PVP & Death: Current Thinking Megapost

You seem to be under the impression that a game can be designed fundamentally identically for both PvE and PvP.
It can't. PvP is against other players, not against a preset challenge the game developers create. In order to "complete a story" entirely in player-versus-player mode, the villains and all encounters must be other players. The only way to do this is a) have the players create their own stories, which from what I can tell many WILL, including Owain and the KGB, in which case your argument is void or b) Portalarium would have to hire full-time staff to be villains in-game, and only upon defeating these hired players in-game would your "story" be completed (not going to happen).

I've been reading your posts throughout this thread and you continuously refer back to UO, a game that had literally no story. If you want this game to be like UO, then isn't this perfect? Guilds will form their own allegiances and enemies, developing their stories along the way, and you can play out your life however you like.

Please stop using the phrase "double standard". Double standard would be if there were "hardcore PvEers" in this thread insisting that they be able to go into PvP zones and max out their PvP level bar without having to do any PvP whatsoever. There are two types of people in this thread arguing back and forth that I see: people that consider themselves "hardcore PvPers" from the original Ultima Online release, and people that enjoy PvP in and of itself. There are no "carebears" here debating the "AWESOME ADVANTAGES" of limited PvP loot because they don't care.

 

Pay Ransom accept: On
Auto repurchase insurance: On

It's fire and forget. Can't see the difference, in name only.

 

Well, I can.

Insurance - Winner gets nothing and the loser gets their gear back after paying.
Ransom - Winner either gets piece of equipment or gold; loser loses gold and gets their equipment back, or they lose the equipment.

Totally different. The winner actually gets something with the Ransom system.

 

It's insurance that is paid to the victor. IF the cost of the ransom is controlled by the victim.

 

Of course not, we could engage and pull mobs when it's convenient. I just don't want mobs interfering with my PvP and breaking the immersion. Nothing worse than pulling an AI in the middle of an otherwise fair fight. In effect the mobs cause grief.

I can understand mobs in a PvP zone those areas are suppose to be much harder, but in the rest of the world if I'm flagged it should be my choice to draw Mobs.

 

I understand you and many others are disappointed, and I even sympathize why. But you are all in doom and gloom over something that is conceptual and completely undeveloped and untested.

I think the Devs have ignored no one which is why one might be doomed holding fast to system that had equal amounts of love and hate. If you have not heard this interview I recommend it:

youtu.be/DGknJPT-g-Q?t=7m21s

The reason? RG actually says splitting PVP and PVE could be an option if this system doesn't work; however, like everything else they want us to test out their idea to avoid that. That doesn't sound like they are ignoring people. Maybe they want their fans to be mature enough to let them do their jobs, and give feedback when there is actually a system to test.

I don't know. Maybe I am crazy.

 

It sounds to me like they will be using an algorithm to determine the ransom. Neither party will have a say in what that gold amount might be. Sure you can turn on auto-pay, but that is no guarantee that you will actually have the cash in the bank. Either way, the winner actually gets something for winning. This is a distinct departure from the insurance model.

• Loot & Ransoms: Our initial plan is when killed by another PVP player, a random item(s) is selected from the player’s inventory (50% equipped / 50% from inventory). The dead player is given a “Player X will take Y unless you pay a ransom of Z” where Z is based on the dead player’s level and the value of the item. You get the option to let them have the item, or pay the ransom. The ransom can be paid from bank funds (and possibly Guild funds). The default for this can be set to “Yes” if a player chooses. We also think that this exchange would have a 1 hour timer till it is final, so the dead player has time to assemble funds. For group PVP, this would use the same sorting algorithms as party loot. We want to explore various options that include providing the killer a list of items to choose vs. selecting only one and/or varying the number of items based on circumstance (i.e. Blessed PVP players might be able to loot more from each other). We will have to put in checks to keep people from gaming this system by loading their inventory with worthless items or running around naked except for reagents. One possible check could be that if there is no loot of X value the loser automatically has to pay ransom.

