Classic shard.

[Evlar]

Although I never suffered greatly at the hands of PK's myself, I do understand where others are coming from and it clearly was a problem. Lots of evidence from lots of sources points to that.

A happy medium that doesn't involve Trammel, is most certainly the way forward. Hopefully we have learned the lessons of the past. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. The players alone cannot combat any potentially rampant PK activity. It needs a game mechanic to do that. Trammel failed big time in that respect. I'm in favour of anything that maintains community, not fragments it.

Personally, I'm in favour of anything that channels PK activity into something more constructive for the shard as a whole. They do have a role to play after all and anything that encourages them to want to play, gives them purpose, without the griefing side of things, can only be beneficial.

Clearly, as with many things in life, incentives and rewards are more favourably viewed, over punishment and separation. Mindful of that, what benefits can we think of, which would appeal to someone playing as a PK, that would encourage them to choose their targets with more caution?

Perhaps the reputation system could play a bigger part here? Perhaps the incentive would be increased notoriety for the red, if they only attacked high reputation blue PvP'ers? Done well, without the possibility to exploit, it might channel attention of PK's towards more advanced players, more able to handle such encounters.

I'm just thinking out loud here, just another idea when all's said and done. I won't be at all upset if someone thinks my idea is a steaming heap of Minoc stables horse dung...

How about keeping PvP reputation and PvM reputation completely seperate. Two titles or ranks if you will. The higher the status of the player, be they blue or red, the higher the "reward" for defeating them. Something that offers very high rewards for very high risk? Perhaps another setup, would be to base the rewards around the skills of the loser. The higher the skills of the loser, the higher the reward for the victor? Something like this, could be set up specifically to eliminate crafting skills (for example) from the equation. Although it might not stop a red from killing a crafter or gatherer, there would be absolutely no "reward" for doing so, only enhanced risk of adding to counts, leading to increaced "punishments" as some of you have mentioned.

Obviously I'm aware of the exploitative failings that the bounty system fell foul of, but to me, the sort of system I'm proposing, offers an incentive or reward based system, for both blues and reds, which hopefully, will give both camps some focus.

Anyhow, just pondering here

 

[Evlar]

@Cal_Mythic: Okay, we have cookies and milk on the table now! So it's Pepsi, Twizzlers, Mt. Dew, Kit Kats, Jones Soda, Snickers, and Cookies and Milk (I wouldn't suggest the milk with the Pepsi though)

.. Not what I meant, but I'll throw Pizza on the table too! Can't have soda and candy without pizza.. If you're any kind of respectable person...

I will personally post him a fine Iberian Chorizo, all the way from sunny Spain

 

[Dakkon Blackblade]

I will personally post him a fine Iberian Chorizo, all the way from sunny Spain

I would maul a grizzly bear for some of that, Cal these opportunities don't come along often, I know you are doing your ninja thing so come on!

 

[DHMagicMan_1]

In my opinion, this thread examplifies why they should never build a "Classic" Shard.

There are way too many opinions as to what should or shouldn't be included.

I might enjoy playing on an "Old School" shard but not if it didn't have a Tram or PvP switch. We know already how this game plays without those options... we have Siege for that.

 

[dinanm3atl]

In my opinion, this thread examplifies why they should never build a "Classic" Shard.

There are way too many opinions as to what should or shouldn't be included.

I might enjoy playing on an "Old School" shard but not if it didn't have a Tram or PvP switch. We know already how this game plays without those options... we have Siege for that.

We do know how that game plays without those options.. and it was fawking amazing. Maybe I was with a different group than everyone else but complaining about PKs and getting 'ganked' wasn't a big talking point with my UO friends. Ithappened. I would say 'damnit I lost my silver power katana last night' but I wasn't crying on forums about it...

 

[Dakkon Blackblade]

In my opinion, this thread examplifies why they should never build a "Classic" Shard.

There are way too many opinions as to what should or shouldn't be included.

I might enjoy playing on an "Old School" shard but not if it didn't have a Tram or PvP switch. We know already how this game plays without those options... we have Siege for that.

With respect there are other shards offering what you are looking for, and we have pretty much nailed down to a large extent the outline for the shard, the things we are discussing now are minor details to address a few past issues that led to the birth of easy mode aka trammel.

You would likely find what you are looking for on one of the production shards, I respect that everyone has an opinion but this thread is for the discussion and advancement of a classic themed shard.

Of course I'm not a mod and am just making a polite suggestion, as the nature of posts like yours tend to cause more disruption and flaming. Also Siege vs Classic is apples and oranges, not even close really.

 

[Evlar]

There are way too many opinions as to what should or shouldn't be included.

...also, the point of discussing the various issues, is entirely to reach a common ground amongst those who would support a classic shard.

Not everyone will agree on every finite aspect of game play as was back then, but the majority are in agreement on more aspects of the game than you would care to credit...

...had you been reading the thread from the start, which I suspect is doubtful.

 

[Kotu Farland]

If a Shard like this is opened up without any meaningful penalties to curb PKing, then you will find yourself with only consensual PvP. No one that doesn't want to PvP will play it. Don't you get it?

Isnt statloss a meaningful penalty for PKing?

If PK`s are killing the massive amounts of players you are suggesting they are, when they die they will either have to macro for 100`s of hours or rebuild their characters.

Macroing for long periods of time takes away from a players ability to play the game at all.

Rebuilding ones character takes a massive amount of time, effort and gold.

These seem like VERY meaningful penalty's, so I am not quite seeing what your issue is with PK`s on a classic server.

 

[Kaivan]

I'm not going to bother to quote the posts made on the subject of "exlie", I'm just going to make my point about it.

There are three very obvious problems with exiling a PK to a dungeon where they don't take murder counts.

First, you give PKs a free way to kill people without getting murder counts, and you'd better believe that it would be used like crazy. If you think about it, what stops a PK from entering exile, killing players in a dungeon without any repercussions, and leaving exile. This turns any dungeon into a no consequence area, which is exactly what you don't want.

Second, this system, and stat-loss on death, only serve to harm the moderate PKs. Any PK who is killing anyone in sight is far beyond the point of actually caring about getting rid of their murder counts and won't utilize this system at all. They'll throw away their characters once they die. The original system should be modified to strike at those players, because they are the actual problem, not the moderate for-profit PKs.

Finally, limiting where a player can macro off their counts makes the risk of PKing very extreme and is completely out of balance with the risk vs reward. This will make PKing completely useless for anyone who does it for profit, while it has zero effect on those who do it for grief (actually it gives them more grief potential by allowing them to enter exile and PK people and res without stat-loss in a dungeon).

Again, and I'm going to put this entire statement in italics for people, any system that you create to deal with PKs must strike at the problem of PKing which is the grief PKers, not the profit PKs that represent the major source of risk for high profile farming locations.

 

[Dakkon Blackblade]

Second, this system, and stat-loss on death, only serve to harm the moderate PKs. Any PK who is killing anyone in sight is far beyond the point of actually caring about getting rid of their murder counts and won't utilize this system at all. They'll throw away their characters once they die. The original system should be modified to strike at those players, because they are the actual problem, not the moderate for-profit PKs

I can only speak for myself, but as I've said the reasons a player chooses for pking are irrelevant, also your speculating about pks just throwing characters away, even a pk that is deep into stat loss will be better off than a new character who you are going to put right back into stat loss all over again.

