Another Feature (mathematicians are welcome!)

[Pinco]

I'm planning another feature for my UI rework, and this one will require a lot of math.

Basically I'm trying to do a new system to help the player (especially new ones) to determine if they can handle an enemy.
For example, if you see an ettin with this system active, you should be able to immediately know if you can handle the fight against him or not.

The main idea is to use a number from 1 to 10 near the creature name (like inside a circle), and if this number is equal to 1 it means that you can beat the creature without problems, if it's 10, the creature is too powerful for you and you may need help. This number could use some color too, like from green to red.

Anyway, the point of this post is to use your help to create a solid formula to generates that number.
Possibly it would be great to make this formula to work on pvp too, so that everyone can determine if you are attacking a newbie worker or a veteran player.

In order to work for any kind of build we have to account the following variables:

1) hit chance player vs opponent: 0-100%

2) hit chance opponent vs player: 0-100%

3) player magic skills level: an higher level means that you can use summons like vortex/colossus and cause more damage

4) player damage vs opponent resistances

5) player resistances vs opponent damage

6) player's pets: based on the slot number and the animal lore evaluation.

7) bard skill success vs opponent: if you can discord/pacify or use a bard spell, the difficulty will be lower.

8) healing factor

Since I don't have much time to work on this, right now I'd like to hear some ideas, comments or whatever you have to say about this topic.

Thanks

 

[Smoot]

dont agree with this feature. uo as a game is based upon a high element of unknown risk. a built in calculator to see if you can handle something, tho useful, just doesnt seem in the spirit of the game.

plus pretty sure we already have this. if you attack something and it instantly kills you, it is a very hard monster.

 

[DJAd]

Yeah I agree with Smoot here.

 

[Pinco]

dont agree with this feature. uo as a game is based upon a high element of unknown risk. a built in calculator to see if you can handle something, tho useful, just doesnt seem in the spirit of the game.

plus pretty sure we already have this. if you attack something and it instantly kills you, it is a very hard monster.

perhaps some old player thinks like you, but in my latest tests with new player this is more an issue than a surprise...
many people doesn't like surprises, they just want and kill something that they do know they can handle without taking any risks. Especially at the beginning when you know almost nothing about the game, the money is not so easy to make and if you lose your equipment it's a bad thing because you can't afford to buy another.

 

[Smoot]

perhaps some old player thinks like you, but in my latest tests with new player this is more an issue than a surprise...
many people doesn't like surprises, they just want and kill something that they do know they can handle without taking any risks. Especially at the beginning when you know almost nothing about the game, the money is not so easy to make and if you lose your equipment it's a bad thing because you can't afford to buy another.

Keep in mind UO is a retro game, and the devs are marketing it more towards returning players, an older crowd, and to those who enjoy retro games. Eliminating the "heart" of what UO is based on, surprise, unknown, imminent death wouldnt be something good for this particular game.

I play other games with many built in calculators, all kinds of mods so i know my numbers on everything, but i play UO for exactly the opposite reason. because its a sandbox game that you largely figure out for yourself.

Please keep in mind the type of game UO is when designing the UI (btw i am looking forward to it thankyou for all the hard work)

 

[Longtooths]

This can quickly become a momentous task. If pets are included, then you need to individually assign a ranking system to all available pets. Then you need a sub classification based on the pets skills since on some there is a big difference between trained and not. You also need to create a matrix based on players skills and I imaging an accompanying sub classification based on the totality of a players skills

(This in particular could be momentous based on the wide ranging uniqueness of skill building in UO.) But if you excluded skills below a certain level and awarded points first based off of skill then added them to get a base that might work. You could also go into suit stats ARGH it is endless:

 

[Lady CaT]

This feature takes the fun of discovery completely out of the game in my opinion. You are eliminating a component of exploration of a dangerous dungeon by having instant information about all its inhabitants. Although to your point this already exists with a hunters guide. Now it would be instantly available rather than looking creatures up on stratics. I think the Hunter's Guide already gives a difficulty rating. Maybe make adjustments to that formula for your purposes.

P.S. Definitely put a toggle on this feature. I could see a lot of people not wanting to ever use this.

