SoTA, UO & The Missing Core Element: "Risk"

I have seen many discussions on these boards where people have their own take on what would be the perfect dose of pvp and its interaction among players in the world Richard and his team are currently building. I believe most people forget what drives them to want a UO-like combat (pvp, pk) system implemented in an era where most games don?t carry such essence - leaving a long trail of empty and tasteless titles..

Such term is called "risk" ? in other words, the excitement for the actions the unknown and unexpected may bring in one?s adventure. Such mechanic greatly aids to keep in-game elements very dynamic and refreshing over time.

Risk plays a big role in a journey that might turn out dangerous. Such setting sparks the very essence of risk related conditions one might encounter in one?s journey. That's what most games today don't offer and people thirst for the "missing chapter" of essential game mechanics that are bound to reality concepts... The excitement, the surprise, the unexpected.. A player driven dynamic that belongs in the realm of human interaction. Risk complements adventure to its very essence... An adventure without risk, from a humble point of view, can feel rather pale and unappealing.

This player driven dynamic also involves in-game moral values. This is the part of the story where "heroes" rise to defend the oppressed. Where the hunt for those who enjoy abusing the ?weak? starts.. And as far as I can see, Richard's mechanics thrive at monitoring the avatar?s behavior, giving purpose to its actions, and rewarding one?s moral decisions ? effectively mimicking karma-like dynamics. This concept brings a sense of ?reality? that fulfills the adventure of the avatar while in his epic journey. This is just a part of the core that forms the fundamentals of Ultima and its forgotten essence..

Risk brings purpose and it enriches the game in ways its own AI mechanics can't fulfill for it is an element that comes from human interaction... A controlled environment where there is no risk provides a lack of purpose, which can be fulfilled with other lesser forms of enjoyment such as the gear grind that many developers have opted out to pursue, tends to get repetitive very fast, and becomes unappealing with ease.

Risk can also serve as a catalyst towards gear control and pvp balance. Most games today are gear-driven (providing an end-game purpose to the combatant), a mistake the industry has made, which may encourage a mindless and repetitive interaction between the player and the game while grinding away. Please, don?t get the wrong impression. Gear must be appealing, no doubt, as it is part of the elements that bring "purpose" and reward to the whole experience. However it also needs to be controlled to not overpower avatars (or become the avatar?s purpose for existence) and this is where risk excels.

Yes, players can gather pretty decent gear and use it (vanquishing weapons, bone armor, etc..) but one must also be ready to risk it in the event of death. If the avatar wants the extra benefit that comes with it, the avatar must understand that there is a chance to lose it. This analogy brings a greater sense of value to superior quality gear besides its own nature. This dynamic in itself may aid to level the ground a little and suggest people to go out hunting with lesser quality gear, which is easier to obtain, while engaging in combat. Hence, effectively balancing gear use (just like linear progression thru skills rather than level based characters).

Moreover, at the same time this type of mechanic encourages diversity, more in-depth analysis and tactical consideration before mindlessly engaging in combat because ?skill? plays a bigger role. Of course, one may choose to mindlessly engage in combat with one best?s gear but one will be responsible for the actions one takes such as losing it. It is all about ownership of one?s actions and the risks involved with those actions ? strangely linked to the moral action system of the avatar.

Risk indirectly balances gear use (to an extent), allows skill to be more substantial in combat and provides a greater sense of value as it is not taken for granted.

Risk? a critical element of game dynamics that has been overlooked for at least a decade in the game development industry. It is a genuine hope that Richard and his team rescue this critical ingredient that many have long forgotten.

 

It's not really about risk. There's no risk. There's two issues.

1) Negative emotions suck as fear, uncertainty and doubt wind up to create tension. When this releases, it creates thrill. Some people like playing for thrill.

2) When something is difficult it creates a barrier. Not everyone can achieve this and pass the barrier. This gating of content provides a small reward for some people to push themselves really hard and to do otherwise uncomfortable things.

Most players don't actually enjoy either of these. If you want a game with a million players, you need to provide a tremendous amount for the 90% of "casuals" who simply don't care. And see these things as the opposite of fun.

I've certainly played games in the top few % and other games only casually. Both groups need to be able to live in harmony.

 

+1 PrimeRib.

This has been discussed over and over, and this really belongs in the PVP forum rather than General Discussion.

