What PvP Players can look forward to

My experience of full loot is that it help the economy. Durability loss and not being able to repair a item forever would also be a feature that benefit economy.

Full loot also add risk vs reward to the game which many PvP players want. Consequences make PvP more interesting.

 

Consequences do make things more interesting, but without some sort of "unrealistic" mechanisms the consequences for the aggressor is more often much less than the defender. If the potential consequences are too high they can move on. The defender has no control of the risks brought to them, and the rewards are questionable considering they are the one who was doing something else and carrying more to lose.

 

By consenting to take part in PvP you have all the control you need. There will be alot of gameplay that is out of your control though since you will never know where your enemy is and if he is alone or with some friends. With consensual PvP there need not be any "unrealistic" consequences, full loot is enough.

Consequences in non-consensual PvP is something else though.

 

The one full looted has to replace.

I agree death should damage worn gear significantly, but then the devs have to find a way from preventing people from exploiting this by striping naked close to death. Not that it's really an exploit, but I don't want to approach a dungeon or guild war and see a lot of partially clothed players fleeing a threat.

 

This is something before my time playing UO I would have completely agreed with. A group of people attacking one person are assuming little risk and deserve little (or no) rewards. It is one of my main arguments against the assumption that full loot pvp is some sort of risk vs reward mechanic. Risk vs reward suggests the more you risk the more reward, but 5 on 1 doesn't fit that model. And before someone points out that 1 person isn't much reward for 5 people, it's not. Repeat it 5 times and the reward is the same as a 5 vs 5 battle but no where near the risk.

 

Actually, fun fact: In the Opening area of the Burning Crusade expansion for WoW, the devs had themselves a little fun and turned loose what ammounted to a raid boss level mob for the players in that zone, and it wandered around the zone randomly. Now, they didn't give it good loot, so it wasn't worth hunting, they didn't give it very complex fight mechanics, and it was level equivalent to NEW players, so an experienced player who had finished the expac might very well solo it (I did). The core of my point is, I saw an environment in which an NPC boss behaved like a PK.

It wandered the zone, crisscrossing in a pattern that avoided the "safe" areas, and only engaged a player if it encountered it in it's "Hunt". Then it stepped on him. It was obnoxious, and EVERYONE hated it. Today, years later, I can still cause whine-sessions by bringing up it's existence. So yes, we'd still hate it if an NPC boss behaved just like a PK griefer.

 

5 people attacking 1 will give them little reward since they have to share the reward on 5.

Lets say that those 5 people meet 10 people next time and if they win that fight they deserve that higher reward.

That is risk vs reward.

PvP isnt always fair.

 

However we've all talked about how full loot might not be logical for a game like SotA. So I agree with you, and I think that the guy you were responding to might have rocks in his head regarding the benfits of full loot, lets still remember to try to come to a reasonable compromise.

You and I both agreed (along with others who were against full loot) this was a better compromise, and a good place to start to determine how looting should go. Let's try to steer the conversations to a good alternative to full loot, because full loot is never going to be accepted by some.

 

I've already shown that the 5 on 1 being little reward is a worthless argument... I'm willing to wager they will kill far more than 5 single players before running into a group of 10. And given the trend I've seen, they usually run.
If every group of 5 looked for 5 or more to hunt and left smaller groups alone there wouldn't be and issue. And there will be some who do (and I'd be one supporting those who do, if not actually a member of that group).

Pvp is neither fair or unfair, it's just a game. It's some of the pvpers who aren't fair, and if they were all being honest that they want the greater challenge of pvp they wouldn't be taking the easy way out of hunting soft targets (either by larger groups attacking smaller, attacking those obviously weaker, or attacking those "wounded" after another fight).

This is why after UO I only pvp when there is a clear purpose to pvp (battlegrounds, duels, and arenas) or when I gear up specifically for PVP, flag, and when I'm done I unflag and do something else. That way I only risk what I'm willing to lose, and I don't care that I lose to someone afraid of a fair fight. Which means SOTA suites me just fine.

 

My point was that you cant expect PvP to be fair all the time since some will have more numbers. Running was tactics in UO if you were outnumbered, run out of screen and preload explosion spells and dump on the first one entering screen. Guild like mine just about always fought outnumbered in any game we enter but taking up that challenge made us a better PvP guild.

Since PvP will be consensual in SotA i see no problem with sometimes fighting outnumbered. If you consented then you are battle ready.

Battlegrounds and arenas is plain boring. Open PvP out in the field with it's unknown variables as how many will you meet and where is way more interesting.

 

this, this, this, definitely this.

set everyone free and put consequences for every action. I am wondering how those "pve supporting rp guilds" are going to play a pirate role if we are prevented to gank, betray, do actions as our will?

 

This thread has outlived it's creator.

 

lol. Yeah, reminds me of something similar in the original EQ beta too. Low level, or any level, zones and some wandering boss mob would suddenly wander by and stomp the snot out of everyone unfortunate enough to be there at the time. Maybe there was somebody somewhere who thought that was fun, (doubtful), but I never heard a single person say they liked it. The forums were full of people ranting about it and I never saw a single post supporting it.

So, yup, I agree with you. An npc boss acting like a pk/griefer is as obnoxious and annoying as a pk/griefer. Well.....almost. lol

 

Yes, it's missing that one most OBNOXIOUS detail of the player griefer, that it clearly enjoys messing up your day and keeps coming back hunting you over and over and over and over.

But the NPC never logs off, and never has to pay for it's repairs, or suffer death penalties, and it simply cannot be discouraged, so it mostly makes up for it.

 

You are talking PvP vs PvP, what about that naked mage against a gatherer or new players.

If the ability to bring zero chance of loss to the table can be done someone will find the way to do it.