 

[Petra Fyde]

Too many variables - it would depend not only on the character's strength, but also what weapon he has, what he's wearing, etc etc.

I dunno, when I started if it didn't kill you, you could fight it, and if it did you got rezed, very carefully edged up to your body and looted your stuff back (no insurance obviously) and went to find something easier to fight. Pretty simple really.

 

[Merus]

Maybe something simpler... Just a difficulty rating based on monster type with a tool tip to explain the rating.

Range from 1 (bird) to 120 (Exodus). I picked 120 because I think it would be great to tier the difficulty to the appoximate primary skill level needed to defeat roughly 50% of the time. Could even do something like a 120+ rating for mobs the would normally require more than 1 person to defeat.

One option to calculate would be some value based on bard difficulty, with some upper end variability for mobs with 160+ bard difficulty.

 

[Veldrane]

I like the idea of the feature, but given UO's extremely complex combat system I'm not sure it would be able to work with any sort of reliability. I could see taking the monsters and perhaps grouping them up into "levels" and display that level - then leave it to the player to decide if they are capable of handling a monster of that power level.

 

[Winter]

As long as this feature can be turned on/off, it should address Smoot's concern, which I agree with as an old-timer. For newbies, it's now a common online game feature.

You could keep it simple and cover 90% of all cases just by adding up the total skill points for magery/fighting skills (compared as a percentage against 120 max for those skills), factor in resists, and compare to the mob's skill totals. You can do the same for pets.

If you do it that way, it is a simple straight forward calculation. It won't cover everyone and everything, but do a should decent job.

 

[G.v.P]

As long as this feature can be turned on/off, it should address Smoot's concern, which I agree with as an old-timer. For newbies, it's now a common online game feature.

I feel like it's whether UO stays UO, without classes or levels, or should it go the way of EQ and label monsters by difficulty. Seems to be what people are saying.

Anyone remember using the old Stratics' Hunter's Guide? Here's an example for a Balron:

Difficulty Ratings
Class DR
Archer: 9
Bard: 9
Mage: 8
Tamer: 8
Warrior: 9

And with certain monsters there would also be comments, like, for an Acid Elemental, for example, it would warn you of damage to your weapon.

I believe it was a 1-9 scale with X, XX or the like, or am I mistaken? I forget the very original system, but I do believe it was vaguely 1-10 based. Anyway, I used to study the Hunter's Guide like a manual. I don't see why this information would seem too oddly placed, although, in the spirit of UO, I would rather see skills like Anatomy, Eval Int, etc., be able to conjure up the difficulty in a more elaborate window. Would it be possible to display predetermined information about a monster per use of those skills, or would such a trigger need to be added by a developer? For example, if Animal Lore type = Greater Dragon, open Greater Dragon difficulty gump, etc.?

Hm. Either way, I think a 1-10 scale would make the most sense.

 

[The Zog historian]

I too like the idea, which I've seen in some games when a monster's "level" was a certain magnitude higher than the character's. However, being level-based, those games lacked the variety of UO, and I have to agree with others that it's very hard to quantify. You'd also have to put in something to determine how well a player can heal.

The old Stratics monster guide had ratings 1 through 10, X and XXX (was there X?). A monster rated 10 was quite hard, whereas something X, like an ogre lord, required a player who was grandmaster in magery or combat skills, with full GM-made (exceptional) armor. XXX meant something so hard that it took a group to kill it, like a balron or ancient wyrm.

 

[Pinco]

For pets there is already the pet evaluation used on animal lore and the number of slots that should roughly tell if you are using a strong or weak pet.

I agree also with the healing factor.

The barding difficulty could be useful, I'll note that...

 

[Winter]

I remember that in the early years, if you told your pet to attack a monster that was too difficult for it that it would just refuse to attack. This is really not much different except for assigning a number to the difficulty.

I see nothing wrong with games evolving to attract new players.

 

[Fridgster]

A lot of variables indeed. I think the variables will have to be strictly critter based. Adding the variables of a specific build or skill set of the character would be opening Pandora's box. Now I don't think this is a bad idea. It would give a general idea of what you'll be up against. Great for lower level critters (that new players will be fighting) and the higher end critters will be a bit more of a feel as you go technique.

