Why Open PvP with full Loot worked in UO.

Just by definition, wouldn't a gamestyle have to first be implemented within a game before it can be removed? If a gamestyle was never present in (or planned for) a game to begin with, it can't reasonably said to have been removed.

Which is really more what I think we're dealing with where SotA is concerned.

 

It's got nothing to do with like/don't like. It's got to do with "what it is and what it isn't". I like MMOs. I have 2 UO accounts, an Anarchy Online, FF11, and FF14 account active presently. I have a WoW account frozen.

If it's not an MMO, why even discuss MMO mechanics and whether or not they should be within the game? Because of the "not an MMO" stance, there are certain things you can want all you want that just aren't going to happen.

Discussing "why it worked in UO" is different than "why it worked in UO, which is why it should be in this game too because I want it!".

If that's all you want, you already have a bunch of freebie UO servers you can go play instead of having pipe dreams about SotA.

 

I agree. I am also one of the few people out there that hope they bring back the ability to be a mage tank toon, or a sword fighting archer. Oh the days when you could cast explosion (knowing it had a delay) precast Flame Strike, equip and hit with hally then pop your FS. Yes it was a bit cheap... but it made people HAVE to level their resistance if they wanted to survive and keep fighting. I did like the later added skills such as stealth... but stealth for instance was only good in pvping, I personally found it boring in PVE. I just really hope they do not get on the bandwagon with other games out there now and base a lot of you toons skills and damage on your weapon by making them have crazy stats or enchantments. I enjoyed the VERY rare items of invulnerability and vanquishing, it made it so people had to work VERY hard to get them or be really good at using their toon.

 

I dont see it like that. Many SOTA followers want that feature in the game and it is for many a gamebreaker if not so i dont understand wht it wouldnt be an option?

So it's decided it's out of the game?

 

Full loot in PvP? Well, it's obviously not a certainty yet (since it's still being proposed, and discussed in that context only), and furthermore there have been discussions of e.g. item insurance and other safeguards.

So as far as I've heard, it's not out of the game...nor is it in the game. It is neither. It's a "Schrodinger's Feature" at this point. It is one of a plethora of options being weighed and considered. And should a different system be decided upon in favour of it, then it will never be implemented in the game so as to later be removed, will it?

How many is "many"? A majority? A minority? A handful? The exact number will no doubt weight Portalarium's considerations as to whether to implement full loot or not. That said, it doesn't exactly seem to be a thing that is being put to vote either.

 

That was what i wrote. Without full loot one of the gamestyles will be out of the game.

As long as it is not decided to be out of the game then it is far from being nothing as long many of us in the playerbase would like to see just that feature in the game. How many? No idea and it's hard to estimate how many that would like that feature actually is active on the forums.

Aye a poll would be interesting.

 

One among many, yes. And then perhaps not the one that most want.

I think the issue would ultimately be figuring out how to enable players to opt in to all these disparate PvP-centric features in a seamless, non-complicated way. Which may or may not even be possible, depending on how the PvP system is architected.

There have been informal polls, I think. Can't recall just off the top of my head.

 

I don't presume to know what everyone else thinks. And bringing my own personal feelings on the matter seems constructive, given that this is an informal discussion, and even important whenever someone implies that no one can possibly hold my opinion.

I don't see many people here bringing scientific studies with rigorous fact checking, BTW, so most things being discussed here seem to be more along the lines of persona opinions and "guesstimations"

Well:

- The topic was about whether or not open PvP with full loot worked for UO, thus many of my posts related to UO, and not SotA with it's different PvP system.

- I'm not obsessed with being alone. Rather, I won't accept non-consensual player aggression. Very big difference.

- SotA is supposed to allow players to choose if they want to be subject to PvP or not, and on top of that to put together in instances players with similar interests. Which means that, under the current plan, I should be able to play as much as I want without any other player being able to attack me, while those that want to engage in PvP should only see other players that also want to engage in PvP, and thus be able to attack anyone they can see.