Unless your character has gone below new character level, in all skills or something of that nature, then it will cost you more to train a new character.

Finally, limiting where a player can macro off their counts makes the risk of PKing very extreme and is completely out of balance with the risk vs reward. This will make PKing completely useless for anyone who does it for profit, while it has zero effect on those who do it for grief (actually it gives them more grief potential by allowing them to enter exile and PK people and res without stat-loss in a dungeon).

Lets be clear about this for the record, all pks do it for profit, I have very rarely heard of a pk that didn't kill and dry loot a player. Now the individuals motivation for carrying out the crime doesn't matter to the person being pkd, all the other player knows is that the pk made a profit off of their belongings.

Again, and I'm going to put this entire statement in italics for people, any system that you create to deal with PKs must strike at the problem of PKing which is the grief PKers, not the profit PKs that represent the major source of risk for high profile farming locations.

I don't believe you can split the two apart, murder is murder and trying to design a system that targets players by their intention just seems laughable, however if you have a suggestion I'm all ears.

 

[Kaivan]

I can only speak for myself, but as I've said the reasons a player chooses for pking are irrelevant, also your speculating about pks just throwing characters away, even a pk that is deep into stat loss will be better off than a new character who you are going to put right back into stat loss all over again.

The reasons that someone PKs are quite relevant. If a PK kills you for the gold that you've been collecting in a high profile location, that's a PK who is playing the game in a smart fashion, and they represent the major risk factor in that kind of game play. However, if a PK kills the newbie at the graveyard for his 500 gold, store bought weapon, and bone armor, that person didn't make any profit on the kill and had an ulterior motive for the kill.

You can't possibly tell me that all the people who killed newbies at the graveyard and all of the gathering characters did so because of their oh so valuable ingots, boards, or bone armor. Their intent is clear, and it was to grief players.

Unless your character has gone below new character level, in all skills or something of that nature, then it will cost you more to train a new character.

Most PKs who were more than a few counts into stat-loss would simply delete their character because the risk and effort in rebuilding the character while they are still red and could be killed again (setting them up for another stat-loss) is too great.

Lets be clear about this for the record, all pks do it for profit, I have very rarely heard of a pk that didn't kill and dry loot a player. Now the individuals motivation for carrying out the crime doesn't matter to the person being pkd, all the other player knows is that the pk made a profit off of their belongings.

Some people PK and dry loot characters of no worth because depriving them of their limited resources is a source of pleasure to them. This stems from knowing that they took everything that a defenseless character had.

I don't believe you can split the two apart, murder is murder and trying to design a system that targets players by their intention just seems laughable, however if you have a suggestion I'm all ears.

The closest thing (that I have seen so far) to a system that judges this is the system that I proposed on page 16 or 17. It's not too far back so it should be relatively easy to find.

 

[Dakkon Blackblade]

The reasons that someone PKs are quite relevant. If a PK kills you for the gold that you've been collecting in a high profile location, that's a PK who is playing the game in a smart fashion, and they represent the major risk factor in that kind of game play. However, if a PK kills the newbie at the graveyard for his 500 gold, store bought weapon, and bone armor, that person didn't make any profit on the kill and had an ulterior motive for the kill.

No they aren't relevant, the player that gets pk'd doesn't give a crap about why you did it, they don't care, all they know is they lost their stuff.

You can't possibly tell me that all the people who killed newbies at the graveyard and all of the gathering characters did so because of their oh so valuable ingots, boards, or bone armor. Their intent is clear, and it was to grief player

I'm not telling you that their intentions are the same, I'm telling you that the consequences of their action towards the other player is the same, and so that player who lost his/her stuff doesn't care what YOUR intentions were.

Most PKs who were more than a few counts into stat-loss would simply delete their character because the risk and effort in rebuilding the character while they are still red and could be killed again (setting them up for another stat-loss) is too great.

I know more than a few who chose to work their skills back up, we can go back and forth on this particular issue but I don't see much good coming of it.

Some people PK and dry loot characters of no worth because depriving them of their limited resources is a source of pleasure to them. This stems from knowing that they took everything that a defenseless character had.

Again doesn't matter, you might intend on killing them for any number of reasons, they don't care, they care that they lost their stuff and the time they put into whatever they were doing, your intentions only mean something to you.

The closest thing (that I have seen so far) to a system that judges this is the system that I proposed on page 16 or 17. It's not too far back so it should be relatively easy to find.

Murder is murder I mean your not making a case for self defense here, in my opinion.

 

[Antonio Cataneo]

Although I never suffered greatly at the hands of PK's myself, I do understand where others are coming from and it clearly was a problem. Lots of evidence from lots of sources points to that.

A happy medium that doesn't involve Trammel, is most certainly the way forward. Hopefully we have learned the lessons of the past. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. The players alone cannot combat any potentially rampant PK activity. It needs a game mechanic to do that. Trammel failed big time in that respect. I'm in favour of anything that maintains community, not fragments it.

It's not true. The time and the playerbase made of veterans would counterbalance pking, i'm sure of it.
The only change i would take in consideration is the stat loss on death, with permanent loss, wasn't it like it even in the day? like 10% of the whole thing ?


PS: i think that these undecisive talking about the pk issue will SEVERLY cut off our chances of having our loved classic shard , if the community would accept the old ruleset as such it would bring better chances of pulling this off. You people should understand that the playerbase has changed completely, UO was just too much ahead of time.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

Isnt statloss a meaningful penalty for PKing?

Obviously not or we would not have ended up with Trammel.

These seem like VERY meaningful penalty's, so I am not quite seeing what your issue is with PK`s on a classic server.

I have no issues with PKs being on a classic server. Once again, attempting to create false dichotomy does not fly with me. There can be penalties without eliminating PKs from the game.

 

[Dakkon Blackblade]

It's not true. The time and the playerbase made of veterans would counterbalance pking, i'm sure of it.
The only change i would take in consideration is the stat loss on death, with permanent loss, wasn't it like it even in the day? like 10% of the whole thing ?

Your probably right, I mean it worked so well before didn't it? rolleyes:

PS: i think that these undecisive talking about the pk issue will SEVERLY cut off our chances of having our loved classic shard , if the community would accept the old ruleset as such it would bring better chances of pulling this off. You people should understand that the playerbase has changed completely, UO was just too much ahead of time.

On the contrary, we can ill afford to sweep this under the rug.The player base has changed because they are playing a different game. I would rather not see it go up just as it was, because I don't see it lasting, so it would be pointless in the end, but I am open to being shown wrong and perhaps I would be.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

It's not true. The time and the playerbase made of veterans would counterbalance pking

History tells a completely different story.

PS: i think that these undecisive talking about the pk issue will SEVERLY cut off our chances of having our loved classic shard , if the community would accept the old ruleset as such it would bring better chances of pulling this off. You people should understand that the playerbase has changed completely, UO was just too much ahead of time.

I completely disagree.

Just forgetting the lessons of the past, and 'accepting' the old ruleset is folly. Would I play on the Shard? Absolutely. But I would expect it to be nothing but a PK shard in short order...with no one left but PvP'ers. Once that happened, the true PKs would leave because they ran out of victims...the exact same thing that happened with the Tram/Fel split.

Did any of you guys actually pay attention to what happened back then?

