — hence, the idea of the slider. Other outcomes would require convincing the devs to change planned aspects of the game, such as the gating of PvE content through gear acquisition.

 

I can understand where people are coming from when they explain that SotA isn't "UO2", I personally had hoped that it would be though. I've seen numerous posts/videos that stated the game, although not in the Ultima series, was following the same ideas. I think the main feature that made UO so successful was the freedom to do whatever you wanted. There were risks and rewards associated with them. Of course if you were a crafter, you could just stay in town and were relatively safe, doing PVE was quite a bit more risky but when you made it back with your loot it was all the more satisfying and you actually felt a greater sense of achievement. And if you never made it back alive, maybe you learned something on how to improve for next time. I'm still quite excited to see the final product of this game, but I'm also a bit afraid it'll still turn out sort of dull and restrictive.. I wouldn't imagine the market for a more "hostile environment" would be quite as large, and the current plan might accommodate a larger customer base. After all, the game is being sold to make money.

I had hoped for the same "criminal system" of blue/grey/red and full loot, however I've seen reasoning behind some issues and have come to agree on a few points. I would still love to see an open non-consensual PVP system but active town guards to protect people being murdered in towns, and with more restricted loot, I believe, would be a nice compromise. The ransom system almost made me gag and throw up in my lap; even if you had a 100% chance to get ONE item that somebody had on their person or in their backpack, it's just one item. That item could turn out to be a complete piece of rubbish after all, why not just allow it to be taken rather than go into this insurance sort of system. Trying to refrain from ranting as much as possible, but this game could be just THE BUSINESS when it's done, rather than following aspects of new-age MMO's like WoW to draw in more players.

One last thing, and I'm not sure if this has been mentioned anywhere. But I hope whenever the game is live that the real-currency transactions for in-game content stop. I think the idea of actually playing and earning what you have in the game is much more valuable than "oh, I just bought it for $50 instead".

 

I would love to see a Siege Perilous style option for those wanting SOTA to kick you in the nuts and take your mrs out for a lovely dinner and never call her back.

Again doubt it could be done but be a pretty good solution for everyone on both sides of the spectrum of loot/no loot consensual/non consensual pvp.

 

I do not enjoy reward as much without risk, the game needs some sort of unscripted, rules free area where anyone is fair game!

 

Historically I have been strictly a single player. Not because I don't like to interact with people, but because my impression of multi-player gaming was where the primary activity was to run around hacking and slashing or shooting and eventually dying then re-spawning over and over again.

I played through all of the Ultima games which I enjoyed very much, but I skipped Ultima Online for fear of the exact scenario described above, but having not participated I don't know if my fears were unfounded or not.

I studied SotA for some time before deciding to pledge. I pledged initially because I learned that it had single player off-line and on-line. I have been digging through the forum at some depth and have decided to increase my pledge after learning about the planned consensual PvP. So now I shall be able to be online and role play without being constantly attacked by other players. Of course in time I may participate in PvP depending on how the rules of that mode of play are finally developed.

 

Welcome Rondar!

 

thats what I thought sadly they arent going that way its another mmo like most on the market right now with some things being slightly diffrent. The only big positive aspect copmpared to other mmos is that u can place a decorate houses.
I was against full loot at first because I thought everything else would be similar to UO but sadly its not.

Im here for a new U7/UO but from what Ive seen there isnt much of that atm

My Hopes for Sota being a good game remain mostly because of what the devs say in every hangout, well at this point mainly Chris...

 

I don't see pvp and full loot as a staple of the ultima series at all. It was a major facet of ultima online, which I think existed beside the ultima series, and not so much as part of the series of games. If that is all that makes the game for you, I'm not sure how different from say playing diablo it would be.

 

14 Ultima games without PVP versus one game with PvP makes non-consensual PVP with full loot a major feature that defined Ultima? No, I don't think so.

 

but i dont know 1 guy who played ultima singleplayer , except the singleplayer ultima online demo
but i know so much guys playing ultima online, there is a bigger fanbase of ultima online then ultuima singleplayer

and ultima online was only good because of the thrill of
full loot, pvp, housing , pve content , and player driven economy. if only 1 part would have missed the game would have failed !!!

what i liked on ultima that the endgame started when you loged in , you was not forced to go somewhere , you could do whatever you want.
when you farmed in ultima ores for a day , you got some nice armors for pve/pvp , when you loged out and come back in a week they were still good and you could have some fun

in other mmos Themepark commercial ... mmos like wow you are forced to do dungeons !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
you farm a set take a break of 2 weeks and you will have massive dissadvantage in pvp because other players already got a better set out of a higher instance which they cant loose


sinply horrible game mechanic !!! i presfer farm a day and have some armors in stock which i will loose when i die, instead of grinding 2 weels for a single armor part you cant loose.

 

1: Not everyone shares the thought that UO was only good because of the thrill
2: You have not played WoW in a long time, what you describe has not been the case in a long time.
3: What you describe in UO has not been the case in a long time either.

 

Please do keep in mind that your personal experiences and knowledge may not be reflective of the actual state of affairs, or of the opinions and experiences of the wider community.

In like manner, absent hard evidence, your assertion about the relative sizes of the Ultima and Ultima Online fanbases is purely speculative.

 

Why would I donate for a game catered to PvEs?

Never mind you alreay got the old UO nerfed and WOW all nerfed along with GW2 now you want SOTA nerfed. I can't believe there is this many people in the world that getting killed in a game bothers them so much.

 

I guess one could infer from various quotes by Richard that the UO fanbase was indeed much greater.

Gamasutra article that covered GDC Europe 2011:
"When it finally did ship it was the fastest selling PC game in origin and EA history at the time. Within about two years had outsold all of the other previous Ultimas combined."

Richard said that same thing but with even more emphasis in this Polygon article last year:
"Ultima Online immediately became the fastest selling PC game in Origin and EA history and within two years had outsold all the previous Ultimas combined, several times over."

But sure, it's not hard data and those quotes can be interpreted differently without it. Perhaps this is one source where people are getting this notion that UO's base is greater than Ultima?

 

Good thing with SotA, the meta filter + optional open PvP will keep you engaged with all those that wish to PvP. Those PvEs will not be in your way.

 

It would only be logical that those people that purchased the Ultima series would purchase Ultima Online. Player retention would be defining line.