Full loot always

I think that developers ideas concerning PVE and PVP are pretty clear, therefore I will leave this topic aside to concentrate uniquely on full loot.

In my opinion the full loot is something essential in a game, as it makes the game more interesting, dynamic and makes turn the economy (both crafting and repairing skills).
I believe that the following points should be implemented.
1. When an avatar dies he loses everything (everything remains in his dead body), he'll have to go to resurrect himself and then run back to his body to grab his belongings (UO old style).
2. When an avatar dies his equipment receive some additional damage reducing the durability.
2. In PVE - NPC can loot the body of dead avatars and other dead NPC. In guilds there should be an option to allow looting among guild members.
2a. It could be interesting to think about 100% full loot also in PVE, where if I die another person can steal my belongings.
3. In PVP - NPC and other avatarts can loot the body of dead avatarts and other dead NPC

That's my 2 cents. No full loot (insure) will ruin the game as it already ruined UO, please consider making SotA different from all the other mmorpg in which death means just restarting from the spawning point..

 

I think there's should be a checkbox allowing you to automatically drop everything when you die. People seem to want it.

Personally, I'm happy to restart from a spawn point with everything intact, but to each his own.

 

While Full Loot will stimulate the economy, it does nothing for crafting. Equipment damage drives Crafting providing the need for both repair and replacement. This most logically would be applied to equipment through use while fighting. Placing an additional damage on equipment on death, or when looted, is an artificial construct to lend credence to your flawed arguments.
Full Loot does stimulate the economy by providing PvP victors with a ready supply of equipment to resell at a fraction of the effort required by the original crafter to produce it. This will allow PvP victors to undercut the pricing of Crafters, and hand them control of the economy.

I believe this is the intent of the developers.

Why? It makes no sense that death would damage equipment. Use of equipment in combat damages equipment. Dead men don't typically engage in activities that damage equipment... unless they're Undead...

I believe the intentions of the Developers is to have PvE monsters loot those that fall to them. Allowing a 'loot table' of friends that are permitted to loot your corpse is an interesting concept that I will give more thought.

This would be fine with me if the corpse were flagged as PvP and the PvP community were to agree and convince the developers that this is something good for PvP. I would object most strongly to the notion that any corpse can be looted by any avatar and would feel this would be a violation in spirit of the developer's promise that PvP in SotA will be strictly consensual.

I don't understand how this would be an attribute of PvP. PvP would be Avatar vs. Avatar. NPCs are by definition PvE, and a corpse a corpse. If an NPC can loot, something as I've said I believe is part of the plan, it doesn't matter whether the corpse is flagged for PvP or not... Unless you intend to imply that PvP flagged Avatars should be invisible to NPC.

I don't agree with pretty much any of your arguments. I don't really care whether there is full loot in PvP or not, though it would have a greater than normal affect on PvP players due to the Item Affinity feature the developers have planned. I would object to Full Looting by NPCs, though I believe the looting by NPCs using the same loot/ransom rules proposed by the developers for NPCs could be interesting. Lastly, SotA under the proposal put forth in the PvP and Death Megapost already meets your last point, as there is looting, you will be a ghost, and you'll loose both time and equipment (or money) as a consequence of death.

I will always object to logical fallacies and ill formed arguments.

 

I'm all for dying with my boots on! But there is one death that I can not tolerate. That is the death of a lag spike or PC crash. That would totally blow if your in an honest fight (PvE or PvP), only to log back in as a ghost with an already looted corpse. "Oooo oooo oooo".

 

Full loot / partial loot / ransom (pay or lose the item), I'm fine with all of them. Considering looting, I'm hoping we'll have a slightly more realistic carrying capability in SoTA. (ie. You just don't carry several sets of armor with you...)
Durability loss should result from using the gear - aye.
NPC's loot those who they slay - two thumbs up!

Take into consideration also that if you take the oracle's blessing (PVP), you'll most likely see players that are relevant to you.

