Wandering guards for the criminals

There is a difference between role playing consequences for a particular player style, and consequences that punish a player for adopting a particular playing style. There should also be consequences for defending the Virtues, for that matter.

 

If I openly practice magic in a culture that considers it evil, I'd have to be damaged in the head to not expect my neighbors to come inflict consequences on me. The benefit of breaking the rules is that you don't have to live by them, you get to take what you haven't earned. You don't also get to expect the law abiding citizens to give you a chance to enjoy what you've stolen.

As for all "us" PvE ers ending up with a boring game when the "real" PvP ers bail, think again. What "we" would end up with is a game that didn't have a group of annoying jerks in it, ruining our fun. Because that's how the PvE crowd SEES the non-consensual PvP crowd. Given that with the slider, or a similar mechanism, most primarily PvE players will NEVER EVER EVER SEE a primarily PvP player, I really, REALLY don't think that any of them would NOTICE if the PvP crowd you refer to quit playing. I also really, REALLY doubt that they would find the game somehow lacking as a result.

 

Jesus, the attitude. We could replace the word PvP in your posts with "irl murder" or "nuclear explosion" and the post would make more sense then.
"never ever oh god, jerks, never never!"

Unless RG is somehow aimed at creating top tier PvE content with no full loot and lvl-based items that will last for years (like WoW) I don't see how you guys are going to last in this game without any real challenge or consequences to choices.
UO was great because all the players regardless of their playstyles had to exist in the same word and learn to survive and prosper.
As soon as this feature was taken away an Tram was introduced, UO became nothing.
UO was great not because you could feed your horse or cast Polymorph, or kill spiders in the dungeon. It was great because it simulated a real society in many ways.

Also, I got a little concern about SotA:
If after the game is launched it turns out that "the pvp dimension" is only full of hardcore PvPers hardened by years of Quake and Counter-Strike, I guess I'm gonna abandon this ship. I'd wait for a few months of course, but if I see that the only people I meet are veteran pvpers armed to the teeth like it's World War 3, meh. I have Quake and Battlefield installed, so why bother?
We'll see. I don't have much hope that people like me, who like to RP in an Open PvP world will get what they want, but I can't be sure. After all, I dont know how many of us are out there. I suppose we need at least 3,000 people of our type to have somewhat frequent encounters and much action. And Im not talking about leet cutthroats. Im talking about people who like to RP in an Open PvP world.

 

It's extremely difficult for me to comprehend how people that state that their favorite style of gaming is one filled with strife and strugle can't adapt? Why are "hardcore PvP" players so concerned that they will be "ignored" or face the people that "want to and are ready to PvP" - are you not looking for a challenge? or just for easy kills? this is not a troll - but everything I have read in these forums leads me to these conclusions (when I first got on these forums I thought it was nonsense that people "needed" sheeps but now it is very aparent that I was mistaken)

 

Players should be the only ones outside cities and villages that chase PK:s.

Guards outside cities is another huge step towards trammel or even worse it is making the potential felucca in SOTA trammelized.

 

We want a challenge, not an empty world with a few hardcore trigger happy mass murderers, augmented by scripts (like Razor and Pilot in UO). Trust me, I was one. I could recharge my fukiya while drinking a potion while dismembering 3 bodies in the vicinity all at the same time.

But most of all, we, the guys who experienced the true UO, want it back. No matter what others say, no matter what kind of game SotA turns out to be. We want the same feeling of being a part of a simulation of real life in a fantasy medieval setting, and nothing less than that.

It was not PvP that made UO special. It was all the aspects of the game blended together, PvP being only one of them (and an important one!) Remove one or two of those aspects - and the perfect system falls apart, turns into a wow-like grindfest at best.

I know that many people for one reason or another won't agree with me. But that's what I am. UO shaped my MMO gaming mentality and there's no going back. I can't play WoW, i can't grind levels. I can't farm dragons all day in a non-pvp environment and pretend that by doing this I am having fun or doing some good Roleplaying.