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

There are three very obvious problems with exiling a PK to a dungeon where they don't take murder counts.

First, you give PKs a free way to kill people without getting murder counts, and you'd better believe that it would be used like crazy. If you think about it, what stops a PK from entering exile, killing players in a dungeon without any repercussions, and leaving exile. This turns any dungeon into a no consequence area, which is exactly what you don't want.

Not true. What this does is establish places in the game that essentially equate to consensual PvP areas, without splitting the world or incorporating unrealistic pvp switches.

What stops a PK from entering exile at will? Nothing. They would have to have murder counts to do so, and once those were gone, they would no longer be in exile. Upon reading my original posts, I realized that I needed to put that in there. You should only be able to be in exile if you have over x number of murder counts, and once you go below that, you cannot remain in exile.

Second, this system, and stat-loss on death, only serve to harm the moderate PKs. Any PK who is killing anyone in sight is far beyond the point of actually caring about getting rid of their murder counts and won't utilize this system at all. They'll throw away their characters once they die. The original system should be modified to strike at those players, because they are the actual problem, not the moderate for-profit PKs.

You would have 5 counts before going red. Those counts would naturally wear off in time. If you feel the need to kill more frequently than that, I think you are more than a "moderate for-profit" PK.

Also...I don't really care one way or another what the reason the PK has for killing innocent players. A kill is a kill. Don't want to do the time...don't do the crime. What you are asking for is 24 hour access to a cash machine for PKs. Not interested.

Finally, limiting where a player can macro off their counts makes the risk of PKing very extreme and is completely out of balance with the risk vs reward. This will make PKing completely useless for anyone who does it for profit, while it has zero effect on those who do it for grief (actually it gives them more grief potential by allowing them to enter exile and PK people and res without stat-loss in a dungeon).

Why shouldn't the risk of being a PK be "very extreme"? The profit that comes with it is more extreme than almost any other activity in the game. It would seem to me that those that wish to preach risk vs. reward should be the very first ones to accept "extreme risks". No?

It sounds to me like you are just looking for Easy Mode for PKs. Not really a good idea on a shard like this if you expect it to attract anyone else at all.

 

[Antonio Cataneo]

Your probably right, I mean it worked so well before didn't it? rolleyes:

We are talking about the first MMORPG ammassing that sort of number of players, now people knows what they want, if you want to play in carebear land you go and play WoW, or Stygian Abyss, if you want the thrill of interacting COMPLETELY with everyone, if you want to feel satisfied about earning something and defending it with your friends, then you come and play the classic shard. As i will never cease to repeat, we are talking about a niche server, we don't need 100000 subscribers, we need 3000/4000 players TOP , and i bet there are a lot more willing to play THE game, as UO was. So stop telling me "ah! it failed!!!" .
It failed because people played in 15+ shards because of lag issue, and lots of carebears or whiners went away, UO was just making a selection, i don't think the game was better with that people around. Who wanted to play stayed and "endured". It makes me laugh talking about "enduring" A GAME in which i'm supposed to PLAY , have fun. These days i can play in a server 10000 km away from me pinging 110 ! We are talking about a server with a worldwide batch of users.


PS: i know i am repeating myself, but i'm playing in a Freeshard with 99% accurate T2A ruleset and its not all PVP based , and there are 650+ client connected 14 hours a day, so yes, i strongly believe that people would play it

 

[Antonio Cataneo]

Not true. What this does is establish places in the game that essentially equate to consensual PvP areas, without splitting the world or incorporating unrealistic pvp switches.

Consensual PVP areas are lame. The real UO is freedom of choice. Consensual PVP areas were PK hotspots, or guild places, and were "made" by players.

At that time we weren't "veterans" , we were pioneers, the playerbase now is different. As i said, we can't bring backthe past, but the original T2A ruleset would be played very differently believe me.

The exile idea is horrible imho, too complicated to work, things should be kept simple as someone said. With the slow character building that was out there in the day, permanent loss would REALLY stop pks to ammassing kill, or at least would make them really a few (i'm talking about mass murderers).

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

we don't need 100000 subscribers, we need 3000/4000 players TOP

...

and lots of carebears or whiners went away

Okay...so how many out of the 3000-4000 players you think the shard needs would need to be non-PvP'ers? 1000? 1500? Or do you think that a shard like this could last with 100% PvP'ers??

but i'm playing in a Freeshard with 99% accurate T2A ruleset and its not all PVP based

BS...just unbelievable, extreme, untruthful, BS.

I have played that exact same freeshard, and I can tell you...it is overrun with PKs. You can go almost no where without being jumped. I cannot quote the message forum for said freeshard, but someone else already posted numerous posts from that board here that confirmed everything I am saying.

That shard, is stubbornly sticking to 100% accuracy, and the players there complain about it non-stop...but they stay there for 2 reasons...

1 - Its FREE
2 - It's closer to real old school UO than just about anything else out.

But don't even try the "they don't have problems with PKs there" thing...someone else already did, and someone else already proved them wrong. I am not going to call you out for not reading the thread, because some of those posts were deleted because they contained posts from a freeshard board. I will not post the information here, but if you don't believe me, go back in the thread and you will see where Petra called the person out for it. Anyone that has been following the thread closely will back me up on this.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

Consensual PVP areas are lame. The real UO is freedom of choice.

Once again, it would not be mandatory...or didn't you bother to read that before you posted?

Consensual PVP areas were PK hotspots, or guild places, and were "made" by players.

PKs taking over an area does not equate to consensual PvP.

The exile idea is horrible imho

Well of course it is. So far, I don't think you, or any of the new posters that have jumped in recently, have liked ANY ideas that make it more difficult for PKs.

I wonder why that is?

 

[Dakkon Blackblade]

We are talking about the first MMORPG ammassing that sort of number of players, now people knows what they want, if you want to play in carebear land you go and play WoW, or Stygian Abyss, if you want the thrill of interacting COMPLETELY with everyone, if you want to feel satisfied about earning something and defending it with your friends, then you come and play the classic shard.

I scarcely know where to start with this, you can't find me on record saying I want to play in a 'carebear land" please step your game up a little and bring an actual argument to the table.

You don't need to talk to me about what it felt like to play back then, I was there and completely the opposite of what anyone would call a carebear.

It failed because people played in 15+ shards because of lag issue, and lots of carebears or whiners went away, UO was just making a selection, i don't think the game was better with that people around. Who wanted to play stayed and "endured". It makes me laugh talking about "enduring" A GAME in which i'm supposed to PLAY , have fun. These days i can play in a server 10000 km away from me pinging 110 ! We are talking about a server with a worldwide batch of users.


PS: i know i am repeating myself, but i'm playing in a Freeshard with 99% accurate T2A ruleset and its not all PVP based , and there are 650+ client connected 14 hours a day, so yes, i strongly believe that people would play it

No it failed because people were asking for an alternative to the pk issue, I'm sure there were other issues as well but it was a major issue for many people, look you can call people who didn't agree with things as they were whatever you want but it doesn't make you correct.

Also people have varying levels of seriousness when it comes to MMOs just like anything else in life, you may very well never be affected by what goes on in game, but again your projecting your view as the only reasonable one.

You also can't base success/failure of a potential classic shard on whatever freeshard you play on.