 

[The Zog historian]

I feel like it's whether UO stays UO, without classes or levels, or should it go the way of EQ and label monsters by difficulty. Seems to be what people are saying.

Anyone remember using the old Stratics' Hunter's Guide? Here's an example for a Balron:



And with certain monsters there would also be comments, like, for an Acid Elemental, for example, it would warn you of damage to your weapon.

I believe it was a 1-9 scale with X, XX or the like, or am I mistaken? I forget the very original system, but I do believe it was vaguely 1-10 based. Anyway, I used to study the Hunter's Guide like a manual. I don't see why this information would seem too oddly placed, although, in the spirit of UO, I would rather see skills like Anatomy, Eval Int, etc., be able to conjure up the difficulty in a more elaborate window. Would it be possible to display predetermined information about a monster per use of those skills, or would such a trigger need to be added by a developer? For example, if Animal Lore type = Greater Dragon, open Greater Dragon difficulty gump, etc.?

Hm. Either way, I think a 1-10 scale would make the most sense.

Ah, so I'm not the only one who remembers the old ratings. Make my question about XX, which I don't recall, but I remember there were definitely X and XXX, with meanings as I said. It's a lot different today with the variety of armor and weapons, though, not like when we'd drop 1500 gold on a new suit of GM plate (and before exceptional breastplates could be made), grab a GM halberd and feel ready to hit a dungeon.

What's kept me playing UO is that it isn't level-based. It's why I ditched EQ quickly, liked Diablo II for a couple of months but never bothered with Diablo III.

Oh, that brings to mind something else: what about when someone is holding a 100% damage weapon that is a monster's weakest resist, versus one that's its hardest? Slayer or superslayer? There are an awful lot of things to include that are meaningful.

 

[Winter]

A lot of variables indeed. I think the variables will have to be strictly critter based. ...

I don't think so, you don't have to make it that complicated. Since Pinco is just looking for a granular system of 1-10, you don't have to make a complex calculation.

Think of it this way: add up all your fighting skills and magic skills, and all of the mobs fighting/magic skills. If they are equal, then that is a 5. If the mob's skill total is 50% or more greater set that to a 10. If the mob's skill total is 50% less set that to a 1.

It shouldn't be too hard to add a factor for resist, poisoning, or other specials, but it really doesn't need to be complex.

 

[Pinco]

Ah, so I'm not the only one who remembers the old ratings. Make my question about XX, which I don't recall, but I remember there were definitely X and XXX, with meanings as I said. It's a lot different today with the variety of armor and weapons, though, not like when we'd drop 1500 gold on a new suit of GM plate (and before exceptional breastplates could be made), grab a GM halberd and feel ready to hit a dungeon.

What's kept me playing UO is that it isn't level-based. It's why I ditched EQ quickly, liked Diablo II for a couple of months but never bothered with Diablo III.

Oh, that brings to mind something else: what about when someone is holding a 100% damage weapon that is a monster's weakest resist, versus one that's its hardest? Slayer or superslayer? There are an awful lot of things to include that are meaningful.

for an accurate result I will need to consider all the equipment....

I don't think so, you don't have to make it that complicated. Since Pinco is just looking for a granular system of 1-10, you don't have to make a complex calculation.

Think of it this way: add up all your fighting skills and magic skills, and all of the mobs fighting/magic skills. If they are equal, then that is a 5. If the mob's skill total is 50% or more greater set that to a 10. If the mob's skill total is 50% less set that to a 1.

It shouldn't be too hard to add a factor for resist, poisoning, or other specials, but it really doesn't need to be complex.

but to be simple I could just use the barding difficulty formula on players then compare the result with the opponent barding difficulty

 

[Smoot]

id be fine with a value of 1 to 10 for difficulty of a creature.