 

Full loot making the game more interesting is in the eye of the beholder. For some, it does; for many, it instead makes the game far more frustrating than fun, and not worth playing at all.

Which is likely why full loot games are rare and far between, and when they do exist they are often tuned so the player both is able to recover everything he lost in minutes or hours, and death is made so easy to avoid that the whole game becomes too easy to be interesting. Or else they are permadeath games, where whether the player can be looted or not after death doesn't really matter.

That "dynamic" bit you talk about, if it's what I'm thinking, is something that I personally see as a deal breaker. If the game entices me to change how I play through changes in how efficient my play style is, nudges towards experimenting with other things, fine; it can be even enjoyable. If the game attempts to force me to change my play style by taking away the gear I needed to play how I was used to, though, I will more often than not just leave it.

As for it turning the economy: blatantly false. What create demand is gear being destroyed, not gear changing hands. Gear destruction on death would create strong demand; gear looting alone does nothing on a macroeconomic level.

And, besides, I don't care about the in-game economy. I see it as just an irritating detail. It's the reason I have three accounts, with a total of seven character slots across them; so I can have a master of each crafting profession and never have to worry about purchasing anything from other players, ever. For me, anything that creates inconveniences just to make the economy work is a pure negative for my enjoyment of the game.

 

No, you're incorrect. Full loot does stimulate the economy by moving goods through it. It has little effect on the demand for crafters. That demand is driven by item damage, not looting.

 

You're looking at it backwards. The economy doesn't move because of PvP. PvP happens because of the economy. People don't want war, they want stuff. They're willing to tolerate war because they really want stuff.

 

In UO it did increase Tailoring sales only because as they greifed you they cut up your cloth or leather items and laid them on the ground next to you. This was just for greifing purposes and they were not interested in the resale.

 

Ah, I never witnessed or experienced that one. There, to me, is actually a good argument against full loot. But if that is what the developers decide to do, it will simply lower the probability that I ever consent to PvP.

 

I don't know that I totally agree that people only want stuff, maybe some but from what I've been reading on this forum many, many of them really want war. Not only do they want war but the challenges of the battle and the satisfaction of the battle. Also the ability of playing your character so skillfully that you are king. (well or a great and skillful fighter at least)

 

I think that with instancing and player owned towns and player owned PVP zones and PVP zones in particular that this game will be fun for PvP people.

It might not be fun for those who want to play "Murderers" or "Gank on nubs" but you know... who cares

 

OK, that's your opinion. If I am killed by an axe hit, it's logic to me that my armour will be damaged. To me it could be even logical to have a chance to have one piece of your equipment destroyed when you die (eg. critical hit). I agree with you that full loot might not stimulate crafting. Still if I am in a PVP guild which keeps losing their armours, I'd have a lot of work.......I do agree that repairing also stimulates both economy and crafting. Just to me it's boring...no risk in losing anything. We already have tons of these mmorpg. Why everyone wants so much a clone of an existing game?

Again I have the feeling that you and many other wants to be oversafe in games..having the fear of losing it's what makes gaming interesting.
Probably even in single player games you are saving the game every 5 minutes not to lose your progresses. In the contrary I generally don't save until the end of the quest. Otherwise what's the point of playing a game?

I didn't see any dev saying that there will be full loot, so I am sorry but I don't understand this sentence.
Being a ghost it's not a big deal, you just go to ress and everything will be back to normal (your equip will be in your backpack). If things are like that I would then remove the death, that's the point? We can just make a respown after 5 seconds...
How will I lose my equipment if there is not full loot? A NPC stealing 1 object is not a big deal....losing my whole equip is completely different.

I find a bit impolite that you find my opinion to be a fallacy and an ill formed argument. It's my opinion I am not saying I am holding the universal truth, just saying my opinion.
I feel that you want an easy easy game, where all you do is go forward without any risks. Same as wow, same as neverwinter, etc....we already have so many games like what you want. I don't understand the need of another game..

