My thoughts on Looting

true theres no way to avoid that anyway

Im actually starting to like the idea of full loot, since there are only certain pvp areas you can always chose not to bring your best stuff

 

Ahh,I think you are confused in what people are talking about they want open pvp with full loot...not areas with full loot...those areas that are marked as pvp areas will most likely be there to entice the less heavy handed pvpers to play.

 

Open PvP comes in more than one flavor. If you go into an Open PvP zone, that is Open PvP in that everyone is flagged for PvP just because they are there. That is Open PvP limited to a geographic areas, as opposed to limited PvP that takes place in a guild war, for example.

Unlimited PvP is a separate option you can select, and there is no limit for those so flagged. Every hex is an Open PvP hex, and I would hope that through Selective Multiplayer, every person you see outside of safe areas would also be flagged for Open PvP.

Full Loot as I have proposed it is a separate option entirely. If offered, you could participate in Open PvP in zones or everywhere with normal loot options. If you select Full Loot, PvP doesn't change, but your loot system would.

 

That sounds reasonable to me. To be clear you will be in pvp with "ransom" people and full loot people? You opt for full loot. The people that are opted for say the "ransom system" still would only be able to use that system on you, and you them. But the people that are flagged for full loot you and them could loot each other. I see no problem with this

 

I suppose that would be possible, but most people who favor full loot don't care much for the ransom system. So instead of that, full loot folks would just have full loot.

That doesn't mean you can't ransom your gear back. If you get a bit of gear off my body that I'd really like back, I can always make you an offer, but that would be a private transaction between players, unsupported by the game.

That would be my preference. If Portalarium offers full loot coupled with ransoms instead, I won't quibble.

 

The reverse is also true. If the average player is dying several times a day then death has to be tuned to the point where it's basically meaningless. Next thing you know people are committing suicide as a means for fast travel because recovery time is less than travel time. Which to me is pretty ridiculous. I'm not saying death should be super harsh.. but it should sting just enough that your typical player doesn't want to abuse it.

Now in PvP you're going to be dying every few encounters (or more) either way.

 

That is incorrect. You still have content requiring high end gear be it in a higher security area or a place where you only go with a group of trusted mates. Its the pinnacle of diffilculty and risk vs reward

What you are desiring sounds like graphical maths. Thats cool, hence why if we still had open loot but have areas where it is HARDER to be killed be it through Security Status, dmg to other players are reduced etc who knows. The hardest PvE raids would be in places where you need top end equipment in a PvP zone. Ultimate risk vs reward.

Secondly the skills increase as you use them, got to stop thinking items are the driving force of your players ability, its the avatars skills not equipment. You dont lose skills. I think high end dmg was only a few extra HP more in UO:R. Nice but not game defining.

 

meh bad idea

 

Originally, I didn't much like the idea of full loot. Losing all my stuff from getting ganked? Doesn't sound like much fun at all. After thinking about it, I remember the good old days of UO, and many of those days were during full loot. It didn't make the game worse while I was playing it, it just brought in another aspect that must be considered. Most people are accustomed to standard mmorpg's that don't have consequence from PvP, where you can replay a PvP scenario over and over and not have to worry about equipment between engagements. There's nothing wrong with this, and I've enjoyed playing these types of games myself. To be honest though, I now want more. I want my choices to have an affect on my future play. A person with better equipment will obviously have a better chance at succeeding against a foe with just standard equipment. As was mentioned earlier, that's a part of risk and reward. It also brings something more to combat than "I'll bring the best I have every time, because I'll never lose it." Lesser consequence lessens the reward. Playing poker for M&Ms can be fun, but eventually it loses meaning. Losing 10 dollars, then coming back to win 20 makes you truly feel your loss, and appreciate your winnings all the more. I also believe the full loot system will help stimulate the economy by requiring players to replace lost equipment, sell looted equipment and ration remaining equipment.

Everything I've said so far is still tied into player preference, so I don't claim to speak for everyone. This also leaves open world/consent PvP in question. I don't like the idea of having very few areas open for PvP that have no reason other than PvP. Although I enjoyed the open world, before Trammel gameplay, UO did a decent job of bringing Felucia back into the picture with Power Scrolls. It wasn't perfect, but it was a working alternative that gave players of different styles to enter PvP zones for a greater gain that impacts all styles.

