The Glass is Half Empty - A look inside why people are opposed to Open PvP and Full Loot

I don't understand why it has to be one way or the other with no in between. Why couldn't there be a radio button to select your level of interaction with other (SPO, FPO, OPO) with a couple checkboxes to determine your level of risk (PvP, Full Loot). This would allow players to select how many people they want to interact with and at the same time satisfying peoples desires for added risk in the game. At that point, the selective multiplayer feature could take over for match-making based on your selections.

The "my way or the highway" routine is getting old on both sides. There are many possiblities for how the development team will address these issues.

 

These discussions are like trying to get a baby to sleep. You're always afraid someone is going to make a loud noise, laugh or do something and then the crying will start all over again. This baby needs some rest again so that it will be in a better mood when it wakes up!

 

Well I haven't said, PK Highway or get off the road... I don't actually think the PvP slider is going to be quite as diverse as I jest in my banners for example. To keep it simple for the programmers and the gamers both, the basic modes need to be there, and there needs to be a method of initiating PvP.

What the contension has been is what exactly that PvP is going to look like. Some may want pads, some may wan't sharper daggers. I think the in-between can indeed be taken care of, thieves can get quests to steal, smuggle, etc which could get them into light PvP. Arenas and guild PvP mechanics can be used for ppl who want to PvP in an environment without much of a bite to it if you die. Then the last bit, turning on PvP and walking out into the open and that is where my magic happens.

 

You mean like:

​

 

What your saying is the only way anyone will come ino a PVP mode is to dumb down the PK land.
No looting, not stealing, no collision, no traps, no spells like fire field that you can walk into and flag someone criminal. The list goes on and on.
Why would the UO players even bother playing if you remove these things.
You can have guild wars in your PVE land and follow the rules there if you don't want to lose anything and join a fight.

There is more then one way to get PVE players into PVP by the way besides dumbing it down.
How about we make you some armor and weapons, you can leave your gear at home, if your so afraid of losing things.
There could be types of pets, metal, wood, food, poitons, fish, etc etc etc that you can't get in PVE land.
I think I've hear placing short cuts across land that enters you into PK land.
Things like that might get PVE players in PK land but do not dumb down PK land so PVE players have more fun there.

Open PVP is about having fun messing with each other. Throwing walls around people, placing traps, pushing them off cliffs and watching them roll to the bottom.
We don't care so much about getting anywhere in the game, we just want to have fun playing it.

 

I can pretty much say that the only people would enable a mode that allowed for full looting PVP or allowed for them to be stolen from are PVPers and Thieves... and maybe the .1% of people who actually want the danger aspect of the game included. I see it in the same way as what happened with Trammel: you give people an easier road and they will more often than not take it. I knew some pretty hardcore PVPers in UO that lived in Trammel because it was safer for them when they weren't hunting down reds.

That being said, I believe there should be more than a few options when it comes to the slider, but I think they need to be smart with the way each option is handled. No one who doesn't want to PVP should be forced into it. As much as some people want it, this isn't UO. It will have PVP aspects, but it won't be the open "attack anyone" world that UO was and people need to come to terms with that. Richard came up with a brilliant way to get some people into PVP who otherwise wouldn't in making it quest based. I, for example, who will be playing a pure crafter, will always be going in harms way because I want the extra reward for doing so. By bumping up risk vs reward for quests, I think you'll be surprised how many people will choose taking the risk to get the bigger prize. There will be plenty of meat on the field for PVPers to eat.

My ideal slider would be something like this:
Single player - Single Player Online - Play with close friends - Play with friends / common interests - Play with friends & Strangers 25/50/75/100% - Play 100% w/PVP - Play 100% w/PVP Full Loot

 

Meh, it doesn't work without graphics.

 

You forgot "No fun"...

 

@Mystic I don't mind a in between mode.
But it is talk like "this isn't UO" that is bothering me.
Were just asking for a mode like UO.
The PVE/Story mode has pleased the fans of the single player ultima games.
I just don't know why so many are against a UO mode to this game.

 

You need to petition Capt. Sparrow for a BANNER that reflects your position on the "magicpvpbarsliderthingy(IM)". Do it right away!