Then I would be much happier to see an option in the multiplayer to divide people who wants the easy game from people looking for some real challenge (this has nothing to do with PVP or PVE).

 

In understand what you are saying. Most of people do like easy games, no risks and just aiming for the best gear (usually taken by repeating hundreds of time the same dungeon). To me this is pure boredom. I'd much prefer to lose my gears multiple times a day and still being able to get new gears in the same day (couple of hours). I am completely against gear based games (totally pointless to me).

Concerning the game economy generally the PK are the rich ones, usual people when they are killed and looted will need to buy new gears..therefore to me both gear damage and full loot bring a positive impact to the economy of the game.

Concerning your last sentence, I am completely against multiple accounts and multiple characters. To me each player should be able to have 1 fighting character and 1 worker. Otherwise there is no point in playing a mmorpg. If I do like you saying I have no need of anybody I can do everything on my own.
I understood that most of you want to play really really really easy games....I guess that's what people want..

I might give a shot to Mortal Online which seems to have what I am looking for..still I am not a big fun of monthly subscription (not so much free time for gaming anymore).

 

And how, exactly, is loot the only determination of what is "challenging" and what is "easy?"

Some people want to find a challenge through finding every hidden detail (explorers), some find a challenge in niggling every detail from the story using logic, deduction, and determination. Some want to find a challenge through building a successful business.

I find it a bit impolite that you relegate anything that does not revolve around losing your stuff as "easy mode." It's terribly condescending.

 

First of all I apologize if you felt my message in that way. It was not my intention. I am trying to say my opinion in a language which is not mine.

I understand what you are saying. You can explore whatever game or follow the story, if it's challenging it depends on how devs will make the game. For instance, in neverwinter there is nothing challenging about exploring or following the story game..you even have a yellow path on the floor telling where to go so that you can playing the game without any challenge. If devs do a good job your assumption could be true, for now I didn't see anything challenging (from my point of view), but I do hope that with next releases your statement will become true.

I am speaking about losing your stuff simply because this is the topic of this post.

 

The act of dying isn't what causes damage to your armour, unless you want to add that bouncing off the ground can damage your armour. It's the blow that took that last ounce of health from you, it's the blow that struck you that killed you. And it's that blow that did dame to your armour.

 

That's exactly what I was trying to say. Sorry if I wrote in a way which was not comprehensible. The killing blow damages your armour (and by consequence you die).

 

That's fine. While I disagree with your base position, I have no problem with you expressing it. I just don't like opposing play-styles being marginalized. I don't participate in PvP (probably won't do online at all), but I don't consider myself an "easy mode" player. Challenges come in all different forms and what's challenging for one player is tedium for another. It's got more to do with taste than ease of play.

I think it's entirely possible to hold the conversations without one side saying the other want's a 'free ride,' or (on the other side of the fence) calling people "murderers, bullies, or thieves." Ya know?

 

This comes up time and time again, without coherence or consistency, and the arguments cycle from one trope to another depending on which needs to be deployed in order to "win" the debate at that current time... but the life cycle of an item in game is fixed, known, and doesn't conform to the claims "Full Loot" supporters will argue for. Here's what actually happens.

1.) Preparation Work, which allows crafting an item; be it resource management, skill raising etc.
2.) The item is made, and sold in a consistent way. Safe locations, or by an alt of someone else etc
3.) The item is then taken to an area where the item can be looted.
4.) Once looted, the item is resold, either back to the original owner in the form of blackmail, or via point 2 by the looter in order to make more money
5.) Where it is destroyed, either through combat mechanics, or for malicious reasons, or just because the item has no use to the looter... in which case it leaves the economy to no one's direct benefit, but the outright loss of the original owner.

And here's what Full Loot types will consistently shift the argument to avoid addressing then;

Points 1 and 2 of an items life must exist; even EvE Online doesn't have full looting everywhere. No game ever does nor ever will again, because allowing that destroys the entire concept of trade. In real life too; Thomas Hobbes, writing about the English Civil War famously said;

"Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called War; and such a war as is of every man against every man. [...] In such condition there is no place for Industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continual Fear, and danger of violent death; And the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short"

Which is what sets up Point 3; There will always be division between Safe and Unsafe areas too.