- Players in PvE will only harm the game for PvP players, through economy imbalance, indirectly, and even then only if Portalarium botches in implementing it's economy and PvP rewards. Being exposed to PvP, on the other hand, directly harm the game, perhaps even making it unplayable, for PvE players. Sincerely, I see as far more selfish the players that want to directly force others into play styles they dislike.

And you are disregarding both that human conflict is highly undesirable for part of the player base, and that there are other ways to interact socially apart from conflict.

This is a quite valid argument, though. All PvP being consensual is not just a RG promise, but one that was made during the Kickstarter campaign and that, likely, was an important aspect in the decision of many players to back the game; I'm among them (or rather, I would have backed at the minimum pledge anyway, but greatly increased my pledge thanks to the promise that I would be able to play online without being exposed to unwanted PvP).

BTW, apparently Portalarium's own estimates about their player base is that roughly half of it is PvP players and the other half is PvE players. Seems like pleasing PvE players, and finding a way to do so without destroying the game economy, will be very important to them.

 

One thing to keep in mind about forum pools: they are often very misleading due to the strong self-selection bias you get in forums, specially if the object of the pool is something that is related to the willingness to participate in the forums - such as, for example, something related to the willingness to get in conflict with other players.

To get an idea of how unreliable, http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidth...-second-most-influential-person-in-the-world/. Also, in Star Citizen, unnoficial forum pools about whether players prefer PvP or PvE typically result in just 10% to 20% of the player base favoring PvE, while the far larger (and at the time promoted in the news page) official pool had a bit above half the players specifying they prefer just PvE (the rest divided between pure PvP and a mix of PvP+PvE), which is a huge discrepancy.

As a rule of thumb, expect PvPers, RPers, raiders, and other players that thrive on either conflict or social contact to be grossly overrepresented in the forums, and thus in any forum pools.

 

A brief clarification on 'Conesnsual PvP': Consensual PvP is not defined (In RG's use of the term) as choosing to be in a fight. Consensual PvP is more accurately defined as choosing to live in a world where you can be attacked (almost) anywhere. RG meant that you would be able to choose the Felucia or Trammel slider (that is the only thing consensual about it), meaning that PvPers will have the SotA variation of UO's Felucia. Thus, there is no point in worrying about whether or not you will have Open PvP. You will. (You can however, worry about forcing everyone else into Open PvP, and about the economic implications of a slider split). My primary concern, as someone who will spend much time in both Candyland and Teenage Male Hormone Land, is that the playerbase will be split in visible demographics, meaning that, while RG may not have us separated into servers, we may find ourselves separated from our friends by slider choice.

 

From the info we have it won't be a direct slider like this - RG was against having an explicit UI toggle for PvP - and there will be many different ways to engage in PvP. Apart from this, yeah; players will be able to select if they are at risk of being attacked, but not specific fights.

Also, while no specifics have been given, I would also expect leaving PvP to require players to be somewhere considered "safe", thus the "slider" will be useless for actually escaping a fight the player can already see coming.

 

There are some really good points made throughout this thread.

While the development staff and directors may disagree, I know for fact many of my friends, guilds, opposing guilds, and most of my ICQ list (yeah, I went there) left UO in ~1999 because of the changes implemented in UO's PVP system. Killing dragons, demons, and liches was not our idea of fun and it got boring, very quick, for many people I knew. PvP was our fun as it brought unpredictable risk and reward. It was responsive, dynamic, and player driven and produced content - I'm not sure if it gets cheaper than that.

After the PvP change, our choices were to go bang our weapon against a a mindless mob for the billionth time, go to a special area to PvP, or jump ship...

In my experience, the PvP risk and reward dynamic UO brought, with full item loot, had a significant and polarizing effect on player immersion. Dungeon travel wasn't safe without a pal. If you didn't have a pal, you better make a friend or two. It caused forces to band together, challenge one another, and partake in all out epic battles against other rising forces - some of the most memorable times in a video game.

