PvPers, would you play full-time on a full loot, open world PvP dedicated server?

It's not about "softening" pvp, it's about integrating it into a consensual system. Read the quote below from this interview with RG. This is exactly what they're trying to do with PVP and why.

https://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in/richard-“lord-british”-garriott-takes-us-deep-into-the-world-of-shroud-of-the-avatar-204054433.html

 

Separating players is probably the greatest flaw of multiple servers. The positive effects of two servers on the in-game economies outweigh these consequences (or so I'm trying to convince you). The problem with forcing players into a world where they cannot choose to be bound by the limitations of PvP is that PvP is reduced to a minigame. Sure, you can kill and die all the same, and you can even lose your loot, but that's where it ends. The other dimensions of the PvP economy, which demand crafters and other suppliers of goods, are stifled almost entirely by the ability to pass goods over the PvP flag.

The result of this, for PvPers, is a PvP-flagged life in which you only see other PvPers. From the outside, that seems great. You get to play your fighting game with other fighters. On the inside however, those looking for more than just Mortal Combat/Street Fighter/Smash, are left without. These people see no merchants, crafters, gatherers, and very few RPers, and at the end of the day, if they want to see such people, they have to turn off their flag and travel into the part of the game that dominates the economy. This is especially troublesome for crafters who wish to be flagged for PvP (as few as they are). In a separate server however, the economy is entirely bound by PvP, and so crafters and gatherers, although more vulnerable, are also more valuable and appreciated.

Also, my favorite part of that interview with RG:

RG: "But I actually think that when we split UO -- I was actually out of the company, so when they split UO into Trammel and Felucca, a PVP world and a non-PVP world, I think that that actually was the beginning of the end. At least it was the end of the growth of Ultima Online as a product. And so I actually am not a believer in the hard separation. At least from our one-time experience, I think it didn't help the growth of the community. However -- and here's the way I look at it too -- if you talk to almost anyone who liked UO, and ask them to tell you their favorite stories, it almost always includes some player-to-player griefing of some kind. It's almost always, like, "I'd finally gotten to this dungeon, I'd found all the gold I needed to and I was hauling it back, and suddenly some ruffians came in and try to take it all from me," and maybe they did take it, maybe they didn't, maybe you got a group together to go re-take it back from them, maybe you didn't, but some variation on that theme of players interacting with other players, while one of the players felt they were on an important mission, or reaching an important level of value or accomplishment, almost universally those are people's favorite stories."

 

To the OP, How the hell split the community will help in this game?
We need to stay together in the same world.

Like RG said:

 

How would what i have said reduce PvP to a mini game? All of the people who want pvp will be flaged, the non pvp crafter would be busy at work making armour for what I have lost. (Because honestly i still suck at pvp but i am still flaged) additionalaly I as a pvper can hire out for a non pvper to do a pvp risk quest for them as RG said. in my eyes this would enrich my pvp as well as my rp side not dimminish it. In the world their are always civilians sure their a bit more protected then the real world but on the other hand i run around and do a lot more fighting in game then i do in the real world....

 

Wow you would make a great politician. Seriously.

You can't just take bits from the topic and use it against me.

This topis is about 3 things;

1) Seperate Server for PvP
2) Full PvP
3) Full Loot

Its about those 3 things together, not seperatly. You can't just decide to take one of them out to defend the entire topic, it doesnt work like that.

It's as simple as this;

1) Seperate Server splits the population, nothing good ever came from that, ever. this WILL NOT happen, RG has been so clear on this so many times.
2) I dont oppose full pvp, aslong as it doesnt come together with full loot. Full pvp with partial loot is something i would play.
3) I dont oppose full loot, aslong as i can chose when i actually want to pvp. In general i support full loot in the game as it is NOW ( meaning if you flag pvp by choise and die you lose all your stuff. Excellent )

So you want full loot, thats fine - You want it that way and i won't say that you are wrong.

When it comes to other general things in this thread, There are thousands of views to this thread, a few voted, a handful of people actually wrote about it, and quite a few pvpers said NO to this idea.
So stop trying to represent " the pvp community ", or point fingers at everyone else.

People should state thier own opinion on how to make the game better, without trying to represent others.

 

well there's a game in kickstarter right now that will have PVP and permadeath. So you build you're own shard or cluster and see how many play it.

 

I HATH WRITTEN A NOVEL

A fair question, minus the part about what you said, since I don't think what you said would reduce PvP to a minigame (I like your suggestions).

What makes PvP meaningful, at least according to Prime Rib, is the effect that it has on the world. Hypothetically speaking, if PvP were limited to arenas without leaderboards, PvP would have no effect on the world, and would essentially be a minigame. That's not the case, and so PvP does have some value already in SotA, however while it may be able to affect the crafting world all the same, the crafting world's interactions with PvP are vastly changed by having a unified server.

The concise point here, the concern that comprises an important part of the endless circular PvP debate, is that, by allowing goods to pass from safe zones into dangerous ones, all but PvPers are forced out of PvP zones, regardless of their interest. So if a player wants to explore a dangerous dungeon and kill a dragon, they can, however they cannot do so while being flagged for PvP, without taking on extra meaningless risks (this is when PvP starts to look more like a minigame, because the PvP itself becomes a pointless risk). If a crafter wishes to RP an existence in which danger can come to him, he may do so, but only by accepting harsh penalties. Some of these penalties are inherent in any open-PvP system (being preyed upon, robbed, etc.), but others penalties, ones which I believe are far more severe, are only added when PvP is exclusively optional (being undercut by non-PvP crafters, watching resource nodes dry up by invisible non-flagged players, etc.). The option to flag is there, and nobody can argue that, but the choice is the same one we were given back in the High Renaissance (not the actual high renaissance, but the one that came at the turn of the 21st century): Trammel of Felucca?

