Winning and Losing in PVP

only things that should not be lootable are things you bought with real money.

 

What if death just takes longer as the lifeless corpse twitches on the ground for a while. That's pretty good role play.

 

Because the Duke's Crown (for example) is a pledge reward, it's very difficult for me to say "sure, lose that in pvp and it's gone forever". Here's why. Some people in pvp use hacks, exploits, or there's just bad lag that causes you to die. It happens.

If that happens when you have pledge or add-on store items, that's REAL MONEY you're losing. You're not going to be able to get that stuff back. But at the same time you may very much want to use those items for the look and feel of them, because of roleplaying or just personal social preference. You paid for it, so you should get to use it.

To keep pvp balanced and fair though, players shouldn't get an advantage over other players because they bought something. So that's why I wouldn't support someone looting pledge or add-on store items but that's also why I do support the looting of the "skins" and "stats" that the items may have.

It's not reasonable to say "well if they don't want their duke crown looted, don't wear it in a pvp zone." That just punishes our heaviest backers that may also like pvp. As long as they're risking their stats, I don't see the problem.

 

you should not even be able to survive in PVP with worthless crap on anyhow! If im in plate and your naked hitting me with a stick, there should be no challenge.

 

Ya, thats why I say for those items to not be allowed in pvp. Just make them pve/social items. I do see what your saying. As long as the advantage can be neutralized I am up for whatever.

 

I agree on not losing items you bought, but when you refer to the biggest backers, thats bias when it comes to game play between people big backers or not it shouldn't give you too much of an advantage, or the fight is one sided. It like you saying "well since i put $12000 dollars in the game i should be invincible!" Terrible mechanics and i would definitely give this game the one finger salute and never play it again! Im almost certain others would follow the same suit as well, in turn port loses money. (they dont want to lose money or exposure at that)

 

That is the thing though. Worthless crap isn't really worthless compared nice gear. Plain armor still has the same base stats as fancy armor, just without some small bonuses added. Could those small bonuses be the difference between winning and losing a PvP battle? Possibly, but not usually, so the risk versus reward for wearing nice gear just isn't very good. This is especially true for minor gear slots. I have some nice +5 enchanted necklaces, but I wouldn't risk any of them in PvP just to gain 2 str 2 dex and 5hp or whatever.

 

yeah its all based on the wants of the other, me on the other hand i would want to take all you have to make you have to go resupply, and also give me a chance to escape you for the time being! Thats what i like about PVP its a personal choice of the victor. You could possibly gain stuff better than what you have either sell it or use it.

 

what a lot of people over look in PVP is there are more reasons to PVP than the ones mostly mentioned, here it is in nutshell
-To get revenge on someone that killed them or their friends.
-To acquire better items. To sell or use.
-To put on the shelf a self centered PVPr. (talking crap)
-Bragging rights "Im the best" (which also puts a big target on your back!)
-To take over an area run by someone or some guild for resource.
-To step in when someone is being attacked that is innocent (sheep) if you will. If you play the heroic type.
-Enhance guild war situations (one guild against the other)

I personally dont understand hunting the weak, when you know you can destroy them? Wheres the bragging right in that? (unless of course the weak guy was talking smack) then its self inflicted grief!
those are just a few, im sure there are more reasons! Maybe ask the reasoning behind killing someone, and you will find out the nature of it all or the reasoning behind it and why its important to the individual?

 

For the people saying there is not a huge difference between regular and crafted gear; I don't think you have seen what gems can do for your attunement. + all the other lil bonuses you might get when enchanting something with gems in it. But, sure. Go ahead, show up with your non-enchanted stuff. I won't mind

 

No ban from players, even from POT owners.

 

I couldn't agree more pvp is the reason I play games like Sota. It's just what I find fun, having a solid system for rewarding the winner I have found to be extremely refreshing.

On the note on crafted gear, I do find it much more enjoyable to have my +X gear on me while out and about. This can give someone the feeling if not the need to be on guard even more so then a normal pvp flag. Simply because you will have negative impact from losing the fight in the from of items or gold. Gives the player a more proactive experience.

 

Hmmmn.. maybe some of the loud voices that wanted forced multiplayer in all pvp zones and no bans in pvp towns didn't fully think through that decision. And now, thinking about PKers repeatedly killing them while they try to water their crops leaves a bad taste.

Welcome to getting what you wanted. Enjoy.

