[Proposal]Open Loot Compromise In A PvP System

Not if it's just a bunch of irrelevant hexes full of stuff you don't really care about if you're interested in stories and quests.


It's basically the equivalent of Trammel and Felucca. Felucca's just Britannia with a bunch of dead trees, scary music, and people clinging to the old ways that proved to fail for a multitude of reasons.

 

Ok well put. If the land is irrelevant, than it poses no issue to PvEers, but what about PvPers who want a slider-esque option for full loot Open PvP?

Myrcella, I see things the same way as you do. I'm not sure why a compromise is necessary if we can all have our own cakes and pies, and eat them as well.

 

The slider leaves a bit to be desired. There's balance issues and possible exploits you'd have to work out when really you could just flag places as "free for all" and tell someone before they go inside. It's the same end result. You get a bunch of like minded people all in the same place attacking/robbing/doing whatever they want.



It just seems like it would be a lot easier to implement and keep fair than a slider system. Why not even have a town or two that are free for alls. People seemed to really enjoy Bucs Den on UO. Why not give a nice, modern version of that place?

 

Arkhan,
Largely, I suspect, because "the same place" would add even more tedium to something already tedious/pointless.

Player conflict needs to be meaningful, imho.

 

I agree there. But, alot of people who are PVPing end up just wanting to PVP. They're making their own story through assaulting other players and such.

Considering that this is also designed as a single player game, I'm not sure what kind of story would be applied to online players that the story writers don't know about ahead of time.


That's why giving those who want that a bunch of free-roaming PVP regions to run around in would probably work out the best. Let them go in there and make up their own rules/stories/sides/etc.

 

That's been tried before, so hopefully there is something better.

I think allowing players to flag themselves and pvp everywhere outside of civilization would be a better choice, personally, than a few designated hexes. Mode jumping is apparently something Portalarium is aware of, but until we know how they're going to handle it, not much to say.

To your point regarding exploits, unless you have a soft engagement area, smaller than the zone boundaries, designated hexes have their own exploits, #1 on the list being zone camping. Yes, it can be handled, but the last thread on the topic was not open to new/innovative solutions, rather preferring to leave zone camping in place, given other better choices. /shrug

 

I've heard this vein of comment repeatedly, and I still don't quite understand the point. WHAT EXACTLY are these exploits? What is being left to be desired? How would the slider system be harder to implement or keep fair?

 

It's assumed that the slider would have some sort of timer/cooldown between toggles. Otherwise you could just keep boinging around to whatever is most convienient. With timers, someone always finds a way to screw around and do something where they basically have broken cooldowns to where their toggles are instantaneous.

Then you have to figure, when do slider mechanics apply? Do they apply in town? What if you've been flagged for PVP with the slider and suddenly want to do something else? Now you have to wait for the cooldown.


WoW had that, and some of the quests required PVP, so you'd stand there and do these goofy quests, then, because you don't really want to be PVP, you have to wait for the cooldown to switch... so you're basically wedging yourself in between some rocks or something waiting for the time when you can go back to being safe from ganking.

 

Because it's more "enjoyable" to throw cake and pie at each other, even if it's a buffet. With the slider, we'll all be able to play the way we want to play.

 

Yes i agree.

Since we have a slider there is no problem playing the full game as a PvP player. If you like another gamemode then just dont enter the PvP mode.

Then developers have to create meaningfull conflicts, maybe abit like UO factions that was alot of fun.

 

Most exploits can be eliminated simply by using sane constraints for when, or where, game modes - including PvP - can be changed. The rest can be rendered meaningless by making progression speed roughly the same in PvP and PvE.

Portalarium is likely aware of both potential issues, and planning ways to remove their negative effects, BTW.

Simply logging off and playing something else for a few minutes also worked. Which is something I don't think is good for the game; creating incentives for players to log off, even unwittingly, IMHO, is usually harmful to the game.

BTW, in WoW, for quests that required the player to be in PvP but didn't require actually fighting other players, if I wasn't in the mood to engage in PvP, I would simply swtich around my play time and sleep time. Instead of playing for an hour or two before going to sleep, I would go to sleep an hour or two early and play in the morning before leaving for work. I don't think I was ever attacked whenever I did that. In this way I consistently got to enjoy the rewards for solo PvP content without actually engaging in PvP.

The same thing will likely work with SotA .

 

Yeah I'm not really down with coordinating my gameplay times with when I am about to go to sleep so I can get around some corny timer.

 

I don't see why the timer is even a good idea. So there's this quest, where you have to go into the scary woods to get a used butterfly coccoon. Stepping into the woods flags you for PvP. A PvE player really really wants to do this quest for some reason, so she risks it. She goes into the woods, does or doesn't get PvP'd, struggles through whatever, and eventually gets the used coccoon. Then she leaves the forced PvP area. Why would we want a cooldown period afterward, where she is stuck with a PvP flag she doesn't want?

Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, the PvE player who hates PvP will probably opt to ignore this quest anyways. I gather that some people, including RG, see this as something we could improve upon. So everyone is looking for ways to make taking those first steps into PvP more desirable. How does including game mechanics that punish the player with unpleasant consequences help do this?

 

There shouldn't be quests that force you to PvP, considering that the game is story driven and designed for single player as well. It doesn't make sense.

If there are PvP quests, I would suggest that they don't have anything to do with anything story-related and can be skipped without missing out on something.

 

I think you are correct in what you said before- there can be no compromise. Because I would not want to play a game where that was not possible. Though from what I remember of LB's attitude in the early days of UO when he was still active- he will always compromise- so I doubt it will come down to a straight one group vs the other.

 

I do believe he will compromise, but not in how the experience goes, but in when it's available.

In other words, I believe full loot will be implemented as something optional, possibly as part of the guild war PvP.

 

This is one of the reasons I don't think a slider is the correct interface to select this kind of thing, since PvP isn't a linear continuum of choice. Instead of a slider, I think check boxes are more appropriate for the different options:

PvP Catagories:
Duels
Arena fights
Battlefields
Thieves
Guild Wars
Open PvP (full world other than towns)
Full loot

Personally, I would check Guild Wars, Thieves, Open PvP, and Full Loot, but not Arena Duels, Arena Fights, or Battlefields (maybe - depends on how it's structured). Someone else might want the same choices as I, but uncheck thieves and full loot.

This seems to me to offer greater flexibility than a simple slider.

 

I really like the check box idea. I'd love an "RP" box.

Some things, arena fights, wouldn't necessarily need a check box as you can either choose to go to the areana or not.
For dueling, I think I'd rather see some sort of .duel or .spar function that would help people who want to PvP in a more structured case by case situation, or who want to RP sparring/bar brawls/ things that people wouldn't be 'killed' for but want to use game mechancis. still have the fights they are interested in.

My only worry about too many check boxes is you wittle down people too much.

 

I'd really like a check box for duels so I don't get people spamming me for duels.

 

That makes sense. I suppose I'm used to the more RP duel methodology of there being RP conversation leading up to the duel. I could see people who aren't into the RP doing a lot of .duel on someone to try to get them to just spar with them.

Though, that said, I'd like to have a .duel still for the people who don't want to consent to full PvP but occassionally want to rp out a bar brawl using game mechancis and not just *<insert action description here>*.