We've seen the effects of the Trammel/Felucca split. The benefits included being able to see your friends without having to change server, and having a wider variety of players on one server. The consequences included a sort of soft-split, in which PvPers did their thing in Fel, and everyone else stayed in Tram. The current flagging system is the spiritual successor to the Tram/Fel solution, and encourages a worse divide between players than separate servers could ever accomplish. This divide is one in which PvP and non-PvP players still don't have meaningful interactions with each other (because no sane crafter is going to flag PvP just to be murdered, and no PvPer is going to unflag themselves for any meaningful duration of time), and yet can also propagate all of the negative side-effects of Tram/Fel, further separating players and undercutting crafters who would otherwise accept the risks of flagging.

So, who loses out here? The crafters/PvEers who would have flagged lose out, because their professions are more effective when unflagged. The PvPers who want the economy to reflect the PvP nature of the world (I'm looking at you Owain) lose out, because killing and looting your opponent doesn't have the same effect on a battle when that opponent can quickly rearmor himself buy purchasing gear from the myriad of unflagged crafters.

 

I guess i have missed something I dont see where you are coming up with invisible people who you will watch resources disappear and such from.... I see a lot of non flaged folks running around. I dont see myself as segregated as one who is flaged from the folks who are not....

 

I think it is yet to be seen what kind of incetives there will be to flag for open pvp.

 

Right now 47 have voted yes, even though I like the idea I would not play on a server with 47 player on.

 

i wasn't using it against you i just pulled out the statements you made that i had answers for! I also let you know, no matter what if there was a dedicated open full loot PVP server id be on that one, and not the current one!
As far as representing PVP community that is what i have done since day one, since it seems we are getting screwed, while the PVE gain off of us, Ridicule us, fight us tooth and nail, even though they themselves are not full loot open pvp or will ever go PVP!
Guild wars doesn't make up for PVP, duels don't make up for PVP, none of what they have come up with represents PVP! That i know, and my friends know (trust me i have a lot of PVP friends, half of them don't even post on the forums since they will be immediately attacked, reported, and banned we've played that game with the other side of the fence! Its old and it proves that PVE pretty much can say whatever they want, and get away with while us PVP cannot.
That in itself shows me that most of the devs don't want PVP and that's fine its their game ill deal with it! So don't tell me i don't represent the PVP community you have no idea! what i don't represent is the dumbed down, partial weak PVP, If you don't like full loot PVP, that's fine stay in your PVE world and deal with what you got there! I'll stay in mine and well be happy!

 

AoS was certainly the ruiner of UO, but Trammel also had (less) significant effects on the game (which were viewed between everything from perfection to destruction depending on who you ask).

 

Oh, I agree that creating trammel lessened uo in a sense, but it could not be avoided. Could it have been handled differently while maintaining the community, yes! However that ship has long since sailed.

I guess my point is that our ship is still being built. We need to stop focusing on the past, and work together towards our combined future. I love the thrill I get in a pvp zone, when I choose to go there, but it's my choice, I will choose to go regardless of the final loot decision, but we need to have civil discussion about such things, not angry rhetoric.

 

LL, if more PvEers were like you it wouldn't be so bad. Kudos for being rational and willing to listen to all viewpoints.

I still hate the idea of waiting until you feel perfectly safe and prepared to make the journey into PvP. The best moments are spontaneous and risky. However, i do agree that this topic is worth discussing and not completely decided like most of the opponents of this thread claim. Our ship is indeed still being built, and i believe SOTA can revolutionize the way PvP operates in a successful MMO. We need more thinking outside the box and less "my way or the highway" talk as represented by some "noblemen" above.

We've all read the quotes from Lord British, and we've all seen what the Devs have implemented thus far. But why on earth do these forums exist if they don't want to hear feedback from the very community they are trying to serve?

 

I'm going to go ahead and open this back up. I want to remind everyone to stay on topic and to be respectful of each other and to keep to the forum rules when participating in threads; especially when there are disagreements between views.

 

In my opinion .... full loot is mandatory within the concept of TRUE open-world sandbox MMO.

It brings tension, it makes you think, it help the economy, it emphasizes on skill........ Items should never be the main focus in this type of game (we have a lot of those already ......)

 

If we look at death, full loot would have a limited amount of time. Someone will resurrect eventually and all the items will be ripped away from the corpse to return to the resurrecting player.

This would make full loot a limited loot only if the number of items being looted takes less time to loot than it takes to resurrect.

Time based loot suggestion

This is why I suggest looting have a strategical factor. We know time is limited so what do we loot and do I need to post pone looting to defend myself from others.

The end result would be we have the option to loot anything on the corpse but realistically we can only loot a few items of our choice.

 

I am of the belief, and have been since day one that items/charcter building should be of equal importance. One should not negate the other. No one should replacing armour over and over during a play session, if that is what it takes to balance an economy you need to re look at the economy.

Since realism gets brought up a lot on these forums as a reason for full loot etc....you show me in history where a person was replacing his armor multiple times, let alone ever.(note this wouldn't work in game but it is a bit funny if you think about it.)

 

Not really possible since the position a person would need to be in to replace that armor is likely the position of "dead."

 

I think the argument for 'realism' is silly. I'll show you examples of using multiple sets of armor when you show me where "Corp Por" hasn't fizzled IRL

(c;

I'd also be curious to understand why you feel 'no one should be replacing armor' multiple times per day?