DONT assign values to other players lol. imagine your in the field and see a trammy guild doing a spawn. handy calculator ready to tell you which ones to pick off first.

also keep in mind that all these little additions affect the UIs performance. please make the UI useable, a the majority of UO players do not play on 2000 dollar new PCs (and shouldnt have to for a 20 year old game)

 

[G.v.P]

Ah, so I'm not the only one who remembers the old ratings. Make my question about XX, which I don't recall, but I remember there were definitely X and XXX, with meanings as I said. It's a lot different today with the variety of armor and weapons, though, not like when we'd drop 1500 gold on a new suit of GM plate (and before exceptional breastplates could be made), grab a GM halberd and feel ready to hit a dungeon.

What's kept me playing UO is that it isn't level-based. It's why I ditched EQ quickly, liked Diablo II for a couple of months but never bothered with Diablo III.

Oh, that brings to mind something else: what about when someone is holding a 100% damage weapon that is a monster's weakest resist, versus one that's its hardest? Slayer or superslayer? There are an awful lot of things to include that are meaningful.

Maybe there's an archive--or better yet, a Petra or the like --that can clear things up. I do recall some semblance of X, or Xs .

I too enjoyed Diablo II, never played Diablo I, played EQ for a day and didn't like it :x (friend played), never got Diablo III because I felt it wouldn't live up to hype (and it didn't launch with any PvP). Looks like the launch was rather poor...monsters, I heard from my friend Tigger (who plays UO) and other friends, were too easy during Beta...so I heard too many negatives about Diablo III, let alone it would be a new group developing the game...and we know how that goes (RIP Draconi, Cal, et al).

 

[TandaBSK]

While I've never pvp'd I can't see knowing everything about your opponents template making the game more attractive. Those I talk to who do seem to enjoy the challenge, the not knowing what your facing, the fact that this player could be a mage Tuesday stone everything off and be something different Tuesday evening. You can give a rough idea if your characters template, armor, weapons etc are a match you can't rate whether the player behind that avatar is up to it.

I don't know how I feel about it in a PVE/PVM setting, even though I am by nature in game a healer and not offensive in a group dynamic I still have rather fond memories of my early screw ups getting me killed, and eventually getting past the point where losing items and having to get rez'd was a thing to be avoided at all costs. In fact at the last meet & greet folks were begging Mesanna to kill them. Learning how to earn gold, developing TRUSTED friends are all part of the adventure.

I do think more info that is easier to find would be grand!!! Those veterans who love this game have spent more than a decade not only perfecting their play style but the art of knowing where to find an answer or who to ask! Not many wish to spend 2 hours searching to find an answer to how something works, and then wonder if the answer they found is indeed factual and up to date.

 

[DJAd]

While I've never pvp'd I can't see knowing everything about your opponents template making the game more attractive. Those I talk to who do seem to enjoy the challenge, the not knowing what your facing, the fact that this player could be a mage Tuesday stone everything off and be something different Tuesday evening. You can give a rough idea if your characters template, armor, weapons etc are a match you can't rate whether the player behind that avatar is up to it.

With Pinco's current UI when you click on a player it gives a lot of information. It shows their HCI/DCI, LMC, DI, SDI, EP and SSI along with each individual resist. I find this a massive help and I really hope this is built into the new UI.

 

[Herman]

but to be simple I could just use the barding difficulty formula on players then compare the result with the opponent barding difficulty

That is probably a good place to start at as far as i know

All stats, skills, spell casting, fire breath, area dmg, lvl of poison and poison ressistance adds to barding difficulty

so barding difficulty base dmg and total resist would pretty much cover most things

 

[Smoot]

With Pinco's current UI when you click on a player it gives a lot of information. It shows their HCI/DCI, LMC, DI, SDI, EP and SSI along with each individual resist. I find this a massive help and I really hope this is built into the new UI.

i guess the days of wearing a robe so no one can even see your armor are over

 

[Pinco]

i guess the days of wearing a robe so no one can even see your armor are over

eheh those days are gone LOOOOONG time ago when the first scripts for CC came out allowing people to see and do whatever they want

 

[Elden of Baja]

Going to sound crazy, But how hard would Just a Data Base be for pulling up Average stats for the Creature.