 

Essentially. Maybe something like this (minus the quick and dirty layout):

 

I've never played UO and after looking at it on youtube I dont think i will at any point in the near future. However, I would limit the discussions to what you wish to see in Shroud of the Avatar. Don't bring up any other games at all, it leaves you wide open for anyone to pick a beef with anything at all which was ever wrong in their opinion in that game. Just keep it simple, your ideas and wishes for SotA and give clear examples. No need to bring up the past games at all, if we stop talking about UO then I think a lot of people would feel at ease. There seems to be a lot of bad blood there.

 

Given the economic impacts of Full Loot, that is, having seen how it negatively affects the economy over time ( with other missing required mechanics ) I won't personally promote it at this time.

But otherwise, sure, Koldar. Same thing, different layout. The Consensual-Only-PvP thing is engraved in stone, from RG's perspective, but there's no harm in asking.

 

If you look at old posts on this forum you will find as many who want UO as those who don't.
The reason to fight for UO is because the makers of that game are the ones making this game.

 

"this isn't UO" is a quote that is getting rather annoying. I just read an article from 2011 that stated RG was in talks with EA to work on UO2. Obviously those talks fell through, so he is working on the "spiritual successor" for UO. You can change the name of the game, but this is definately an Ultima game. To think that players wouldn't want all the good features of UO with the additions of modern gaming is just ignorant. Ultima Online became a lot less fun when they made Trammel. I was a hardcore UO player, it shaped me as a gamer, but the game lost it's magic when they split the world. Perhaps it was the fact that they just mirrored Britannia and expected us to like it, but it came off as lazy and just the quick fix to a complicated problem. They thinned out an already declining population, which hurt all players, regardless of playstyle. Coming up with totally new land masses, with a more clever mechanic to protect non pvp orientated players would have been better recieved in my opinion.

There has to be compelling PvP in this game, and there's no way around it. It's been 17 years, and the technology and innovation are there to make everyone happy. There has to be conflict and consequence in this world, or else you would be better served playing The Sims Medieval.

 

I understand where you are coming from, and kind-of agree. All that I am saying is that you can take any idea from any source and putit here in this forum, but you do not have to mention where it comes from. Want to PvP with someone, cut off their head, turn it in for $$ and dye your shoes bright green, then great! Suggest it, but dont tell anyone where it came from even if it is your most fav game ever. If the people making this game are the same who made UO, then it stands to reason you won't really have to talk about UO that much at all.

 

I agree with you completely on the consentual-only and full loot perspectives. I would personally never play something that involved full loot and non-consentual pvp...my free time is too valuable for such things. I'm just trying to find an even ground to end the irrational bickering.

 

All you lose is some regs, armor, weapons, potions, bandages.
Any of these could easily be replaced.
Why that would hurt the economy I don't know.

 

I agree. But any time someone mentions a mode for Open PvP, you get the same 6 people rushing in and yelling at them! Why cant Open PvP have their mode. I dont see anyone rushing in to yell at anyone that askss for "Single Player", or "Play with Friends only" modes.

Its distubing really.

 

You'll note my statements have the caveat of "with other missing required mechanics". I didn't type that by accident. Full Loot can work in theory, but it never has in practice, despite some very smart people trying very hard over many years to make it work.

As was demonstrated quite nicely in many other games that featured full loot..
When other players become the most attractive target, they become the only target worth hunting.

A simple example, with some math.
In a given unit of time, of whatever value, let's say you can obtain x resources by not killing players.
In a smaller unit of time, of whatever value, let's say you can obtain x*n resources by killing players, where n is greater than 1.

That's it.

If that is true, one of two things has happened, over time. (note, HAS happened, not MAY happen or MIGHT happen)
1) You lose all your victims.
2) You lose all your hunters, because there's not enough victims.

It has been demonstrated with every persistent multiplayer online game that has ever tried it. Sheep are too tasty for wolves to stop eating them. They kill all the sheep, and starve to death. It's not a story with a happy ending.
That game that Raph Koster was lead designer on, and Starr Long was Associate Producer? That game? It did this, for over 2 years straight. There was some mighty tasty sheep, right up until the last sheep died (left) and everyone stood around with their hands in their pockets, saying "Now what?"

The mechanic you're asking for, jondavis, has been demonstrated, directly, in the game you're asking to emulate, to fail.

But you know what, don't believe me. Believe Scott Jennings. Why? Because he says it better than me.