People have different opinions on Risk. PVE can be a risk or even venturing off your farm. In most cases on these forums, Risk has been used by PKers to convince non-PK/PVPers to become sheep and allow themselves to be slaughtered. I understand the benefits of "risk" in this context, but I have never been a fan of forcing this on players that don't want it.

Most of what happened in UO was unintentional. Being the first MMO, Richard has discussed the fascination and horror of witnessing what users did in the game. Today, however, most games have learned this lessons and either gate PVP or provide an advertised PVP-only environment. Why? Because the average person does not pay a month fee or dedicate their time just to be mugged or have some random encounter cause them to lose everything. This is a game and if you do not have fun you leave. So games either separate user communities in PVP/non-PVP shards/servers or only cater to one of those 2 playstyles.

SOTA will be different and if you want risk you will have it and if not you won't. There is no good reason to try and convince the other side otherwise. We can all find examples of games we don't like that we think are watered-down, don't provide risk and that fail our personal expectations or desires; however, many of those games are successful and make tons of money. Its hard to say these games are doing it wrong even if you don't have fun playing them. It just means as the "hardcore" gamer group becomes less dominant games are less likely to cater to how we want to play. The games that do will be less funded, make less money and probably not be around as long. I have been hoping KS will at least allow games to be made that meet a smaller audience for filling those gaps, but its still a struggle as I am sure Portalarium wants to make money too.

 

As always I believe Umbrae is right.

In addition I think SotA is bringing together the best possible combinations of game play into a single game. Risk or whatever you want to call it, ultimately comes down to how you want to play, and not only will you find it you will have a high likely-hood to encounter other players looking for the same thing.

SotA's selective multi-player model will no doubt do a great job creating the game play we are all looking for. Keep in mind, some people may just want something as simple as decorating their house, and playing SotA Farmville (which will be available to those players too).

 

I played UO at launch and then promptly quit because of said risk.

I'd spent a week on tailoring, raising money to buy a sword and armor. I'd leave town and would promptly get killed by a group of PKers. They'd loot my corpse and steal everything. My meager attributes would atrophy. Then I'd spend another week tailoring to raise money for a sword and armor and repeat the process.

I'm not sure I ever got a kill a single monster in that game having played a few months. And with the skill/attribute caps, I screwed myself with a trade skill and experimenting with other things, because it was at the direct opportunity cost of being able to learn combat skills.

I had runes to travel safely between towns, but literally never got to experience going into a dungeon.

So I joined a guild. They gave me a suit of loaner armor and we went out as a group, and then our entire group was taken out by a group of PKers and promptly killed. The guild then told me I owed them a replacement suit of armor that was far more expensive that I traditionally bought in my previous ventures out of town.

At that point I simply quit the game and never looked back.

I've heard for years people exclaiming the true open world PvP in UO was unparalleled and people hoping for a return when PvP had risk and consequences. My experiences were poor that I basically never played another MMO until SWTOR.

Risk is fun when you're grouped with other powerful PKers and you're abusing/griefing new/weak players. It isn't fun on the other side of the coin.

If a game isn't fun, then I don't pay for it.

 

@enderandrew - I had a similar experience. I was in UO in the alpha and beta. Back then my dial up was horrible and UO would not run, so I mainly played on my weekend job working for an ISP in tech support. It was wonderful on a T1 circuit I must say.

I will say the Alpha was fantastic. Maybe this was before they enabled PVP because I do not remember anyone attacking another player. There was very little to do during the alpha and it was a big deal when they added a test quest which involved pulling a level that opened a door leading to a small dungeon and its prize, a flaming mace. I was never able to play this quest. It has a line longer than any disney world ride and I could never wait it out. However, I did have fun chatting and RPing with other player in line.

Toward the end of the beta, the release date was announced. Many of us were angry because we felt the game was not ready to launch and there were many bugs left to fix (not to mention the free days were over ). I think there were just a few weeks left in the beta, and I logged in as usually over the weekend while I was working. When I logged in all the merchants were gone and everything was looted. As I left the town I was approached by another player who chatted nicely with me for a few minutes until a few of his buddies came up and killed me without warning. I was naked without a living merchant in sight with no choice but to log out. This happened the next weekend as well, and I decided this was definitely not an experience I wanted to pay for.

