Why Open PvP with full Loot worked in UO.

I would like to look at this from another angle.
PKers while I hated them as well were balanced out pretty well in the beginning of UO, after Tram was added that balance was hosed and never fixed.
Since every game including WOW has/had plenty of PKers the game needs to be build with this concept in mind.
IMO I love open PVP and full loot because it adds an element of danger you do not feel in other games.
As I put in my wish list post we need murderers and thieves but we also need the balance of detectives and bounty hunters. Make the game notice if the Reds are to strong and increase the rewards for those who want to bring that balance back towards the good side. If the blues become to strong then swing the balance back towards the Reds. Good vs. evil is foundation of a great community!
If we take the time to fix this issue now before things get out of control we can build a world which reflects what happens in real life. Put a cop shop in every town, allow us to join up with the guards, what about a posse to hunt down PK groups...
Instead of writing out open PVP and full loot put things into play that enhance the exchange of combat instead of limiting us to PVM.

 

Open / full loot pvp worked within early Ultima Online for quite a few reasons. As someone who spent more years playing Ultima Online than he can remember I just wanted to chime in here!

1: It was an early game
This holds true for "pvp" styled games that come out today as well, the best time to be had is when the game is new and everyone is just learning. The economy is just beginning, item acquisition isn't yet out of control and neither are player levels/numbers. As a game ages however this dynamic fades away, the ratio of seasoned players to newer players grows to favor the seasoned abandoning "newbies" to the dirt. If you are a "new" player logging into a game where everyone has made a stake in the world that is fine, but if everyone who holds a stake in the world is so bored with it that their only source of enjoyment is hindering yours - THAT is when you have a problem and unfortunately that happens to these PVP games.

2: It was a whole new genre of game!
Merridian 59 aside, Ultima Online was the first of its kind. Players who were logging in to ultima were playing something that simply had not been done before not only from a massively multiplayer standpoint but from a competitive gaming stand point! If you were playing ultima online at the beginning and you were killed and looted by another player, that was just how it was, you had nothing else to compare it to and you had to accept that is just what this game is. If you fast forward to the trammel era however you will find that suddenly players realized they could have a choice, thus every game that has come out since Ultima (sans a few niche projects) has seen fit to continue that legacy in giving the players choice. I remember playing UO around the time Rennaisance came out and I remember how the introduction of Trammel really drew that line in the sand for the game world, the population and utilization of the two facets per player number and intent/purpose was very telling as to where the market was headed. There became a clear distinction between "trammies" and "Pvper" with each side swearing up and down that the other was wrong in their choice of playstyle and failing to realize that the game had simply evolved into something that was trying to cater to multiple audiences.

3: Items? I don't need no stinkin items!
I'm sure everyone here can recall taking a dexxer into fel armed with nothing but a death robe, a long spear a handful of bandies and a potion or two looking for trouble! Part of what made open world pvp acceptable in the earlier days of Ultima Online was indeed the way they handled itemization. A full set of "practically best you can get" items would only set you back a few thousand gold coins, crafted locally from one of the hundreds of players who made their living doing such things and the time spent to aquire that gold coin was minimal at best, perhaps 40 minutes at the grave yard could net you enough coin for 2 sets of gear and as you grew stronger coin acquisition was faster so this became even LESS of an issue than it was. With gear being cheap and easy to obtain the impact of the loss of these items was minimal, the soul crushing feeling of dropping your +27 longbow of the daelish was not present in Ultima, it was just a quick trip to the healer/bank and you were back on your feet ready for the next rumble.


As this genre has grown and changed so have the types of people who enjoy it. If you release a game in todays market that is full pvp and full loot you can be sure that it will be a niche title. You can argue all you like however at the end of the day this will remain true, the types of experiences players want to have from a title are either there or they are not and IF they are not then those players will not stick around. If I am someone who only has a few hours a week to play and I really enjoy getting into dungeons and crafting items and keeping up my home but I hate PVP I simply should not be forced to engage in that type of play and if I am forced well then I just wont play the game. I think this is just something that people who are really passionate about hardcore play styles fail to understand, locking people in to your ideal world without giving them a choice hinders the success of a title especially when that title is released into a market full of choices that could better suit their needs.

Now this isn't to say that I think we should just leave hardcore types hanging, they are of course another side of the market and they deserve to be satisfied with the game as well. The challenge for the developers however is finding how to draw those lines in the sand so they can attempt to please both sides. If you look at systems in Ultima Online such as "good vs evil" on siege or "order vs chaos" or even "faction warfare" I think you will see early systems that were attempting to do just this, give players clear distinction between play styles and give them the choice without separating them from one another or making them feel like they are playing in different worlds.

Personally I would love it if SoTA could implement systems where we can all interact with one another even if we have different ideas on how the game should be played. Again a system like Good vs Evil where once you sign up you sign away your "safety" and can engage in all the "full pvp/full loot" you want would be totally great for those that want it. I don't however want a game where any one side is forced to engage in something they don't find enjoyable.

 

If by "worked" you mean "did not work" then I approve the title of this posting.

 

Well said Myrcella, and i agree 100 percent

 

It worked fine in UO for everyone willing to adapt. Then EA had the brilliant idea and forced the "WoW" ideals on everyone..and it thrived for awhile..till the feluccans got bored because the sheep hid..and when the wolves left due to having no prey..the majority of the sheep left due to having only themselves to sell to..and now your left with a barebones game a massive corporation is holding onto just to have that "longest running" title on their list of haves..