Consensual PVP areas are lame. The real UO is freedom of choice. Consensual PVP areas were PK hotspots, or guild places, and were "made" by players.

At that time we weren't "veterans" , we were pioneers, the playerbase now is different. As i said, we can't bring backthe past, but the original T2A ruleset would be played very differently believe me.

Nobody is talking consensual pvp, do you even read what other people post? you don't need to tell us that we can't "recreate the magic" this kind of response is due in large part to this group of forum goers who seem to think it's all about the nostalgia, it isn't it's about playing the game the way it was meant to be played.

You cannot have the first time feeling back again, but everyone here pretty much understands that, many of us have played every MMO that has come after UO and simply not found the same joy for a variety of reasons.

 

[Antonio Cataneo]

I scarcely know where to start with this, you can't find me on record saying I want to play in a 'carebear land" please step your game up a little and bring an actual argument to the table.

You don't need to talk to me about what it felt like to play back then, I was there and completely the opposite of what anyone would call a carebear.



No it failed because people were asking for an alternative to the pk issue, I'm sure there were other issues as well but it was a major issue for many people, look you can call people who didn't agree with things as they were whatever you want but it doesn't make you correct.

Also people have varying levels of seriousness when it comes to MMOs just like anything else in life, you may very well never be affected by what goes on in game, but again your projecting your view as the only reasonable one.

You also can't base success/failure of a potential classic shard on whatever freeshard you play on.



Nobody is talking consensual pvp, do you even read what other people post? you don't need to tell us that we can't "recreate the magic" this kind of response is due in large part to this group of forum goers who seem to think it's all about the nostalgia, it isn't it's about playing the game the way it was meant to be played.

You cannot have the first time feeling back again, but everyone here pretty much understands that, many of us have played every MMO that has come after UO and simply not found the same joy for a variety of reasons.

It must be because my english is not that good, but you totally misunderstood me.
1) i never talked to you directly , "you" was reffered to "the average player" and such, dunno if i made myself clear even now
2) i'm not basing the success/failure on a freeshard, as i wrote before i totally understand the basilar differences between them, i'm also sure that on a production shard it would work even better
3) I love the old UO as much as you, i was just giving my opinion like everyone else (maybe a little too fired up rolleyes: , and for that i apologize)


To Morgana

1)What i'm telling you about that freeshard is not bull****. I would not play it if it was the PK land you talk to. i dunno how long did you played, but i had got the same feeling (and was really saddened by it) of pkland for the first month, but it has gone away when i got into a guild and the community, there are places for pvp and places for pvm or even Roleplay. I never pvp there tbh. It's not complete bull****, there will be no point in me telling bull**** to you in this thread. this isnt the place to fight for who is right. i just want the damned classic shard to work 100% , and i'm stating my opinions!


The biggest problem back in the day were that pks were an average of l33t pvp3r, with skills (and im talking about skill in playing the game, not gm magery) , and organized. Blues were not. I remember stealing nice weapons from pks because they were full fledged. The average blue would come with and exceptional katana, alone and unprepared. An organized guild would never be pounded to hard by a pk. Sometimes you win , sometimes you lose. Back in the day , the one who quit or felt pking like an issue were lonesome noobs that played to ammass gold and show off at brit banks. Real players would say "well, i lost this time, next time i will icq a friend and pound his ass!!"

 

[Kaivan]

No they aren't relevant, the player that gets pk'd doesn't give a crap about why you did it, they don't care, all they know is they lost their stuff.

I'm not telling you that their intentions are the same, I'm telling you that the consequences of their action towards the other player is the same, and so that player who lost his/her stuff doesn't care what YOUR intentions were.

That's called unreal expectations. If a player is in a high profile area they should expect the extra danger because of a tangible in-game gain for the PK (otherwise the risk is very minimal). However, the miner or newbie should generally expect that people won't kill them because they have nothing of value (otherwise the risk of getting PK'd is too great).

The idea of modifying the system is to instill that difference on the side of the PK as well. If a PK experiences a great deal of extra tangible danger for killing someone of little value, they will think twice about doing so.

I know more than a few who chose to work their skills back up, we can go back and forth on this particular issue but I don't see much good coming of it.

I knew a lot of PKs who didn't rework their characters, but I agree we could go for quite some time on this issue and it shouldn't be discussed.

Again doesn't matter, you might intend on killing them for any number of reasons, they don't care, they care that they lost their stuff and the time they put into whatever they were doing, your intentions only mean something to you.

Murder is murder I mean your not making a case for self defense here, in my opinion.

Again, unreal expectations.

 

[Antonio Cataneo]

Well i would think twice before losing 10 whole points of resist spell permanently , i think perma stat loss would do the trick, if you have to wait 8 hours after a kill you wouldn't waste time on miners wouldn't you ? if you not cease to kill, you know it will be hard to train skills back, and raising some skills (example: magery and resist, or healing) was a PAIN back in the day. Starting a char from scratch is BORING too

 

[Dakkon Blackblade]

That's called unreal expectations. If a player is in a high profile area they should expect the extra danger because of a tangible in-game gain for the PK (otherwise the risk is very minimal). However, the miner or newbie should generally expect that people won't kill them because they have nothing of value (otherwise the risk of getting PK'd is too great).

The idea of modifying the system is to instill that difference on the side of the PK as well. If a PK experiences a great deal of extra tangible danger for killing someone of little value, they will think twice about doing so.

I'm not against people getting pk'd they just need to have real punishment, and ingots are always worth it, even if you don't have a crafter you can sell them to someone for the gold on an alt, miners were some of my favorite targets, easy to take down and if they had a pack horse loaded with ingots/ore you could make a decent payoff for little work.

Again, unreal expectations.

What I said has nothing to do with expectations, I'm telling you as clear as day, your intentions are your own to do with as you please but they don't change the outcome.

I don't know how much more I can distill this concept.

One pk is a griefer so he kills a miner and loots him dry = miner loses his loot.

Second pk is a roleplaying evil villain, talks a little more but ultimately kills a miner and loots him = miner loses his loot.

Third pk is still blue and is about to burn his first count for fun so he kills a miner and loots him dry = miner loses his loot.

Miners perspective is your all jerks that ruined his experience.

 

[Kaivan]

Not true. What this does is establish places in the game that essentially equate to consensual PvP areas, without splitting the world or incorporating unrealistic pvp switches.

What stops a PK from entering exile at will? Nothing. They would have to have murder counts to do so, and once those were gone, they would no longer be in exile. Upon reading my original posts, I realized that I needed to put that in there. You should only be able to be in exile if you have over x number of murder counts, and once you go below that, you cannot remain in exile.

Umm, what?

A red that wanted to burn off counts could just say "I wish to enter exile" ... a gump comes up, and he picks a dungeon...any dungeon. While there in exile, he can run around and kill anyone he sees without getting more counts, and his counts burn off...and he can die without stat loss.

That sounds like you're handing the dungeons to PKs. Why wouldn't they enter through exile and kill to their heart's content?

You would have 5 counts before going red. Those counts would naturally wear off in time. If you feel the need to kill more frequently than that, I think you are more than a "moderate for-profit" PK.

So, with 8 hours to work off a short term count, you would only be able to PK 3 times per day in a best case scenario. That's a perfectly reasonable limit for any PK without severe consequences. Anything more and all PKs risk a compounding wait time to avoid stat-loss, and grief PKs will incur additional penalties on top of that (assuming some system was put into place to measure that behavior).