Don't get me wrong. In NWN, I played on tons of PVP servers and mostly played evil characters and provided people with a villain to hunt. I understand the thrill of PVP and PK, but in NWN PVP servers were voluntary and there were plenty of non-PVP servers for those that didn't want it. The rules vary from full loot to permadeath. No body liked getting killed, but it was a choice to be there and the rules were known. However, this is not for everyone and everyone has a different idea of fun and risk vs reward. I just have no desire to kill people randomly that do not want this kind of game.

 

Primerib:
Thank you for your opinion on the subject but the element of "risk" does exist.. However, it depends on how you define it..

Umbrae/Isaiah:
I am sure the developers will attempt their best to balance the "risk" element I tried to define in my original post. Again, I feel that most games today are missing this concept (everything is taken for granted - making the game feel just... empty and too bland)and lack substance. Also, risk involves many other points not just the pvp part.. in UO if you died and weren't able to go back to your corpse on time, even in PVE, your stuff was gone - I don't want to provide the wrong impression that this subject is about a Pker vs Pbear because it is not.. It aims higher than that.. We have to zoom out and look at things from a more general point of view.

Enderandrew: I am sorry you had such a terrible time in UO and that you were not able to enjoy it. It was without a doubt a great game and so far, very unique. To me personally, it was a lot of fun and I wasn't a Pker myself (as a red murderer - At times, I would become a criminal depending on the situation) but I did love hunting PKers. Those were the best times.. I also enjoyed fishing, doing cartography, selling my goods thru my vendors, property hunting, taming, etc.. But there was something about seen a "red" and hunting him down. Or while hunting, seen a "red" approach and knowing that I was in big trouble and likely would lose everything (like the ore I had just mined in the last 30 minutes.. hehe). That kind of experience I have not been able relive anywhere else.. Perhaps it is what primerib mentioned.. the "thrill..." but there was the risk element that personally gave me the spark of excitement and purpose. It made things have more meaningful.. Every action had meaning.. and even after defeat, it tended to be a good experience(yes.. even after losing all my stuff.. - frustrating at times no doubt but looking back now.. it was priceless) And trust me, there were times when I would die over and over again hunting Pkers.. But I would also kill many and collect their wrong doing spoils.. I guess my risk/reward ratio was decent enough to make my experience enjoyable. There was a sense of gratification and "justice" that made my avatar who he was..

Administrator/Mod: Would you mind moving this thread to the Combat/PVP forums? It seems I have placed this matter in the wrong place. Thank you for your support!

 

These are all great postings. I quit UO for a while after starting out and not being able to do anything outside of a town due to PKers who taunted you, said you were crap and how great they were for killing a new player.

The PvE/PvM Trammel was the BEST thing to happen to UO (even though I did not like the duplicate Britannia landmass). It gave me a choice and after I was more established I did try PvP once the rude l33t Pvpers left. PvP was fun at that point, but PvE/PvM won out for the majority of my time. If it were not for the Tammel ruleset, I would never of came back.


LordG

 

Thanks for the clarification, Grimric. I do agree with that. Most games focus on tapping repetitive on the pleasure sensors of the brain. The gambling industry perfected this and most modern MMOs and Social games use these techniques. Risk does need to exist.

I would definitely like to see aspects of risk in SOTA. I did like the ghost system in UO, but honestly never liked loosing your stuff. I am fine will dropping consumables, salvage and currency, but permanently loosing things I have grown attached too depresses me. I played several servers in NWN like that and it made exploring too stressful; especially when my availability to play diminished as I became an old fart with too many kids.

Dark Souls is my favorite example of risk vs reward done right. I had some soul crushing events in that game, but progressing felt fantastic. It would be nice to having something similar in SOTA where when you venture out you will drop your "knowledge" of your adventure when you die, and reclaiming your body would recover it. I know there is at least one Dark Souls fan on the Dev team, so who knows...

In NWN some of my most memorable moments were failures, so I hope to have many in SOTA as well.

 

A few of my friends have described the Death Penalty in Dark Souls as:

"Essentially, nothing but time if you can make it back to the point where last died (sometimes easier said than done). Otherwise you lose your soul loot.

But given the game's souls are far more easily farmed via known farming exploits, the souls you have while making actual, earnest game progression are negligible; thus a penalty really is non-existent. It's more an annoyance through the agency of onerous time-wasting than anything else."

They basically said it was a joke. I honestly have not played the game, but I don't like what I've heard about their system. Just seems to be a time sink.

