PVP & Death: Current Thinking Megapost

Origin Systems Incorporated (OSI) was founded by Richard Garriott in 1983 and was purchased by Electronic Arts (EA) on September 21, 1992.
Ultima Online was developed by Origin Systems over the course of 2 or 3 years and launched on 24 September 1997.
Development of Ultima Online began years after the sale of Origin Systems to Electronic Arts.
The title was never Sold to anyone as it still maintained by EA.
This is all information that is easily verified. Please check your facts before basing an argument on them.

Thank you. I'm glad you approve of the concept of people having fun they way they choose, and recognize that other's opinions of what is fun may differ from your own.

Many have expressed their differing opinions, and perhaps you're correct, but the PvP system in Shroud of the Avatar was always going to be consensual, just as the PvP system has been in Ultima Online for the last 15 years. It only existed in the form you would like to see repeated for the first 2 years of its ongoing run.

 

I like the idea of keeping the game as close to realistic as possible. If you get murdered in real life is it by any means consensual of course not. There is a level of thrill and excitment knowing that at any moment you could be attacked. And when you die in real life do you get to keep your stuff? * I would love to see the same pvp system ultima has

Moderated by Firelotus*

 

When you die in real life you don't pop back up thirty seconds later.

 

I said as close to realistic as possible.

 

I knew after R5 this thread was coming back lol

 

Haha I just had a funny thought. What would happen if they made games like call of duty consensual pvp. They would be like I dont want to shoot you I just like to walk around and explore.

 

That would be permadeath. You die and your account is deleted.

If we're not doing that, then it's silly to use realism as an argument.

If CoD had crafting, role-playing, book writing, dancing, putting on plays, and was a world simulation, that would be a perfectly reasonable request. Are you suggesting that SotA should drop everything but its PvP? If not, then CoD has no place in this discussion. We may as well talk about Sonic the Hedgehog for all the connection it has to SotA.

 

So... what are the points again? This has been going for so long, I don't understand what people are asking anymore.

But if the idea is to be able to pickpocket other players on the street and stuff like that... it is not going to happen. Let it go. Yes, it could be an interesting dynamic if done right, but I don't see it being done right, ever.

Problem is, real life isn't fun. If you want to play a luck and gambling game, than I understand your thrill, and it could be interesting. But if you want to have fun based on other people's negative experiences, you are going to have a bad time. As a rule of thumb, if you envision a PvP dynamic and you keep fantasizing of always winning, you are doing it wrong.

 

Actually, CoD — just like TF2, LoL, DotA2, World of Tanks, Counter Strike, Planetside 2, etc — is a consensual PvP game. Since there is no other reason, at all, to join a multiplayer game apart from PvP, then everyone that engages in PvP is obviously consenting.

Open world PvP in MMOs is different because those games often have PvE content out in the open. Thankfully, the vast majority of MMOs nowadays either don't have open world PvP at all, or else use some system — flags, instanced PvP, etc — to keep it consensual.

 

You really should check out some of the newer games coming out! Youll find that you are mostly wrong with that statement, you can also play against the computer with teams on most of those if you choose. kind of like with this game if you choose PVP you play that and cant touch PVE only, also the opposite if you choose to play PVE then you can do that without worrying about PVP. That is how this game is set up isnt it? theres really no reason to complain if you choose to go to PVP and get killed while playing there and lose stuff! You consented by picking that version of the game.

 

Well, there is always reason to complain if the game design is poor. The prospect of gambling in order to get better gear or resources is interesting. The idea of competing with other players for resources is interesting.
But I'm just too old to play with teenagers anymore. I'm not saying that PvP players are teenagers or behave like them, but the problem is that teenagers and immature people seem to have a love for griefing and pissing people off - this is what I don't want to happen. The thing is, if I enter a PvP zone and die, I expect to die because I was careless, or outsmarted or something like that. If I die for reasons that where unreasonably outside my control (like a bunch of pvp guys teaming up againt me), I will complain about it. Loosing gear is not really the problem, the problem is being punished by randomness, without having been challenged by the game - that is bad design.

And to quote my previous post...
What are the points again? This has been going for so long, I don't understand what people are asking anymore.

But if the idea is to be able to pickpocket other players on the street and stuff like that... it is not going to happen. Let it go. Yes, it could be an interesting dynamic if done right, but I don't see it being done right, ever.