 

Why open PvP with full loot worked in UO? Because the players had no choice thats the truth...

Dont get me wrong! i liked the open PvP, but just because i was a PvPer! But in the Early days, non PvP'ers got farmed like bananas on a warm summer evening in Costa Rica.. THATS the reason why they add statloss at first and after that trammel...

In all that "back then everything was better" romantic, many players forget that with the invention of trammel the playercounts go UP. And that many players do rage quits because of all the PK'in



Complete ffa open pvp with full loot is good for a game with a PvP focus, but does not work in a RPG today. Thats my opinion.

 

The Dread Lord had a certain amount of respect. The killer of player, outcast from town and bank access, the final fall from Evil lord. On the other hand, a Noto Killer was a term given to someone by other players and not the game. The Notoriety Killer had the respect of none.

At retail release of Ultima, players starting out neutral were one click away from being dishonorable and turning gray, open to attack with game impunity from any player. Yes !, one wrong click in combat, a bad point & click from an Orc to your fellow player or friend, not even causing one point of damage, your notoriety could drop from honorable to dishonorable, blue to permanent gray.

The Notoriety Killer would take advantage of this condition. It was common to see a group of players fighting together, a mixture of blue, gray & red. Most players would not consider a red dastardly any sort of threat, for many/most players had been there, from that mis-point & click. Attacking a dishonorable player outside of town just because of noto-color was widely thought to be wrong. A Great Lord participating in this activity, could find their self on a kill list of a protective Guild or group. This elegant system was changed within the first year.

 

Something tells me you never played UO. There was never a condition of perma-gray, and the reputation system which used Fame and Karma was separate from the criminal system of blue/gray/red status. The reputation system only dealt with the your title.

For those who are interested, pay no attention to Deathblow's description. Here is how things worked.

http://www.uoguide.com/Reputation

http://www.uoguide.com/Innocent

http://www.uoguide.com/Criminal

http://www.uoguide.com/Murderer

 

better take a little UO History lesson before writing

http://www.uoguide.com/Notoriety

 

The "fame & karma" system did not exist from 9/1997 to around 5/1998. Discredit me all you wish. You Quite clearly were not with us, you were not there.

Fame & karma, lock downs, lock changeable houses, may have been the first of many nails in UO's coffin. All your guides are great! although misleading they show a different time reference is all.

Anyone really concerned can refer to the Notoriety system of UO v 1.0 ...but otherwise pay no attention to me, that's perfect. rotfl.

*In an attempt to satisfy more players, Chess might have an extra row of pawns*

 

Man wait? No perma-grey? Geesh I must have been super high throughout those years..

 

I had to do some digging, but I guess I played under the Reputation System for so long, I had entirely forgotten the Notoriety system. It never really affected me, since I never stole, never snooped, and never to my recollection (which is admittedly fuzzy) ever did an act that lowered my reputation a notch.

I stand corrected.

 

I deleted the Hijackers Guide yesterday when I got home. Maybe you noticed.

The Notoriety Killer (story) is history. I was trying to catch the mood & feelings that existed.
I just left out the part that non PvP'ers got farmed like bananas on a warm summer evening in Costa Rica.

 

For my first post...

The topic has been argued up and down and back and forth so I doubt I can offer anything new. Therefore I'll just express my opinions. I am REALLY excited about this game, mainly because it's from Richard Garriot and team. That said, if there isn't SOME form of non-consensual PVP, I won't be playing long.

What kept me in UO for so long was the sense of adventure (read: sense of DANGER). I played many characters, both red and blue. To be clear, I was not a "griefer". I didn't swear, taunt, or use slurs. If I was "hunting" I would just pick fights. Sometimes I would win, sometimes I would lose. But whether red or blue, the element of RISK was what kept me coming back. The uncertainty was appealing. When Siege Perilous came along, I quit all the other shards and went to Siege.

I haven't played any other MMORPG than UO because I find them boring. For me, no sense of risk = no sense of adventure.

I don't need any argument; this is just my two cents.

 

Shame to see you go so soon. I hope you reconsider.

 

There being no non-consensual PvP is a done deal. It was a done deal since before the Kickstarter ended. It's as set in stone as anything about the game.

You'll probably be able to set yourself to always be open to attack in some way, but you will have to opt in and you'll always have the option of opting back out. Nobody knows the details yet, but the devs have been very clear that non-consensual PvP will not happen.

 

Wow, I hadn't seen that yet. I thought they were saying that it would happen outside safe zones. I admit I haven't read ALL the forums front to back yet; I've apparently misunderstood something...

 

Going out of a safe zone would be consenting, wouldn't it?

 

This is the correct answer. Garriott has often said that he dislikes flags or other overtly gamey mechanics, but that you will always know when you've set yourself up to be vulnerable to PvP. There will be no sudden attacks on anyone who hasn't made it clear in some way that they're OK with it. The example that's always used is the caravan escort quest that opens you up to attack, but there will certainly be other ways. Having designated PvP areas might be one of them. It will require some form of consent, though, that much is Word of God now.

 

Well in reading some threads it looks like if I elect to PVP, the game will show me other players who are willing to PVP too, right? I guess I could settle for that.

Am I understanding that correctly? I'm a late-comer...