Oh, and a PK limiting themselves to 3 PK's per day at 10k per kill (which is right about at the limit of what most characters can carry accounting for other equipment), would get 1250 gold per hour, and that's in the best case scenario. I don't know about you, but killing 5 liches doesn't take me an hour to do, so relative to safe PKing, PvM is far more profitable even at the mid-levels. So yeah, a PK has to take the extra risk in order to turn a decent profit by PKing.

Also...I don't really care one way or another what the reason the PK has for killing innocent players. A kill is a kill. Don't want to do the time...don't do the crime. What you are asking for is 24 hour access to a cash machine for PKs. Not interested.

Why shouldn't the risk of being a PK be "very extreme"? The profit that comes with it is more extreme than almost any other activity in the game. It would seem to me that those that wish to preach risk vs. reward should be the very first ones to accept "extreme risks". No?

The risk for a PK already is extreme relative to all other activities (see above explanation). They also reap the greatest reward as a result. Sounds like an operational risk vs reward system to me.

It sounds to me like you are just looking for Easy Mode for PKs. Not really a good idea on a shard like this if you expect it to attract anyone else at all.

How is advocating stricter penalties for grief PKs looking for Easy Mode for PKs? That makes no sense at all.

I'm not against people getting pk'd they just need to have real punishment, and ingots are always worth it, even if you don't have a crafter you can sell them to someone for the gold on an alt, miners were some of my favorite targets, easy to take down and if they had a pack horse loaded with ingots/ore you could make a decent payoff for little work.

You can't measure any system by subjective means such as player trade value. Besides, relative to PKing someone in a dungeon, miners brought a lot less profit (ironically, this profit difference can be tracked objectively).

What I said has nothing to do with expectations, I'm telling you as clear as day, your intentions are your own to do with as you please but they don't change the outcome.

I don't know how much more I can distill this concept.

One pk is a griefer so he kills a miner and loots him dry = miner loses his loot.

Second pk is a roleplaying evil villain, talks a little more but ultimately kills a miner and loots him = miner loses his loot.

Third pk is still blue and is about to burn his first count for fun so he kills a miner and loots him dry = miner loses his loot.

Miners perspective is your all jerks that ruined his experience.

And guess what, each of those players, save the last one (because he's still blue), would be effected by additional penalties. If the player is aware of the risks for killing a low profit player, they may think twice about doing so regardless of their intent.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

rolleyes:

How is advocating stricter penalties for grief PKs looking for Easy Mode for PKs? That makes no sense at all.

Okay...I took a step back, and didn't post what I originally wanted to post...so I will re-state it in simpler language.

Are you daft?

There is NO WAY for the game to determine the intent of a PK. It is never going to be possible. I read what you posted about determining penalty based on what the victim was carrying. That's absurd. There is nothing in that that discourages PKing at all. In fact, all it does is to encourage PKing of players after they have been working a spawn.

I am not falling for your smoke screen, and I certainly don't think the devs would either.

Nice try...not buying.


I still say the best solution to PKing is:

-Permanent stat loss (as in you need to work your skills and stats back up...no timer).
- Stat loss needs to occur on death.
- A method to avoid reds from UMing off counts. It doesn't have to be my exile idea, but something of that nature.
- Blues cannot heal, rez, or buff reds.

If you combine that with the other 'Classic' penalties, no use of towns for reds besides Buc's Den, no NPC buying or selling for reds (and let's be perfectly honest...both of those are utterly moronic because the red can just use an alt), no rez for reds from healers...only players and the Chaos shrine. Chances are high that PKs would carefully consider their actions, and you would not see a return of out of control PKing. However, the option would available to those that were willing to take a little extra risk, and face a little extra challenge.

You are not looking at jail time, perma death, PvP switch, Trammel, etc. There is nothing at all that prevents reds from killing whomever they desire...besides the fact that they will face consequences for their actions.

I am not going to bother asking anyone to respond with Yes or No, because not many people seem to be able to follow simple instructions like that.

 

[Derrick83]

You cant say the server would be a 100% PvP server, and then say that a 100% pvp scene will end up with an empty shard.

Sure I can. And I did. And that's exactly what I think would happen.

That contradicts itself. If their are enough people PvPing then its not a dead shard. If the shard is dead then would be no one PvPing and then your argument that its a PvP fest is not valid. It cannot be bother. Their either are a bunch of PKs running around or their are not, it cannot be both.

You either think their are a lot of people that will want to PK and be red or you think that (since PVP and pvp shards are dead) that their will not be very many red PKs

A. If you think that their ARE a lot of people participating in PvP and thus many of them having red PK's then they have just as much right to have a fair ruleset to them to play THEIR game as the other half.

B. If you think that pvp is dead(as you said to look at Fel on your own shard) then you have nothing to worry about because their will be a couple reds, but nothing like it used to be because their wouldnt be all that many out there.

So like I said before, you can't say "A dead shard FULL of PvPing" because it contradicts itself. ANY amount of penalty will turn people away from going red, permanent stat loss is too much IMO.

You make a semi-valid argument here. Except that Siege is just about as empty as Fel on other shards, and it has all the "good stuff". (also, if you think that is "good stuff" then you might not enjoy a classic shard so much)

By "good" i meant new. Anything seems good when you have not had anything new in 8 years. Like I said, if you ate pizza for 8 years, 3x a day every day you would think that eating a plate of broccoli would be a treat.

Seige is empty because you can only have 1 character, it has the current ruleset which is an item based game without the ability to keep your items.. that doesnt work. The game is designed around items right now and having seige blessing and stuff make its just different. Plus the skill gain is limited. You can only gain so much.. so if I decided to start a char there it would take months to get him to max skill points and I don't want to invest that much time in a shard I am not sure I will like, with a item based system i KNOW i dont like.

No. See this is where you fail to understand me.

I am not asking for it to be so severe that no one would risk it. I am asking for it to be severe enough that not everyone will do it.

There is a middle ground between point A (a full PvP no-consequence shard) and B (a shard with Trammel/Fel). The question is, how close to point A or B does this shard need to be to make sure it never ends up as either A or B.

I agree with this. Their should be some consequence for a red that dies. The reason I like what I said is -10 all skills and all stats and they regenerate at +5 per hour. They also stack. So if PvP and PK will be as popular as you think then lets run through this. I come out and kill you as your mining. You call a few friends. I get away and being as I am a PvP minded person I get a couple friend and come back. So it ends up 30 mins of fighting back and forth in which usually everyone ends up dieing 1-3 times. Now for the blues, big deal. For the me, I have died say 2 times. My 7x gm char is at all 80s and 80str, 80dex/mana and 1 mana/dex depending on your char type. I am not doing ANYTHING with 80 skills. A dexer w/ 80 fightign skill vs someone with 100 wrestle or 100 fighing skill? Nope. A mage with 80 mage/eval/resist etc not going to happen. Keeping in mind that THIS era of the game is NOT item based, but SKILL based and after you die a couple times you DO have to go do something else for the next 1-4 hours before you skills are anywhere near the level to compete in the field. So each day, each death you take would put you closer to being "done" for the day. Maybe you can even take it to more extremes like -20 stat/skill each death but no stat loss for any deaths in a dungeon so if your out in a dungeon its free reign for fights, but if you sitting around towns and trying to pick off miners and you get taken out by a group your pretty much done for 2-4 hours. This would be short term punishment and remove a pk from the "pvp" game temporarily, whist still having the skills enough to PVM or get from place to place. You would be working off short term punishment and would really eliminate the needs for UM since its only a few hours. Keep in mind that dieing would nerd reds greatly, and each death makes you easier to kill and more apt to die again and the more you die the further into loss you go and the more hours it takes to get back, but no matter how bad it is (even if you die until 0 skills) its never more than 20 hours until you would be back up and running.

