Empty World

Full loot is the only interesting number and that can as you say be 1 but also 25.

And full loot dont mean anything bought for real life money.

I just dont understand why developers try add something the majority of PvP players dont want in the game like this insurance system?

Going against your own playerbase isnt a compromize.

 

Agree.

UO Renaissance had the best PvP since it was consensual. You had to consent to PvP by entering felucca.

The PvP system used in Renaissance was more balanced, mages and dexers were both just as compeatable, and you needed alot more PvP playerskills during Renaissance compared to the PvP system UO used pre-trammel.

So when i talk about UO PvP in felucca i talk about post-trammel felucca.

That or something close to that UO Renaissance PvP system is what i want to see being used in SotA. And same risk vs reward system. And a murder alignment system close to the statloss system UO used.

 

I disagree. People who praise UO PvP usually talk about post-trammel UO. At least the ones that tried them both.

Pre-trammel UO didnt have as a good PvP system compared to the one that was used in UO Renaissance (post trammel).

You needed more playerskills during Renaissance and it was way better balanced, the PvP game became a better one after trammel.

Trammel never bothered most of the "real" PvP players since they got a better PvP game that was consensual. Newbie PvP players might have left felucca after trammel when they understood they werent as good as they thought they were.

Same with newbie PK:s that only managed to kill crafters and other more or less defenseless players. These pre-trammel PK:s that i call "wannabe" PK:s couldnt handle fighting the seasoned warriors that gotten used to always fight equally strong players in chaos/order or factions. The skilled PK:s continued to play the game after trammel but they were very few compared to the pre-trammel numbers of PK:s.

 

You seem to be projecting with your statement that "the majority of PvP players don't want" the ransom feature in the game. I'm sure there are some who don't, but the ransom system is a reasonable compromise meant to encourage more people to be open to the idea of PvP. It seems to be a rather well accepted idea, particularly if item values are accurately evaluated. This is a perfect example of compromise: players can loot each other, but there are limitations to looting. That is not "going against your playerbase" in the general sense, even if it is going against the people who want full and unrestricted PvP with full loot and are unwilling to compromise on those points in any way.

 

Alright then. Good luck. I don't see how you're ever going to get that cookie if you can't even explain why you should get it.

 

No it isnt a reasonable compromize, far from it. It is against their own PvP players wishes and it is giving in to the less PvP interested player that might try PvP out. The ones developers try to entice trying out PvP. They create a PvP system the PvP players dont want.

A huge mistake when they risk loosing the ones that is really interested to take part in a risk vs reward PvP game.

Why do you think this poll look like it does?

https://shroudoftheavatar.com/forum/index.php?threads/poll-pvp-or-pve-which-are-you-unofficial.4120/

Cause most want a insurance system?

Most (a huge majority) want full loot and no insurance system.

Players like me will never take part in a PvP game with insurance so do the math, is it better to entice the not so interested PvP player or do what the majority of PvP players want?

It is easy math. Going against the majority is as i see it not a good business model.

 

And since you decided not to quote my text i will have a hard time explaining what you didnt understand.

 

Did you read that thread? There are a few glaringly obvious flaws with it. Here are a few:

• It was posted in a PvP subforum. Many PvE players don't read those forums.
• Voters were only allowed to select one option. Many expressed interest in multiple options.
• Only a small portion of forum participants voted.
• Lots of people who voted either misunderstood the option they selected or changed their minds after the fact.
• People who are upset about something are more likely to vote. Such a poll cannot be representative of the community's overall desires because opponents of full PvP already had an acceptable system on the table.

 

You just quoted yourself and didn't write anything else...

 

First of all, that poll doesn't even give options such as partial loot or an insurance system.