 

Hi. Brand new here. And firstly may I say I am so absolutely STOKED! to have found this game and will be in on my next payday. Leave it to Lord British to have finally found a way to bring back the nostalgia of UO in a new way. All hail Lord British! **curtseys**

Ok, schmoozing out the way, on to the subject at hand. hehe. A little about me....I am a pve / crafter / decorator kinda gal and an early UO refugee from back in the day. I was one of those who quit the game because of pre-Trammel pks and griefers and only went back after Trammel. This is probably not the right place to say it but hey, it's my first post, ...early pre-Trammel UO was largely responsible for my intense dislike of pvp even to this day, 17 years later. If I'm not mistaken, the term ******** (being applied to non-pvp folk), was originally coined on the UO forums during the vicious pk vs ******** forum battles that went on back then. So....yes, I'm a ******** and I'm proud. It was also largely responsible for my firm conviction that it's a mistake to ever underestimate the ingenuity & cunning of griefers. If there's the tiniest little hole, they'll find a way to crawl through it. When I look at a new game, the very first thing I look at is how they'll handle pvp and whether the game is pvp-centric or not.

With that being said, I am about as pleased as I can be to see how this is being handled, and from all I've read so far, I have faith in this team already. I love the majority of what's stated in the OP and it seems very well thought out. Since it's stated that it isn't quite carved in stone yet I have a couple questions and a couple comments.

The part about the random pvp areas from meteors or volcanoes. That actually sounds pretty innovative, but I'm wondering how that will function exactly (if that's even been worked out yet. hehe). For instance, things that might concern me would be if I'm out gathering, for instance, and that were to happen in the area I'm in, would I be instantly flagged for pvp or would I have the opportunity to beat feet for another area?

On the ghosts......huge +1 to that. Ahh the nostalgia.

Having pvp and pve in the same world is fine and actually good in a lot of ways, not least of which is friends with different play styles being able to play on the same server. It worked just fine in SWG, (a sad loss to the gaming world when that one shut down), because the game mechanics prevented one play style from adversely affecting the other.

The death penalty sounds fine to me except I'm wondering about the loot/ransom part for pve. However you work it out for the pvp ruleset won't have any affect on me so I don't have an opinion on that one way or the other. For pve though, I really think that gear damage and xp debt would be more than enough deterrent to reckless play for most pve people. In fact for a lot of us, just the death alone is a deterrent, just because of our playstyle. But if it's something the team feels is really needed for one reason or another, then if a creature takes an item, would we be able to go back and kill the creature to get our item back? I would have mixed feelings on that too (see my comment above about griefers finding loopholes. lol). If the creature retains the item, I'd love to be able to get my item back, but on the other hand, would another player be able to kill it and take the item? Hate to say it, but that might lead to some very unpleasant situations down the line.

Anyway that's my 1834 coppers worth. I'm very much looking forward to playing within the next 2 weeks.

 

So, let's correct it: the only reason to even log into the PvP-enabled part of the game is to PvP, elsewhere the game typically doesn't allow PvP. This still makes the game a fully consensual PvP one.

(I'm aware that in some games, particularly those that have friendly fire enabled, there might be ways to attack fellow players and team mates in PvE multiplayer, but that not only is not intended it's often also considered griefing and might subject the player to penalties.)

As long as the game doesn't attempt to force or otherwise coerce PvE players to go into the PvP part of the game, sure. But my previous post was just an answer to the affirmation that CoD is non-consensual PvP (It's not) and to point that CoD is very different than world PvP in MMOs that allow it.

 

Most team based games would be categorized as consensual PvP because the game doesn't allow you to shoot your own team and the opponent is already flagged for fighting. This is no different from the PvP rules in WoW.

 

Restriction-This word should not exist in a RPG: Glory years of Ultima Online

 

@Abydos,

There were plenty of restrictions in UO.

 

Welcome to the forums and game Noctiflora! Lots to like here. I hope you find everything you are looking for.

Abydos...everything you do has restrictions, even the old UO had restrictions.

 

The fundamental truth is that PvP hasn't been fully designed or completed yet.

The ideas they are throwing around are that you can flag and unflag for pvp by talking to the Oracle, or some such thing.

Once that happens you can attack and be attacked by others flagged for pvp

There also might be zones that require you to be flagged for pvp even to enter.

So pvp is consensual; you can pvp in "non-pvp" zones, and you must be pvp'ing to pvp in "pvp" zones.

That's what the deep dive videos hint at. How it's actually implemented and works, we have yet to see, in the next couple releases

we will find out. Game is progressing, but now is the time to be vocal to make sure we can arrive at a consensus for how the game should work.

 

Welcome, Noctiflora.

I'm another that was chased from UO as you were. There are more of us finding SotA and the promise of wrongs righted here. Welcome. I too was one of the original Carebears, and wear the badge with pride. It is taken as a disparaging epithet here, though I know not why.

 

Those "Glory Years" were about 12% of the lifetime to date of UO.