Not that any of this is directly up to me or anything...but I will just point out...they tried that already. This time, they need to try something new. I can see no reason why a Classic Shard that just follows the same old path that OSI followed with it won't end up in the exact same shape.

I am just going to say this. I wasnt a PK or PvPr back when OSI owned the game. This game was at its best(as far as playability and fun) when OSI owned the game. Their is a reason everyone wants a classic server in the times of T2A. Their memories, good and bad, are a positive time. The game as a whole (with the way the murders were) was a good sound game. Yes, some people did not like the reds and all that, but few people actually left the game. The trend of subscriptions was going up. This is from the UO wiki. "Since Ultima Online's prime in 2003, the overall subscriber base has seen a steady decline. Subscriber numbers peaked at around 250,000 in July 2003," AOS came out February 2003. Pub 16 happened, then right after AOS in Feb 2003.. everyone got just what they always asked for and everyone came back all at once.... and then of all those people that got what they wanted.. "Since Ultima Online's prime in 2003, the overall subscriber base has seen a steady decline."

The game was at its strongest before AOS.. the T2A era... because it was well rounded. It had flaws, but those are nothing to the flaws all the "upgrades" created. Putting the punishments for reds back EXACTLY the way it was before would indeed mean some UM would happen, but then you have a decent penalty that will give you just want you want in a median. The Pks know the risks involved and what they have to do if they die. Again, the road OSI took didnt ruin the game, it was what happened when OSI was shut down EA started calling the shots.

 

[Dakkon Blackblade]

You can't measure any system by subjective means such as player trade value. Besides, relative to PKing someone in a dungeon, miners brought a lot less profit (ironically, this profit difference can be tracked objectively).

I'm not the one who started talking about measuring things by value, what are you going on about? target selection like intent is up to the pk in question, I'm starting to think your just taking the **** out of me at this point.

And guess what, each of those players, save the last one (because he's still blue), would be effected by additional penalties. If the player is aware of the risks for killing a low profit player, they may think twice about doing so regardless of their intent.

That's the point, we need penalties beyond what was there originally, they need to be effected.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

That contradicts itself. If their are enough people PvPing then its not a dead shard.

No..what I am saying is that a Classic Shard needs both PvPers and non-PvPers. If the shard starts with say...4000 players. Half of those are non-PvPers. 1000 of those are PKers. The remaining 1000 are players that enjoy PvP, but are not PKers (like myself).

With rampant, out of control PKing, the 2000 non-PvPers leave. Now you have 1000 PKs and 1000 PvPers.

The 1000 PKs get bored and quit because there are no more 'victims'. Now you have a shard with 1000 PvPers. Let's say a quarter of those people were only PvPing to protect the non-PvPers (like myself) and they quit.

You are now down to a shard full of only 750 PvPers.

That, by my standards...is an "empty" shard.

Of course I did not mean that the shard would be actually EMPTY...as in ZERO players. But I assume you already knew that and that you are being deliberately obtuse.

I agree with this. Their should be some consequence for a red that dies. The reason I like what I said is -10 all skills and all stats and they regenerate at +5 per hour.

Too easy to just UM and avoid.

So if PvP and PK will be as popular as you think then lets run through this. I come out and kill you as your mining...etc. etc.

Again...I am calling BS.

The more likely scenario is that you are a PK that travels in a pack of 4-5 reds. You see my miner mining, kill her, loot her dry, and there isn't a bloody thing I can do about it because by the time I get rezed and come back, you are long, long gone. Don't mistake me for someone that didn't play back in those days.

I wasnt a PK or PvPr back when OSI owned the game.

Well, I was. And that explains why you seem to have a complete lack of a working knowledge of how it actually worked back then.

This game was at its best(as far as playability and fun) when OSI owned the game.

Yep. I agree.

Yes, some people did not like the reds and all that, but few people actually left the game.

100% inaccurate. See Mark Jacob's comments.

"Since Ultima Online's prime in 2003, the overall subscriber base has seen a steady decline."

Um...you do understand that by 2003, Trammel had been in place for 3 years, and Fel (and Siege) were basically empty compared to Trammel (and Tram shards)...right?

The game was at its strongest before AOS.. the T2A era...

And again, you understand that between T2A and AoS came UO:R, right?

To be very, very, honest...it was the Trammel era pre-AoS that saw the highest subscriptions in the game.

I still say that something better than Trammel would have gotten the same results...but to try and deny...LIE in fact, and claim that T2A had high subscription rates than UO:R...is just pathetic. It's too easy to disprove, so don't bother trying it.

Everyone knows, and it is a stated fact from the devs and the executive producer at the time, that UO was losing subscriptions because of PKing. I get sick of people spreading this lie.

I am not going to bother to post the links to the articles and house of commons chats. Do your own homework.

 

[Kaivan]

Are you daft?

There is NO WAY for the game to determine the intent of a PK. It is never going to be possible.

Clearly there is. I explained it.

I read what you posted about determining penalty based on what the victim was carrying. That's absurd. There is nothing in that that discourages PKing at all. In fact, all it does is to encourage PKing of players after they have been working a spawn.

How does discouraging grief PKing mean that I'm encouraging players to kill those who are working a spawn. Again, that makes no sense. Besides, even if I were advocating that, working high profile spawns should carry an risk inherent risk.

 

[Lord Chaos]

So basically what the Classic Sharders want is a 2D cross between The Sims and Counterstrike with Swords. (or halbards, heh)

 

[Kaivan]

I'm not the one who started talking about measuring things by value, what are you going on about? target selection like intent is up to the pk in question, I'm starting to think your just taking the **** out of me at this point.

Your original post talked about killing miners for their ingots because you perceived them to have a good value, which is subjective. Just because you something like ID wands and you decide to kill players farming liches for them doesn't change their in-game value. The perceived value that you place on them is subjective (the same is true with ingots). Since the value is subjective, you can't use it as a system of measurement.

That's the point, we need penalties beyond what was there originally, they need to be effected.

And I wholeheartedly support a system that punishes players like that. What I don't agree with is a system that punishes other PKs just to get at grief PKs.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

Let's see if I can make an analogy that will explain this better...


You wouldn't put the flat tire back on the car would you? Because that is what some of you are suggesting.

Whereas Trammel was just abandoning the car and taking a bus.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

So basically what the Classic Sharders want is a 2D cross between The Sims and Counterstrike with Swords. (or halbards, heh)

Beat it troll...at least we aren't asking for vet rewards we didn't earn.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

How does discouraging grief PKing mean that I'm encouraging players to kill those who are working a spawn. Again, that makes no sense. Besides, even if I were advocating that, working high profile spawns should carry an risk inherent risk.