2nd. This isn't an insurance system, this is a buy-back program. If you lose an item you can buy it back from the looter - the price will be set by the system, which we are assuming will be a fair market value. The looter is getting paid, and if it's an item the looter didn't want, and the loser did want badly, then the looter is getting a better deal. He doesn't have to sell it and possibly lose commission fees. (plus, I explain later in this post, why a looter wouldn't want an otherwise good item, affinity+durability)


I've said it many times, Full Loot in this game likely wont be a good idea because of how equipment works. Full Loot would be a horrible idea in a game like WoW or League of Legends. It fairly well in a game like UO because of the way the items were obtained, and worked. IF this game has durability issues, where the equipment will be expensive to repair and has an affinity, where the longer you wear it the better the item works full loot could completely undermine those systems. There is certainly room for tweaks to this system, like they can do 1 item worn, 1 item in inventory, 1 item in pack animal. they can increase those numbers if needed. If we really want it they can likely change it to full loot. But, they know how these systems work, and if they say full loot isn't a good idea, you can believe that they know what they are talking about.

 

They read them just as much as any other forum over here. They are in every PvP thread so where you got that from i havent the faintest.

To me you are making up excuses why the majority is like it is.

A enough part of the forum particiants voted to give a good hint to the developers what the majority of the PvP interested players wanted and that sure wasnt a insurance system as in UO Age of Shadows.

Very few misunderstood the option they selected since the options were very hard to misunderstand.

People interested in taking part in SotA PvP voted in that poll and they are the ones developers should try to please, not the ones that "might try PvP out". Players that might try PvP out also voted in that poll but as you say they werent that many cause they werent as interested in taking part in PvP.

That is why it is unbelievable hard to understand why developers decided to go against the vast majority of the PvP interested playerbase.

 

I don't feel the need to say anything more in this thread. You're asking for something that just isn't a good solution in this game for a number of reasons, not the least of which are those Mishri mentions. If the game isn't for you, so be it. There's no way Portalarium can please everyone.

 

It is just as an insurance system since you insure your items with the money you have in your bank. That was how UO Age of Shadows insurance system worked and i see no difference in practic if you compare the 2.

Your right there isnt a partial loot or insurance system in that poll but it is a vast majority for full loot so in what way is that then a compromize? Compromize of what? Getting the less PvP interested player to maybe try out PvP? Entice the ones that isnt really interested in PvP? Cause loosing many PvP interested players on those players that might try PvP out isnt defendable. That is bad business and not fair towards the majority that wanted full loot (consensual or not-consensual).

I dont care if it full loot dont fit some other model, they are developers and should the best way they can try to please their playerbase. Insurance isnt pleasing their PvP playerbase. And how can loosing loads of PvP interested players be more important then tweaking their game so it work with full loot, a gamethat wont come out in a year?

 

It might not be a good sollution for you.

But it is a good sollution for the majority of the PvP interested players and that is what really counts.

 

Yes, let's continue to drive away people who are actually interested in this game.

Pvp should be built for pvpers, and any incentives for pve players comes after that. Otherwise you're just going to keep driving away potential development money with a diluted pvp system that is not palatable to those passionate about pvp and only an afterthought for those who prefer pve.

 

This isn't a "PvP game", and he doesn't seem to be interested in it. If he wants to fight with a brick wall, let him. The game won't have full loot. Like Mishri and I said, that concept just doesn't work in this type of game if you want an active PvP community. He can play if he wants or not play if he wants. I really don't care. I'm just not going to argue the point anymore.

 

This is the truth. A PvP game should in any way please the PvP interested players first.

The so called "PvP compromize" isnt a compromize at all.

 

Dont give values on my interest, values you have no clue whatsoever of.

I pledged as much as you have and i have my voice on this forums as much as you have and my view on risk vs reward as full loot seems to be the majority view on loot so i expect developers to change their mind and do their best to please the PvP interested players.

If it dont please the not so PvP interested players is a non issue.

 

So what if it's not a pvp game? That doesn't mean anything, you're not a developer, and you shouldn't be trying to police what opinions people are allowed to have on here.

 

As a selective multiplayer game (I'm still going to call it an mmo because it is really) there is freedom to almost do anything.....because of that the game means different things to different people, for some it's RP, others it might be crafting and selling, some it might be about collecting.....others it might be about the story, some might prefer dungeon hunting with their friends......some might just want to PvP.

It's wrong to try and say what the game is and what it will be, whenever someone does that it is mearly from their own perspective. There will be PvP and there will be looting of some nature......it's still being debated how far it goes.