I haven't really given a working solution, but rather my thoughts on what should influence what the best solution may be. Full loot may bring in hardships for both PvP and non PvP players that enter PvP zones for greater rewards. Instead of seeing this as a bad thing, I rather think of Dark Souls, and how well received the game has been and the satisfaction many players have from completing a game that is more difficult than most. I feel the greater the challenge or risk, the greater the reward or feeling of accomplishment.

 

The proper way to handle this, IMHO, is to make sure death does not bring advantages, be it by removing conveniences from death or by adding them to the common gameplay. Using death for fast travel, for example, can be almost completely avoided if the time required to recover is greater than the time saved, or if players can just use a skill to travel as fast as death could allow.

Though perhaps I should confess that I actually use death for fast travel in MMOs where it's feasible. Not because I find death meaningless, but because I really hate wasting game time in the kind of boring travel that is common in MMOs. Thus, I prefer to break my immersion and game the system, instead of suffering through what I consider the most boring part of MMO gameplay ever devised.

I also kill off my character in two other situations:

- When I'm attacked by another player without being in the mood for PvP. I will rather suicide my character than engage in unwanted PvP. I've been known to jump down cliffs, and otherwise go into places where death is guaranteed, when someone attempted to engage me in PvP against my will, sometimes with the amusing effect of having my pretense attacker follow me.

- When death is already assured and trying to stay alive is just a waste of time, such as when half of a raid has already died and the wipe is guaranteed. Though only when the defeat is guaranteed; I've finished a fair number of raids with the other tank, or half the healing team, down.

If I can agree with the death penalty, yes, and I will enjoy it. If I can't agree with the death penalty, then no, simply because it would make me avoid failure through the most certain way of them all: by not playing.

The way the reasons for not having full loot were given, Chris made it sound like this is an either/or situation: if they enable full loot, then they foresee having to tune the whole game to be doable in cheap gear. Which is why they don't want to enable full loot; they want gear to mean something, and want to be able to make higher end content require better gear.

Any mandatory mixing of PvP and PvE, or gating PvE content behind acceptance of PvP, is the surest way to get me to leave the game. If Portalarium ever makes the hardest PvE content only available in a PvP-enabled zone, I will sell my pledges and leave. (Or, rather, sell two out of my three pledges, and use the remaining one to play the game exclusively offline, where PvP will be outright impossible.)

Not everyone likes PvP, you know. Mandatory PvP mixed with PvE content would utterly ruin that PvE content to many players.

And, in this, you just contradicted your first paragraph. If items are not the driving force behind the character's power, then high end gear is never a requirement, and I would be free to completely ignore them.

You can't have it both ways, you know.

I believe the current idea is that there is nothing of use in PvE that requires PvP to obtain, which is how I would have it. I see the Power Scrolls in UO as just a lazy, perhaps even dishonest, way to force PvE players into taking part in PvP while pretending to give PvE players a choice.

 

I want to post but I would get reported again, so I refrain..

 

I remember in UO if you had friends or decent guildmates they would usually defend your corpse from being looted until you could come back and claim it. Going into some of those areas, like boss spawns, solo was suicide anyways. When they finally added boss spawns to ilshenar, it was still suicide to try it alone because by the 7th or 8th wave you'd be overwhelmed.

 

sampires totally ruined the later UO. No one person should have ever been able to solo Peer bosses, but It happened, and still happens all the time.

 

So...what are your thoughts on this game, should someone be able to solo a boss character?

 

With the help of Hirelings, maybe. Otherwise, folks playing Single Player might be annoyed.

 

I know the question wasn't directed at me, but I think this should not be feasible. Bosses should only be solo-able in SPO mode. Although now that I think about it, there could be balancing issues with single player online vs. offline... If you can solo a boss in single player ONLINE mode, that means you could potentially exploit the game by farming the boss loot/XP over and over again, and then switch back to multiplayer and sell you ill-gotten gains.

 

It might take your "companions" to help you.

 

If we get companions. I was interested to see how many would say no...forgeting that yes, it has to be balanced to play that way...

Now...that is not to say there shouldn't be monsters out there that are just insane bad....that even groups would find hard. But nothing that would stop the game from being completed like that.

 

Rune, multiplayer folks don't spend a lot of time trying to spoil things for Single Player people. That's what Single Player folks do.

 

I agree with this, and I agree with you on most your posts. The single player element is one of if not the most important part of the game. The pvp and all the hooplah should be after the main storyline.