 

I don't wish to pull people into situations they don't like, but I personally love the idea of taking risks. I'm not that great of a PvPer. I lose most of my fights and I'm fine with that. The thing is, I love that intense feeling of being in a genuinely hostile or risky area. I like to look over my shoulder and wonder if someone is hunting me or if I'm about to walk into a trap of some sort. I like to grab the valuables and then start running like mad back to a safer place. The PKers that everyone seems to hate are the people that create the most interesting and fun content for me. I like to fight them, run from them, sneak past them, and even socialize with them.

For this game to have staying power for me, I need that risk. I hope there is a filter in online play that will constantly mark me for pvp, and give all players a reason to come to my game to cause trouble and havoc. Its what keeps me interested and on the edge of my seat. I'm probably the only willing "sheep" around but I find a lot of fun in trying to outsmart "wolves".

 

I think judging what SoTA will be like is very, premature.

Chris has suggested that for fun they might allow open pk/pvp for the last week of alpha, and possibly beta too, or for a day between player wipes.

If enough people think that is awesome and really enjoy and they test it further, they might do something like that. protecting those that don't want to do it (single player online, friends only online, and pkparadise vs no pvp ever flag)

We just don't know what they'll end up doing for certain, or what we will decide we enjoy, and we certainly don't know what risks we'll be facing, as we know it so far just using your best weapons/armor will turn into a risk as you can't afford repair bills, and a risk of enhancing a weapon could destroy it.

Until we actually get in and play it I just don't know how you can pre-form an opinion on what is acceptable risk. If getting and keeping a good weapon is very difficult, like 60 hours spent to finally get it(supremely enhanced, rare weapon), and then you have to use it judicially so your repairs don't make it too expensive to keep, and you then risk losing it easily, you'll say that is too much risk.

 

Umbrae: I very much enjoyed the ghost mode in UO and I hope it is brought into this game. I never got tired of the "oOOoOoOOoo" texts.. Also, I see your point about getting attached to things your avatar carries but that is exactly what made UO beautiful to me.. You could get gear by crafting it yourself or hunting it and after a small amount of time you would have enough to go out and pvp. If you were to lose 2 or 3 sets of lesser/average gear, it was not the end of the world. Why? Because the time spent getting those items was minimal compared to today's "corporate grind" games. That is what I meant with developers making the end-game all about gear.. Of course.. if one spends 6 months getting a set of gear from some crazy instance, that you can?t even hunt alone, you wouldn?t want to lose those items.. On the other hand.. if you spend 1 to 2 hours crafting a set to go out and pvp and you lose it, it is not that bad.. it is replaceable.. and if you spend say 5-18 hours getting higher quality gear, then one will think about wearing it because of its value and time spent getting it, however, it would give one an edge when pvping.. but there is a risk of losing it. One risks and gambles on that advantage to take on an enemy (either pve or pvp) but it makes the whole experience more meaningful.

Zook: I couldn't have said it better.. Good way to put it. That's the essence I am talking about. Not just to run but to fight back too. It made the game very dynamic and fun.

Sir Mishri: You made me laugh so hard when you wrote "PKparadise" - I don?t know why but I found it funny. Regarding your points, the risk factor I am addressing in this thread is mostly about what was experienced in UO and hope to see in a very palpable form in SoTA. I am just saying that most games today don?t have it and it makes them very dull. Hopefully they can introduce this "risk" in a way that works for most people. Systems that support gear that needs 60 hours of game play (say.. per piece..) to get or huge groups of people like 40-man raids, from my point of view, is a system that supports gear as end-game - this is where the industry has gone wrong. It seems as if the whole purpose of playing is to collect gear and then gear and then more gear.. Because of games like that is why people are most afraid to lose stuff. The reason is focused on time spent getting "x" item vs. time spent losing it. Obviously, most people would be against such system, myself included. I rather have a game where you can get really great gear by yourself, if you have the means, within a day or lesser gear within minutes/hours than games that feed on the endless grind of min/maxing stats and focus gear as the sole purpose of existence in that game. I hope Richard and his team make this game with adventure as the end-game.. and ?combat gear? just as a component and option to have during combat. Quality will matter but it should be achievable way faster and easier than what most people have come to know in recent years. If all the variables align correctly, the system can work well but it will depend on the focus of the game. I personally believe that going back to the roots of UO will be a game changer for today's industry.. And I wouldn?t be too surprised if this type of game is to be even more popular than ever before (even UO). The reason why I think there is a great potential for this outcome is because there is a notorious ?general? impression that most people are just sick and tired of the same mold that has plagued games that have followed the ?Everquest mold.? I think this is truly a great thing and I am glad Richard?s UO template was not tarnished over the years. I think the reason why this is the case is because games such as UO, where the world breaths and interacts with the avatar, are much harder to make than eye-candy, gear driven, interaction-less games that leave an awkward feeling of senseless purpose?
Ok time for me to crash.. I can barely think anymore and got to wake up in 5 hours. Good night!