 

Just dont live in a PVP town problem solved! the loudest voices in here are the ones who oppose it, its funny how that switches over time isnt it? There is no need to complain You dont have to PVP if you dont want too, exactly what they promised way back when. Now people can become social on a different level. Make a deal with PVP people to supply what you need if you do not wish to go into PVP. There can even be trade offs for service, ill get you the material you need, and you make the items i need.

 

I totally agree with the original post. The one thing I remember early on in those PvP threads is how strongly some of those people argued for meaningful death... which for them included full loot.

One of the main reasons they argued for full loot wasn't just the reward of having all of their trashed weapons and armor but it was to keep people from returning to combat immediately. Knocking a player out of the combat is tactics period.

EXAMPLE OF THE PROBLEM:
In R8 we had loads of fun killing people over and over again but the biggest problem was that they were coming back to life right as we were finishing off the last of the people in the area which ensured that WE DIED TOO. LoL this should not be!!! The people who are winning should not be killed because they are tired from killing 20 people and 15 of those people just popped back up to life like fully armed and operational battle stations (full focus pools, health, and equipment) to be able to then turn the tides again.

IT takes a lot of focus to launch a quick and hard attack to gain the upperhand against a group of players. In fact it might require a stratigy of knowing the opponents and taking out the key players that tip the scales. IF those key players rise from the dead at full power... then the weary team that had the superior stratigy and the element of surprise still loses. It then comes down only to numbers of players. Once you get to a certain number of players it always results in a stalemate at best, and at worst a lesser number of players cannot gain the advantage against a larger number of players... however if the slain were prevented from rising there because the assault is lead by immortal avatars like themselves then a smaller team might be able to gain a victory against a larger team due to having a good plan and the element of supprise.

PHILOSOPHICALLY SPEAKING...
If there is a conflict between immortals I don't see the problem of the living displacing the dead. Displacing is not like banning. The act of slaying the avatar is a sort of displacement. It removed the life force out of the body. If there is such a conflict between avatars, that leads to such a drastic situation that causes another avatar to be displaced from their body, then how much more should that living avatar have the ability to prevent the avatar they have slain from returning to the place he was displaced from? Or in another way once the avatar has been kicked out of the city by means of death, the gateway back into the city of life is still being guarded by the same warrior that kicked the person out in the first place how then is it possible to overpower this guardian when you are dead when you couldn't do it while you were alive?

Or something like that...

Although if those who displaced you were also displaced (through death or by leaving the area), there should be nothing preventing the return, or perhaps even if the avatar who killed you does not resist your return then you could ressurect naturally. (similar to returning a looted item, maybe allowing the avatar to return to that location without your resistance).

 

Lets make this fun i vote if you die in a pvp match 3 day respawn timer, thoughts?

 

Thought: If you died in PvE 3 day respawn timer.

 

Several solutions to this problem (strategic removal of combatants from the field) were discussed at length on august 7, 2013 on these forums.
No response from the devs, and the community was split even then on the most effective solution. Not sure what else to say, but I know which solution I would implement, because all the code is already done.

 

My Two Cotos on handling the prob with meaningful pvp (fight for ressources and with a personal motivation like revenge) contra mass PKing ... think of this

In the moment the killed player is "punished" by possible item losing or a fee. What if we also put some disadvantages on the victor as well? For example a player who kills another player in PvP gets a mark of guilt if he was the first to strike: For each mark he has he will lose an additional item (which could be bought back like used to) and also has to wait a minute or more longer per mark until he is raised again. The marks would disappear after some time (an hour or more). Players who get killed get scars instead and have a longer respawn time for each scar, but not additional item losses.

On this way people wo fight with a reason get only minor disadvantages on death (and non if they defend instead of being attacked) while "just for fun PKers" will feel 'da pain if they get killed in PvP through revenge or bad luck. People who just lose very often in PvP will feel the need to get better and don't just running into pvp for fun, but with a tactic or may be a supporting group, so there is less "click bait" for experienced pvp-players

May be not perfect as written, but may be this mechanic could.

And just to make it clear: Losing much items permanently is not an option in my eyes cuz it would only lead to underdressed pvp and less fun preparing for the frey. A higher durability loss would be a good option next to the existing item losing/buyback method, because many items are just to enduring (especially armors).

 

Would love a justice system. Many of us want it. I want to have UO reds running around again (in certain hexes at least, we can call them "The shards of Felucca!' muhahhaah