Simple Morgana. Monsters don't get thier childish jollies by ganking you. Pkers get their thrill by ruining the fun of others. They chase you down, kill your character, and take what you've worked for, and will do it over, & over, & over, to you and others for the thrill of griefing other players. A monster won't chase you or lie in ambush for you just for the fun of ruining your game experience. You can have fun in game around monsters because they don't act the way PKers do. You can make the effort to gain some treasure and probably get home with it around monsters. With PKers, you likely can't. You've made comments in posts in the first thread that show your able to understand this. Your not a potential Darwin Award winner.
Seems like you've got the narrow minded opinion that all PKs kill in order to grief. Quite frankly, that sort of wide sweeping generalization shows your lack of awareness that there were PKs who would kill because that was they way they made their profit.
A non-PvPer doesn't get thier jollies by being jumped by jerks and losing what they've accomplished between OOOoooOOOoooing sessions. We like to achieve something. Have something to show for our time in game besides having to find a healer again, re-equip again, try to achieve something again, and getting PKed and ripped off again.
Already starting to sound like a broken record here with this whole "griefing me and ripping me off" deal. Bank often and travel lightly in high profile areas.
I have foragers who can likely kick rump one on one, but it wouldn't be one on one after I dirtnapped a few single PKers, would it? It would be several on one and another OOOoooOOOooo session. We get a gang together to forage, we'd just draw more PKers. The play seesion would be PvP, not PvM or foraging. We don't get to play how we want to, but the PKers do. Either way, our fun is ruined.
So you make the supposition that you have a "forager" (what the hell is that anyway?) that can kill a few PKers 1 on 1. Then after dirtnapping a few of these PKers, you claim that they would come back in a group. Yet, at the same time, you claim that these PKers are constantly killing players for grief, which would undoubtedly put many of them DEEP into stat-loss (after all, if they were playing the whole PK thing in a smart fashion, they wouldn't kill too many people).
A Classic Shard with mildly restrained or completely unrestarined PKing will drive out the non-PvPers and Crafters like they did 10 years ago, and then leave again because the game is no fun for them. They have no one elses fun to ruin.
Good thing that no one has suggested mildly restrained or unrestrained PKing.
So, things in your house are going to just decay?
If you will remember, lock downs were put in when decay was added (server item wipes). Prior to this, people would just hide bags behind trees, etc. full of stuff. It would just stay there. But the servers were getting so full of items that they had to turn on decay...this was pretty early on.
Lock downs were definitely around in T2A.
Actually, this isn't quite right.
The original lock down system that was introduced in November 98 included a minimal number of lock downs for houses and didn't include item decay (there was also no item decay on boats either). It wasn't until phase 3 of the housing changes on January 24, 2000 that we saw the larger lock down limit with co-owners and item decay.
Also, Corgain, if you're advocating for a true "classic" server, you might as well mention the absolutely broken system for PvP as well, where a player who wasn't an archer was practically useless against any other character. Also, we can't forget 3 minute delays between heal attempts and the introduction of the reputation system that brought the end to stat-loss on death and emptying bank boxes for reds and didn't include long-term murder counts, thus leading to a major problem with blue PKing. Or, if you want, we could go with early January 98 and still have the notoriety system and fireballs cast by mages that could
run and cast that killed you in 2 shots. Or we could go
really old school and forget the entire bounty system, stat-loss, and emptying bank boxes and also bring back bugged instant kill weapons. Or, if you wanted, we could go "mid-age" classic and have insta hit, unresistable poison, double hit, and a prep timer that was buggy and gave halberds a major advantage. In any case, pick your poison if you're going to say that we need to stay classic to a specific point in time.
Sure there are. Is it just that the pro-Classic side cant provide anything plausible to show that a Classic shard will be beneficial to UO.
Businesses and people make decisions and crunch the numbers all the time. Which is the best option, should I drive to work which will save time, or should I use public transport which will save money. Should I pay EA to play a Classic shard, or should I just play a free Classic shard. Should the Classic shard be the next expansion or should hobbits or pirates be the next expansion. It doesnt need to be 100% accurate, just ball park accurate enough to make the right decision.
Yawn, it sure was convenient to miss my post in the other thread responding to this. So, I'll post it again:
Lets crunch the numbers. At the Tram-Fel split there were 260,000 subscribers. Estimates put the number of PvPers at 90-95%.
So lets just assume that Classic shard will target 130,000 PvPers.
Interest is only in additional profit, that is, new subscribers to UO.
Lets assume based on the fact that freeshards offer a very different product (in almost all cases) for free and that there are other alternatives such as Darkfall and possibly soon Mortal Online, we get 100% initial interest. That is 130,000 new subscribers. Assuming there will be a 50% gain rate after 6 months, this means 195,000 ongoing new subscribers.
So are 195,000 new ongoing subscribers worth 6 months of development, minor bug fixing + balancing and ongoing bug fixing + content development? Will 195,000 new subscribers, offset the high risk of subscribers on production shards leaving when there is no new content during much of this 6 month period?
Expand the guard zones - make areas where gatherers can actually be safe - to me, it's utterly stupid and hypocritical to want to go back to a time when the smith and tailor were an admired class of people, only to also make them subject to wanton and pointless killing at the same time.
Then any solution should be aimed at making targeting those who have little or nothing to lose less appealing, if this is your goal.
So right now, would anyone say that they are firmly against extra PK penalties of any kind? Or just against the ideas that have been posted in the other thread?
Anyone else have any ideas?
I am against most of the ideas in the other thread because they prove to be exploitable in a way that is unique to that system and isn't just a ubiquitous loophole that could be exploited under any system. Unfortunately, I am particularly against exile (no offense intended in this distaste). I do have a response that I drafted up a while back pointing out the problems that I saw with the system. I won't post them in this post, but if you want, I can put my points out there.
I think that you guys dramatizing about the fact that going out of guardzones means certain death are a overestimating the issue. Trammel was made to "Everquestizise" UO and appeal to MORE GAMERS , not to fix the PK issue (not totally at least) , and we are talking about whining noobs. If you don't like the risk vs reward system then go back and play samurai things or whatsover, people joining this classic shard should be aware of what kind of server it will be.
I don't necessarily think that Trammel was entirely for one thing or another. However I do see 2 and a half things that Trammel was designed to appeal to:
- The current player who didn't want to deal with the risk vs reward system.
- To catch some of the new customer base that was seen in Everquest (this could be argued that some of the current UO player base wanted a EQ style game in terms of loot and is really only a half point).
- To relive the issues with housing (this was a major issue at the time and is reflected in HoC chats).
It's comments like this that kill credibility.
First and foremost, NOTHING about UO even remotely resembles EQ, and vice versa, and never has. Now, if you want to compare UO, post AoS, to Diablo, Divinity, etc, then you have a valid comment. Otherwise, you're just making stuff up that you obviously have no clue about.
It does in terms of the loss of loot (the intended result of the time investment).
I've got to back Guido on the whole "Tram was created to Everquestize UO thing" Raph Koster, Designer Dragon himself said during a chat in Star Wars Galaxies that the whole reason they made Trammel was because UO had allready lost subscriptions in the six digits (read at least 100,000 paying subscribers) because of FFA PVP (read PKs).
I would like to see the actual quote myself (not picking on you specifically for this, it was just the most recent post mentioning the quote), just to make sure that it isn't being taken out of context one way or another.
]The only knowledge I have of pre-Tram UO comes from posts made by others. Taken with a couple kilo-tons of salt in some cases. <g>
Well, that certainly explains your wild assumptions quoted above.