Your "system" does nothing to discourage PKing at all...all it does is encourage PKs to PK people that are carrying more loot...ie, people that have been working spawns, are restocking their vendors, etc.

All that does is put the fat chickens out in the open for the fox.

That's not going to address any of the problems that people had with PKing.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

And I wholeheartedly support a system that punishes players like that. What I don't agree with is a system that punishes other PKs just to get at grief PKs.

*sigh*

There is no viable way for the game to determine if the PKer was killing to grief or not...even if the target had lots of loot, the PK could still be killing to grief...

...come on, really. This idea is going nowhere fast, and it is obvious to pretty much everyone here that you are only advocating for your own prefered playstyle.

 

[HD2300]

If devs really wanted to increase long term subscriptions, the currently proposed non-consentual PvP "Classic" shard is not the best option.

UO had 260 000 subscribers. 100 000 quit pre Tram+Fel because of griefing. Roughly 5-10% were PvPers. Should EA target 26 000 vets or should they target 234 000 vets?

The different rulesets are -
Full non-consentual PvP. e.g. Siege, Darkfall. Not successful
Tram+Fel current production shards. Not successful except for a handful of main shards like Atlantic
Only consentual PvP only Trammel shard. WoW.

A "Classic" shard falls in between Seige and Tram+Fel production shards. So it wont lose subscriptions as quickly as Siege or Darkfall but it will lose subscriptions quicker than the production shards.

At the other extreme, an only consentual PvP only Trammel shard, whether it be the current patch or "Classic", contains the majority (90%) of former vets. The MMORPG market has shown that the majority want only consentual PvP, and these are the vets that EA should target.

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

. The MMORPG market has shown that the majority want only consentual PvP, and these are the vets that EA should target.

So go play there.

Why do you care? You have all the pixel crack you can eat waiting for you on your current shard, and no one is suggesting that should change.

 

[Kaivan]

Your "system" does nothing to discourage PKing at all...all it does is encourage PKs to PK people that are carrying more loot...ie, people that have been working spawns, are restocking their vendors, etc.

All that does is put the fat chickens out in the open for the fox.

That's not going to address any of the problems that people had with PKing.

How does it encourage them to carry those with more loot? All it does is discourage PKs from killing those with no loot. Sure, some of them may start PKing those who take the inherent risk associated with high profile PvM instead, but there will be a component that simply stops PKing because it isn't worth it for their goals as well.

*sigh*

There is no viable way for the game to determine if the PKer was killing to grief or not...even if the target had lots of loot, the PK could still be killing to grief...

...come on, really. This idea is going nowhere fast, and it is obvious to pretty much everyone here that you are only advocating for your own prefered playstyle.

So, ya know, let's just call them all grief PKers, right?

If there is some discernible in-game reason for PKing (and profit is basically the only one; colored opinions on "who should be in my mine", etc are not sufficient).

 

[Morgana LeFay (PoV)]

You know...I think all of us need to take a step back. (those of us that want a Classic Shard anyway)

We are arguing and going back and forth with one another, when what we all want is a Classic Shard. Meanwhile, you have people like HD2300 and "Lord" Chaos that come here and basically malign the entire idea.

Ask yourself...ALL OF YOU...how important is it that this detail, that detail, that method of penalties, this method of penalties, makes into the final cut...versus...how imporant is it that people like HD2330 are proven wrong.

We need to band together, and learn to compromise on some things. This is where this thread was headed until recently.

Kaivan...truce?

Let's find middle ground between us...as far away from the Classic Era haters and AoS fanbois as possible.

You seem to have some good ideas. And while I don't agree with them all, it sounds to me like you actually care about a Classic Shard. So what do you say? Why work against each other...when we have a common enemy?

 

[kelmo]

Stress kills, Baby. It really does. Take a breath and chill for a moment.

 

[Dakkon Blackblade]

Your original post talked about killing miners for their ingots because you perceived them to have a good value, which is subjective. Just because you something like ID wands and you decide to kill players farming liches for them doesn't change their in-game value. The perceived value that you place on them is subjective (the same is true with ingots). Since the value is subjective, you can't use it as a system of measurement.

First of all theres nothing subjective about the value of ingots, if you played back then they would sell for at least 5-6 gp per. And secondly I only brought up ingots in the first place because you brought up why pks kill people for various resources, my last post was responding in that context.

You are dodging the actual issue here, it's simply like Morgana and I have been trying to point out, you cannot design a system to distinguish between pks based on their intentions.

And I wholeheartedly support a system that punishes players like that. What I don't agree with is a system that punishes other PKs just to get at grief PKs.

You cannot seperate them you can't do it, it cannot be done, is there another way to put this that makes it easier to understand?

You know...I think all of us need to take a step back. (those of us that want a Classic Shard anyway)

We are arguing and going back and forth with one another, when what we all want is a Classic Shard. Meanwhile, you have people like HD2300 and "Lord" Chaos that come here and basically malign the entire idea.

Ask yourself...ALL OF YOU...how important is it that this detail, that detail, that method of penalties, this method of penalties, makes into the final cut...versus...how imporant is it that people like HD2330 are proven wrong.

We need to band together, and learn to compromise on some things. This is where this thread was headed until recently.

It all comes down to one simple question, how long do you want to play on such a shard? if you only want a few months of enjoyment lets just drop the arguing now and launch T2A as it was.

I think people have compromised all they are willing to at this point, we were making great progress earlier because we had not yet reached the end of our ability to compromise.

Personally speaking, I won't even create a character on a default T2A server, not because it wouldn't be fun, but because it would likely end quickly. This is why I wish a dev could offer some input, it would be an objective or at least give us an idea of what's the most feasible from their point of view.

 

[Lord Chaos]

Beat it troll...at least we aren't asking for vet rewards we didn't earn.

No, you got vet rewards you didn't earn.

 

[Lord Chaos]

and "Lord" Chaos that come here and basically malign the entire idea.

LOL...so because I am poking fun at you, then I am maligning the entire idea? ROFL.

 

[Guido_LS]

It's not true. The time and the playerbase made of veterans would counterbalance pking, i'm sure of it.

As some others would point out, your surety is misplaced. Certain rulesets attract certain types of players - CoD, etc, have clowns like FPS Doug...
There are plenty of YouTube examples for UO and the other MMO's. All it takes is the immaturity of a few to ruin things for everyone. And there are plenty of immature jerks out there, surrounded by the 100% veil of protection known as the internet, that will be sure to make their presence known.

PS: i think that these undecisive talking about the pk issue will SEVERLY cut off our chances of having our loved classic shard , if the community would accept the old ruleset as such it would bring better chances of pulling this off. You people should understand that the playerbase has changed completely, UO was just too much ahead of time.

What people are having a difficult time understanding is the old rule set FAILED. The same immaturity that existed then exists now. The same idiocy that existed then exists now. The ONLY reason it's not as prevalent in UO as it was before is because the player base might be 1/5th or less than it was then. Yeah, the original devs wanted it to be a self-policed world, but there was a problem - they didn't realize that people that might normally be good in a real society were capable of being sociopathic jerks when protected by that veil of anonymity. Their social experiment, as it was laid out, was a FAIL.