Point 4 discredits the argument that PvP is "Hard Mode" because it doesn't involve any of Point 1 for the PvPer, unless they also have access to Point 2 as well... They want other people to do the crafting, and then get the benefits of that prep work from the other thing they prefer to do, and which they are good at, namely PvP. Items in fact would be "Easy Mode" for PvPers.
Which means they want the want the benefits of both the claimed "Easy" and "Hard" mode. In UO much of the howling about access to Trammel comes from the hypocritical demands to have access to the Rares and Trading opportunities there, whilst also having every character as a Red (Murderer) and thus able to harvest the wool off the "sheep" they prey on later. A true hard mode though, as in real life, would be that the cost of killing is ostracisation from mainstream society... they would also have to live off only what they could take and steal, like real wolves who have to take on all the friends of the sheep, including human beings with shotguns, to get a single leg of lamb.

Except they also want to argue for the validity of Point 5, the right to just destroy items as well, if it'll be fun to annoy someone, or you just don't want to keep it. But an item cannot both be valuable and destroyed for lack of value at the same time. Points 4 and 5 are alternate endings in an items life. And now the other problem becomes apparent; In a truly open system, people "would not take anything they can't lose" (another PvP trope) in, but anything which didn't work would ensure you lose, thus the only way you could PvP would be with items with some value. And in reality, PvPers will want to squeeze every possible advantage out, so the worth of items would increase... The reason we got insurance in UO was not because people weren't using Silver Vanquishing weapons, but because they were and wanted to keep that advantage over people who didn't have one. You have to be really committed to the humiliation principle to destroy an item that has serious worth; some people seriously are committed it's true... the more it means to you, the more it hurts when we destroy it. But...

Points 4 and 5 combined further ensures minority status for potential customers. Why would the majority of the player base take worthwhile items to an area they aren't good at, where the result is either a net loss (blackmail) or no gain whatsoever to them, with the potential of personalised maliciousness? And why would you want to go into an unfair fight, under geared, even if you enjoy PvP? And that can't co-exist with point 3, because the reality is, the majority aren't going to get involved.

So the crafters will stay within the safe zones; still PvP stimulates the economy for them, yes? Except point 4 means there is direct competition with crafters, as the only items with real worth are mostly likely to sold back in the same zones as they are trading in (or in the case of blackmail, double, treble etc for each death the cost of an item they've already bought to an individual crafters won't see again) which means a suppressed market, as each item the crafter makes may become the competition on the market for the second item they make.

And point 5 again, which it's claimed will generate trade by destroying items, is going to ensure anyone who doesn't see PvP as worth investing in will stay away from it, items which have no use for pvp will not be purchased for it by pvpers or will not survive it, in which case it has Full Loot has at best no effect on the crafters primary market at all. Yet crafters still have to invest (point 1) so...

The actual argument again is that PvPers want crafters to take all the risks in the initial market, not themselves.

And thus the Full Loot argument collapses; they can claim that they just don't want to see another WoW, but the reason why you get so many games like that is, because these are the only stable, honest systems that can exist. Reality has proven the MMO "full loot" claim is neither workable nor honest. In real life, libertarian, pirate filled Somalia has drones from industrialised, centralised states flying where they will within it, and it's pirates being sunk by the US and Chinese navies if they attack the wrong cargo ship. Full loot is parasitical to, not supportive of, normal trade in any functioning economic system. The economic argument is clearly nonsense then.

I'd wager the result here in Shroud is probably going to be some sort of Item Insurance. If you actually, honestly want to see PvP as opposed to short term power trips, you'd support that too. Just like if Real Time Strategy and First Person Shooters reset the clock at the end of every fight to ensure there will be another fight again.