Despite worries of "it brings out the worst in people", it also brings out the best; e.g. the massive Anti-PK guilds, ridiculous backup for random people requesting help at the Britain bank, and free gear for people who lost everything - list goes on. Not to mention the massive PK on PK wars.

Besides, whether the battle is 1 minute or 45, what's the point if you don't get anything out of it in the end? Do you really want to press a few buttons and watch the pixelated life bar decrease to zero? I'm not sure how else to say it. There has to be potential risk and reward to PvP to make it enjoyable and longstanding.

So while I can acknowledge full item loot PvP in a game is appealing to a niche market, it clearly adds dynamism and depth to the player experience - for those who enjoy a challenge. I can also acknowledge no other game has done it as well as the original UO, pre-expansion.

 

It worked early on because there were less people in the world
UOs biggest problem was when they became too large
Tent cities and dungeons with more players than monsters all standing around chatting for next spawn

It was same with PKs they were always there (in beta someone assassinated Lord British even)
But as game got larger GMs & Counsellors lost control and bored players took to greifing

 

Interesting theory, but not one that agrees with what actually happened. People started PKing in the UO Beta Test, NTTAWWT.

 

I'm not sure I understand your point Owain.

 

I'm not sure he does.

The griefing had nothing to do with how large the game got, or how much control GM's or Counselors did or didn't have. In my experience, griefing was fairly constant throughout the years I played up until the split (no direct experience after the split in Felucia), and after the split on Siege Perilous.

 

Meh full loot or insurance won't really matter to me.
Full loot = if I die I have to go home and suit back up/restock regs (if there's regs)
Eventually suits are going to run low and I'll be out having to gather and craft. Aka do a small grind. Spend a day or 2 doing nothing but farming to build a bunch of throwaway suits to last a week or 2. Rinse and repeat. Sure you get full rights over peoples gear but they have the same with you. It eventually becomes a hamster wheel of gather, craft, fight, run low on stuff. Back to the beginning. Not to mention pots, wands and whatever else I'll be hauling around.
I was generally suited up when running around and doing whatever. The thing is I'd say 8/10 opponents weren't. In the end I'd snag a bag of regs. A pile of bandies. Some potions and scrap suits (depending on if they were naked or not) Then you'd eventually run up on 2 or 3 naked guys staking out some place or another. Get chain paralyzed and eventually dropped.

Insurance = running around in better gear as long as you had the funds in the bank to cover it. It was pretty much the same thing. Except every time I killed someone = "3600 gold has been deposited into your bank account" That stack of pots I just looted meant I had pots I didn't have to go farm regs to make myself. That stack of bandies was cloth I never had to make and or buy for characters with healing. Ever great now and then you'd run into non scrub casters who opted to drop LRC in order to add some other good utility mod and up their survival. Then you had a few stacks of regs to stockpile or use yourself.
If I died oh well. My bank account took a hit. I'd have to make 2 kills just to even the bank account out and 3 to profit from it.
Ultimately it saved time and kept you in the fight longer. Sure you had to do a suit grind but that was nothing an extra bod account didn't fix.

 

Fully agree with this. In UO I never played a PK or PKer, yet I still loved that system for what it did for immersion. 16 years later I can still recall play-by-plays of daring escapes, heroic counter offenses against PKs and other events that were all driven by the openness of this system. Far less memorable are the times I have slain X monster.

I may have been lucky (as well as everyone else I know who played during this time period), but I was not nearly killed or even attacked as many times by other players as some people seem to think happened during this time period. You were -not- immediately attacked every time you stepped out of town, but rather the potential for it to happen was always there in the back of your mind. I'm a little worried that some of these stories of rampant PKing and dry-looting may be exaggerated to bolster the arguments against this system (but again I acknowledge I did not play in those players shoes).

 

Hopefully not bringing back the dead but do people realize that you can just insure gear magically or realistically like a vehicle and its doubtful that they couldn't possibly have a level limit or such set. But i have been super busy so i am guessing i have missed some information along the way i need to take a day to get caught up.

 

I know one thing that is true, I miss UO. If this game is 50% of UO im in !