You also stated in one of your earlier posts that this didn't have to be a big server, and attract 1000's of people. This is incorrect, but not necessarily for the obvious reasons. Sure, you can always go all Bull Durham fantasy world land, but the base reality is, if the bean counters at EA don't think this will in some way turn a profit, it doesn't matter what Cal and crew from Mythic says, thinks or wants to do. Morgana is in IT - and apparently well up the food chain in rather large company - I'm 99.99% sure she will confirm that even the best of ideas are nothing but vaporware if the bean counters don't approve.

What the *community* needs to accept is simply that in order for this to succeed, there has to be concensus, and that it cannot be FFA. UO has very little to offer the majority of the MMO world anymore. I say that as a die-hard player. The graphics are a joke, even in the supposed enhanced client. The *HUGE* majority of players out there today (and I'm excluding the Facebook generation) want an end-game. There is no end-game in UO.

It's ONLY draw is for people like us, those that want to hang on to what little of the game we used to know that still exists, and those that, but for the sociopaths, would still be here today, playing in our sandbox.

It's time for you, and people like you, to pull your heads out of the sand and admit that, if there weren't a problem, Trammel wouldn't have happened. And one could almost logically go down the path that AoS wouldn't have happened... or SA... who knows... UO2/UO:X/etc might have even happened. Now we have yet another dev team, one that, despite the claims of the best of intentions, do have another MMO they brought with them, and I would doubt their sincerity if they were to try to claim that UO was as important to them as Warhammer is... not that I blame them - your own child always has a place closer to your heart than your stepchild does...

No concensus, no controls, no community? No server. I would think that would be obvious to everyone, and not just the ones here trying to argue common sense.

 

[Kotu Farland]

Isnt statloss a meaningful penalty for PKing?

Obviously not or we would not have ended up with Trammel.

Trammel was not implemented because statloss was not a meaningful penalty for PKing.

Trammel was implemented against the wish`s of the development team because EA games thought a PvP free environment would bring in more money. The dev team was so against the idea of trammel every last one of them including the creators of the game left.

Statloss is a very balanced system that worked very well in the original risk vs reward environment the development team created.

Your post seems to suggestion Trammel was implemented because statloss was not a meaningful penalty for PKing. This makes no sense at all, as if somehow Trammel is a penalty for PKing. I fail to understand this jump in logic.

These seem like VERY meaningful penalty's, so I am not quite seeing what your issue is with PK`s on a classic server.

I have no issues with PKs being on a classic server. Once again, attempting to create false dichotomy does not fly with me. There can be penalties without eliminating PKs from the game.

This statement doesn't make much sense to me.

You say you have no issues with PK`s on a classic server.
Didnt you just say you think the penalties for PKing dont solve the PK issues you mentioned in your other posts?

You do have problems with PK`s and you made several posts about how statloss is not a meaningful deterrent to greifing etc. Why would you post in response to my comment that you have no problems with PK`s when you clearly do?

If you had no issue`s with PKing why would you be making suggestions on alternate penalties for PKing? It doesn't make much sense.

 

[HD2300]

Let's find middle ground between us...as far away from the Classic Era haters and AoS fanbois as possible.

I dont hate the Classic Era. If it only took 1 week to develop, I would say definitely do it, and at the same time do a Tram only Classic version. But you know EA will have to code much of it from scratch... think the SA Client. It is going to be a huge project. 1 year to develop and then another year to fix major bugs and balancing issues. What do you think will happen when all development is focused on the Classic shard, and there is no or minimal new content on the production shards for 2 years?

People are posting 4000 players. Say 2000 of those are returning vets. 2 years of development + ongoing maintanence cost to get 2000 returning vets is just not worth the risk.

As a business you can either target 10% of the market or you can target 90% of the market. Targetting niches in MMORPGs doesnt work, just look at Darkfall, AoC, WAR and Siege. Without the production shards, Siege wouldnt exist.

On the other hand, it will only take 1 week to make a only Tram shard and a only Fel shard with insurance. Dont like AoS, then kill properties on all items. Simple. A couple weeks of development will bring in more subscribers than the hail mary of 2 years of developing a Classic shard. If I were EA, I'd rather spend 1 month to get 20000 returning subscribers than 2 years to get 2000 returning subscribers.

 

[Kaivan]

First of all theres nothing subjective about the value of ingots, if you played back then they would sell for at least 5-6 gp per. And secondly I only brought up ingots in the first place because you brought up why pks kill people for various resources, my last post was responding in that context.

Actually, there is always subjectivity involving the sale price of things to another person. However, that is not the case when dealing with the internal value assigned to an item by the game itself.

You are dodging the actual issue here, it's simply like Morgana and I have been trying to point out, you cannot design a system to distinguish between pks based on their intentions.

Intentions aside, in most circumstances, killing a miner/lumberjack/graveyard newbie will yield far less than killing a dungeon farmer. By discouraging people from targeting players that are generally easier to kill, but yield less profit, at least some of the PKs will either stop PKing altogether or turn to proper PKing. Sure, there will still be instances where killing miners (specifically miners) with a lot of ingots on then can potentially yield a greater value, but those instances are not going to be the sweeping majority.

You cannot seperate them you can't do it, it cannot be done, is there another way to put this that makes it easier to understand?

Sure you can, the internal values of practically all items that can be acquired in-game fall way short of the value of straight gold. But, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one and leave it at that.

------

You know...I think all of us need to take a step back. (those of us that want a Classic Shard anyway)

We are arguing and going back and forth with one another, when what we all want is a Classic Shard. Meanwhile, you have people like HD2300 and "Lord" Chaos that come here and basically malign the entire idea.

Ask yourself...ALL OF YOU...how important is it that this detail, that detail, that method of penalties, this method of penalties, makes into the final cut...versus...how imporant is it that people like HD2330 are proven wrong.

We need to band together, and learn to compromise on some things. This is where this thread was headed until recently.

Kaivan...truce?

Let's find middle ground between us...as far away from the Classic Era haters and AoS fanbois as possible.

You seem to have some good ideas. And while I don't agree with them all, it sounds to me like you actually care about a Classic Shard. So what do you say? Why work against each other...when we have a common enemy?

I have absolutely no problem finding a middle ground, or discussing this issue later.

In that vein, there is a simple reason that Mythic should really consider about UO in it's current state.

It's obvious to everyone here that the introduction of AoS marked the attempt by OSI to get in on the "cash cow" that was the EQ style game. However, the reality is that in comparison to other games of this type, UO will never have a possibility of being the more attractive game. This comes from the fact that UO is plain and simply not designed for this kind of system.

To exemplify this, if you were a new MMO customer, would you rather play a game like UO which poorly attempts to emulate the EQ and WoW style games (Yes I'm aware that AoS came out before WoW), or would you like to actually play EQ or WoW. The answer should be pretty obvious: WoW or EQ is the better choice.

This of course begs the question: Why? Well, as I said before, UO was never designed for this type of game, and by warping UO to try and make it into this type of game, the result is a poor replica of a game style that it was never designed for in the first place.

Ultimately, UO as it stands is a makeshift version of the item-based MMO and it can't hope to compete with games that were specifically designed for that style of game (lack of flexibility, difficulty adding content, etc). If UO is going to have a hope of staying around, it needs to return to what it was good at, and that's the sandbox MMO.

In that vein, an experiment involving a classic server can't possibly hurt. I mean, what's the worst that it could it do anyway, make the dying game (for the last 7 years) die?