 

That's an understandable concern which I had never even considered. Of course, being the story driven type, the idea of a group of monsters attacking in the middle of your duel, forcing you to break off and deal with the immediate threat (with the possibility of some dishonorable backstabbing in the mix) seems pretty darn cool; but I see how it wouldn't be from your perspective.

 

Actually, last time I saw, the idea was to use the instancing system to send PvP players and PvE players to different instances. In other words, unless this has changed since then, the idea was for PvPers to not even see PvE players and vice versa.

 

Then you could farm without much fear of pulling unwanted adds. Doesn't that mean that it would be much easier and hence unfair? Pulling a single dragon at a time in Destard would be sweet (to fall back on UO again)! A PvP group could farm them all day and be safe from other PvP folks due to the size of their group....

Seems a little bit too good a deal to me.

 

But that wouldn't be the case... The victim only gets to chose whether to pay the ransom or not!
In the proposal I included in my summary, the victor actually gets a say as well, they can increase the ransom, with the knowlegde that it is double or nothing... Yes they get to increase the potential amount they can receive in ransom, but if the victim decides that the ransom is not worth it, they get the victor's money instead, and the victor gets to keep the item... Risk and reward on both sides!

 

It mght not be developed but they have already said what want has no chance at all if getting implimented so they likely only listen to those they agree with

 

I hope this is still the case. There is just too many exploits to worry about if you have PVP and PVE people in the same zones. If not in the same zone then no exploits to compensate for. Not to mention I don't want to see the same flame wars in game that we do on the forums.

 

The cost of insurance can just as easily exceed the quantity of gold the player has.

What is the point of a ransom, a real world ransom? To get cash, would be one reason. It's not to keep the item being held for ransom.
What is the point of a ransom in SotA? To give the victim a chance to keep their items. Not for the victor to take the item.

That's insurance.

 

Why do you insist on glossing over the fact that the victor actually gets a reward with Ransom? They don't get that with insurance, they get nothing! Ransom ensures that 'to the victor goes the spoils'.

• Ransom in the real world (which doesn't really apply here) is to get cash, and the winner holds an item for ransom and either gets cash or gets the item to sell.
• Ransom in SotA is designed so that one party (the victor) is guaranteed to win one way or another and the loser loses something one way or another.

Your argument ignores the differences of the systems over and over again.

 

My argument is what if the player does not want gold, they want the item, they can not increase the ransom to break the auto pay nature of the victim. As long as the victim has enough gold to cover the ransom the victim is insured against the loss.

 

...but they get gold instead. They get something which is way better than nothing. Ransom > Insurance for that fact alone.

It might still need tweaking, but as is it works way better and ensures that the winner of a fight actually gets something for their efforts.

For some weird reason you keep thinking of this as some sort of win for the loser of the fight. They lose gold or they lose items in addition to the fight. They don't get away free and clear. If you are trying to steer this back to full loot, then I think you might be barking up the wrong tree. I am willing to bet that it's never going to happen.

I did suggest something similar to your idea, where the ransom is paid, but the item in question can then be withheld. The winner gets the gold and the item, but get a criminal flag for a time. Gives those PvP guys a target to go after.

 

It may need balancing. Maybe they will have a PvE mega thread.

 

That was one of the possible approaches, though it was mostly built entirely on speculation, not on anything officially detailed.

The devs appear to be going with the integrated approach instead, as noted in the second paragraph in the original post.

This is also supported by the fact that parties can contain both PvP and non-PvP players (though once partied they take on the flag of their leader). How would one create a party with differing flagged players, if neither side can see each other ?

 

The ransom system to me sounds bad mostley because money has never had much value in MMOs and I'm going under the assumption that the ransom will be way to low for my taste and I think others belive this aswell but we may be completley off and it might not be worth to pay the ransom even (though that doesnt sound likley)
We'll just have to wait and see.

I saw someone saying that if you could only see Pvpers you would see 60ish people, I think you are highly understimating how many of us seek the thrill ^^