 

The problem is that the player base model ( player base punishment) serverly handicaps the "people that need to be protected (sheep in PvP talk)" when the "protectors" are not playing ... also these "protectors" have "red" accounts .... read into what you will - if the devs are interested in creating an environment that will trully encourage everyone to PvP they WILL not create an evironment that facilitates a captive audience effect

 

@ templarassassin - even though I was a founder for UO - I did not play it after a month into it's creation because life took me in another direction - I also appreciate the love of the game - and trust me I am looking for good PvP - I have actually found PvP lacking - I WANT a CHALLANGE - I'm not looking for people to who can not defend themselves (even though I usually do not seek fights) ... having siad that .......

Many people that are advocating for the original UO flavor of PvP are not trully explaining why they enjoy/have fun palying it ---- in fact I think they have been doing a good job of turning people away from PvP ...

I guess what I'm trying to say is that - explaining what PvP has to offer has to be more than "needing" someone to "protect you" (mafia) ... "kill on site" or "take peoples stuff" ... I'm not sayinf this ti get people riled up --- but unfortunately these are the arguements that have been laid out ...

Why I like PvP is because humans present a harder challenge - not for competing - but because it's un-predictable (that's what I like - it presents a challenge) - also because it's unexpected - and also becasue it actually means something to me (at least) .... it's not about looting - it's about stepping up and either handling business or being savvy enough to scape (but that's just me)

although I'm being redundant (and also stating that I'M NOT AGAINST PvP) I just think that concentrating on how PvP can be fun and arguing for that would make a stronger case and make this game that much better --- so bring ideas to that effect as appose to re stating what UO was ( been drinking a little, I'm sorry if I'm not that clear)

 

Just cause you havent read it dont mean it havent been written.

Many old UO players here have described why felucca PvP was fun.

 

You can look at this from 2 perspectives.


Another problem is if you cater to much for the ones that want to "try out" PvP then you wont cater for the ones that want to play a open PvP, full loot and risk vs reward game.

Creating a game that make them feel left out is in no way any better and wont bring SOTA any closer to be the success we all want it to be.

 

I understand perfectly your point of view Margard, and share3 it fully. I, too, appreciate the random and unpredictable challange that an encounter with another human being presents compared to a predetermined scripted computer rutin generated mob.

I don't mind doing a little PvE (emphasis on "little", meaning occasionally and not a lot), a little crafting and gathering mats, etc...etc... but the thrill of a random PvP encounter is the most challanging of all! That said, I am not seeking to gank n00bs and looting them of their items and gear.
I'm sorry if I'm coherent and clear, I haven't been drinking except for a pot of coffee. Any confusion is most likely on the reader's part.

 

Would be neat if the types of games played were based on region such as some games being more popular in the main city than in a city 100 miles away so they both do different types games. Maybe a city like Rome has a PVP arena of sorts where people can bet on "gladiators".

not against this style of game - if they design it, ill play it - basically all i'm saying is that so far we have heard 4 points for PvP - full loot, risk of loosing loot, kill on site, excitement of battle ... nothing wrong with that; i personally would like to hear more ideas from the experienced PvP community that many of you are ... I want a great PvP experience but if its just running around looking for fights i will get bored (this is just me)

 

my point precisely - it's getting drowned out - and the stuff that generally splits folks on these topics is rising to the top .... just saying

 

Lets clear something up for just a moment shall we?

PvP - Player vs Player - people who play a game and enjoy challenging themselves by taking on other players.
PvE - Player vs Environment - people who play a game and enjoy challenging themselves against the game's internal plot and NPC's.
RP - Role Players - people more interested in the plot and interactions with other player characters and developing characters / relationships / arch enemies and seeing where the plot goes from there.

None of these are mutually exclusive! Some people on these forums seem to think so, but it's not. You can enjoy all three styles of play.

PvE folks - I know you are worried about the random jerks who simply go around ganking everyone, or you simply hate the idea of another player being able to kill you and take things. They give PvP's a bad name. Remember, there are plenty of people who are PvP who want to RP. Who would gladly, even if playing a villian, have interaction preceeding and wouldn't be a total jerk if they did engage you. People who wouldn't just go around killing everyone for fun. They like tournaments between players as well, sparring, etc.