 

I think it has been talked to death on here that PVP does not equal risk. Risk can be made with any thing in the game, sure PVP gives a form of Risk but it is no more valid then any other play style.

People who don't want the PVP in their game aren't saying, "Hey we don't want any risk." They just don't want to deal with the a lot of the problems that come from the PVP side of risk. It changes the game in many more ways then just having human opponents. When a walk between towns becomes a trail of attacks from random people it becomes less an rpg and more a arena style combat game or battlegrounds. It doesn't fit into the storyline if everyone you meet outside of town are bloody murderers.

I'm all for risk, but there is more then one way to create risk.

 

I stated this in another thread, but this constant "RISK" element may be fun and exciting, but I have developed a chronic anxiety disorder over the past few years, and even though I really like PvP I may have to opt for a less stressful form of gaming.

The Ultima games always teased the mind, and caused you to think and use your imagination. I don't recall much risk or stress scenerios in the Ultima games except for UO due to PvP. So risk is definitely not necessary to make a good Ultima. I doubt I will stay away from PvP completely because I'm very competitive, but to look over my shoulder every time I log in will not be good in the long run for me especially if I play a lot.

So not everybody who wants pure PvE options are against PvP. I love it, but I want another option. It is just a game and I'm glad this game will most-likely please both camps.

 

@Gunga Din - You could say they same thing about full loot in UO. Most "penalties" are just time. In NWN you lost XP (on most servers), so you just have to farm more.

In Dark Souls you have "Souls" and "Humanity". Souls are like currency and you can buy items and skills with these. There are also a few other used, but Souls is basically like gold. Humanity is like and item you use. The number of humanity you hold give you benefits, you can use it to become human (which is when PVP comes into play) and you use it to kindle campfires which allow you to rest.

When you die both of these are lost. Souls can be easy to regain by farming and that part is true. Dying only truly a time sync, and if that is all you care about then there is not much of a barrier to brute for through the game as the undead. Humanity is much harder to come by.

I guess it depends on how you play. I don't use exploits, so I found it much more difficult and staying alive and staying human was a great challenge.

 

What Zook said.
And to add with that, risk is a big part but for me at least it tells me something about who is playing.
Killing and looting a NPC does not mean much but when players kill and loot other players I know this is not the guy on what on my friends list.
It separates the good from the bad and also allows people to do more good in the game.

 

@Umbrae : I just want a different option than a time sink. The more I read about Dark Souls, the more I realized that to keep you playing they just created a Loop of dying and farming souls. Thats basically the game.

Can you come up with penalties that don't cause time sinks? Do we even need penalties?

Over the years I got sick of time sinks interrupting my playing time. As we all get older, we don't have the same amount of time to wait out debuffs, farm souls back up, run back over an area I just cleared (clearing it again), doing some underworld quest after each death etc.

So give me penalties that don't cause time sinks or waste what little time I have to play at night.

Example:

How about a ratio of kills to deaths? Seems to work in shooters. You don't want to die because it lowers your ratio. Have it visible for others to see as well. PvE or PvP based.

If I have some stat on my character sheet tallying up my deaths, that could be a penalty of pride, but not cause me to play time.

In Lotro, you received a title every 5 or 10 levels, that you progressed in the game, without dying. Maybe have an achievement system. Just throwing stuff out there.

Whatever the penalties, they can't take away from the enjoyment of playing with your friends.

Suggestions?

 

Negative. I want death to be a brutal and cruel punishment. WoW is at the point of no risk no time sink for dying. It trivializes it. There is no motivation to staying alive other than so I can finish killing what i'm attacking. The worst thing it does is makes you run back to your corpse from a nearby point.

I want people to fear for their lives... this aint no super mario bros.

 

I think that is the type of thing that can and will drive people away from the game.

Though they could offer an "Ironman" mode on single player with one save slot and permadeath for those who want that level of risk.