PvP folks - I know you like the challenge of going up against a real live person who is often more interesting to battle. Please remember that not everyone who PvE's or RP's is opposed to those things. Yes, some PvE's just want to play the game content and go through the story. Let them. That is what the slider is for. For others, there are some who have played other games and got ed up with the jerks who give PvPers a bad name. However, there are many who enjoy sparring, battle tournaments, and would probably enjoy open PvP with you IF they could avoid those people who go around ganking everyone they can indiscriminately.

RP folks - Some of you are PvPers, some of you are PvEers, and some of us are neither and just want to RP wherever that takes us whether it be the PvE content or PvP.

Now, can we maybe stop repeating the same to argument back and forths of "Trammel killed UO / Trammel proves PvP didn't work" and move to the more productive "How can SoTa be designed to be successful and enjoyable for everyone?"

 

RG is a genius, he will most likely find a way.
But I am not, and I think sota will be a failure for all of us Open-pvp-folks because of the reasons I stated above..or in another thread? I forgot...

EDIT:
*RG and Starr are geniuses!

 

I agree that all mighty psychic teleporting guards should only exist in cities and other places where the devs want PvP to be mostly non-existent.

But "normal" guards, and other kinds of NPCs that attack criminals, outside the cities can be used to great effect to flesh out the game world. It's not really that different from having NPC bandits in the game world.

 

^this.
tho, I wonder, why devs want to have teleporting instakill guards in the game?
Open PvP people don't want them.
PvE guys don't need them.
??

 

I don't think teleporting instakilling guards are really wanted by anyone. Guards who walk around towns and go after PKer criminals based on reasonable sight lines making it difficult to go around PKing in cities... or generally making it difficult for criminals to walk freely through the city. Note - difficult, not impossible.

 

I sincerely hope there aren't any instakilling guards. However I wouldn't mind having guards tackle a criminal, and take them before a judge. Then a court can award the stolen item back to the person it was stolen from, or there could be a trial to see if the criminal should be thrown in a dungeon.

If there are trials I hope there is plenty of room for objections and motions in favor of the defendant as well. A defendant should be allow to get off on technicalities, or burden of proof, or even have the opportunity to appeal to Lord British as supreem judge of the land.

That's much better than being instantly killed. Death is a harsh penalty for a crime that might be an accident. I was killed for accitendtally attacking a person in town in UO. I didn't intentionally want to attack them, I was still new to the game and it was accidental. That could be defended before a judge. Remember justice is a virtue... at least it use to be.

 

Yep. As long as PvE players can just "flip a switch" and escape PvP, I don't see much need for all might peace enforcers in the PvP version of the world, or for absolutely safe places for what matters. Though the requirement of a safe place to change multiplayer modes (which, among other things, prevents players from using mode changes to flee combat) might require keeping quite a few such safe places easily accessible on the map, so perhaps keeping cities, or at least parts of them, absolutely safe might be a good idea even then.

One idea for having safe places without making the cities completely safe would be having shrines fulfill that purpose. If gods, or some other such force, exist, this might provide the in-game explanation for why, in some places, a higher power attuned to the place can nullify attacks and/or instantly punish aggressors. This could even be extended by having different shrines regarded as safe according to the virtues the character follows. Cities and towns might house every kind of shrine needed to guarantee that any player will find a safe place inside, while villages might only have the ones that are closer to the village's ambiance, with - for example - a village that serves as a refuge for pirates not having safe places for characters that follow good virtues, and a village of humble but honest farmers on the outskirts of a good aligned monastery not having safe places for evil characters.

On the other hand, if all mighty peacekeepers don't exist, having (common, killable) NPCs handle the boring aspects of patrolling duties, and having a system in place to force the "criminal" to either flee the "safe" zone or be killed after a time (such as progressively stronger and more numerous guards swarming a crime scene), might still be a good idea; they preserve a sense of security, with the associated verisimilitude from having that sense in a supposedly safe place, without completely preventing successful criminal action. Also, player looting - including when and where it should be possible - is something that needs to be very well planned in order to avoid driving away players that are on the fence regarding whether or not they want to engage in PvP.