 

[Pinco]

Going to sound crazy, But how hard would Just a Data Base be for pulling up Average stats for the Creature.

Well, the average stats are basically the barding difficulty

 

[Tjalle]

DONT assign values to other players lol. imagine your in the field and see a trammy guild doing a spawn. handy calculator ready to tell you which ones to pick off first.

This was my first thought as well. Don´t make it so you can use this feature on other players.

 

[Longtooths]

id be fine with a value of 1 to 10 for difficulty of a creature.

DONT assign values to other players lol. imagine your in the field and see a trammy guild doing a spawn. handy calculator ready to tell you which ones to pick off first.

also keep in mind that all these little additions affect the UIs performance. please make the UI useable, a the majority of UO players do not play on 2000 dollar new PCs (and shouldnt have to for a 20 year old game)

" SCRIBBLES RATED 1 DOG PILLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!" lol

 

[Smoot]

eheh those days are gone LOOOOONG time ago when the first scripts for CC came out allowing people to see and do whatever they want

guess i just dont agree with features that are too like the illegal scripts we arent supposed to be using...

 

[Lady Storm]

As one of the Elders of UO here dont let the Vets fool you... there was somethinglike this long ago as was pointed out.
I think it would be a nice idea. As you said a bit of a math maticians noodle rub would help.

 

[kelmo]

What is the cut off line to be an Elder of UO? *winks*

 

[Smoot]

What is the cut off line to be an Elder of UO? *winks*

i think you just have to start calling people "kiddo" and your automatic Elder : P

 

[Lady Storm]

Well as Elder I meant I started UO off in Beta.... I guess that is the begining of UO in my books any hoo....
Sugar If you want tobe an elder be my guest. Pinco just gave a invite to help him out and I for one dont see any harm in his request for it,
New and returning players who might not have gotten far might be intimadated by the new critters... or not so intimadated and go for something that would wipe the floor of them because they have no clue to the str of it.....

Thats right Kiddos!!

 

[kelmo]

*chuckles* I was just teasing Lady Storm a little.

 

[Elden of Baja]

What I meant Pinco was more or less Like being able to Lore the Monster without Lore skill Just going off average Stats as if you were looking them up on UoGuide or Stratics. Obviously all the information would have to be coded for each monster if you wanted to make comparisons based on resists, Chance to hit, etc, so just let them pull up the information you code to the monster.

 

[Winter]

What I meant Pinco was more or less Like being able to Lore the Monster without Lore skill Just going off average Stats as if you were looking them up on UoGuide or Stratics. Obviously all the information would have to be coded for each monster if you wanted to make comparisons based on resists, Chance to hit, etc, so just let them pull up the information you code to the monster.

The problem with that technique is it would have to be updated everytime mobs are added or updated. Pinoc has access to the real data, and doesn't need to do it that way. I don't think it would be any faster.

 

[Lady Storm]

Oh I know Kelmo!
I just want the people to understand where I have been so its not in question.
Pinco has a good idea... I cant tell you how many times a new player has asked what can I kill to start off with....
You would be surprised how many in the haven area die to a greater mongbat thinking they are all the same....

 

[Aurelius]

For a game where a huge part of the fun was the sheer excitement of 'adventuring' into the unknown, taking risks and learning new things - why are we always taking the 'unknown' and 'risk' out?

 

[Pinco]

For a game where a huge part of the fun was the sheer excitement of 'adventuring' into the unknown, taking risks and learning new things - why are we always taking the 'unknown' and 'risk' out?

someone like the risk and someone don't, that's why toggle exists

 

[popps]

Too many variables - it would depend not only on the character's strength, but also what weapon he has, what he's wearing, etc etc.

Well, I suppose that the assessment would be done comparing the 2 characters "as they are" at the moment of the check....

The game knows all details that one is wearing, and what weapon one is holding in hand or what most powerfull spells one might be capable of using....

So, what all the game engine would need, is assign a value to one's own overall combat capabilities and then compare it to that of the opposing foe.

Of course, the more variables the "check" could assess, the more reliable the comparison would be, I guess..... perhaps, since the current UO's combat system already needs to assess attacker's and defender's stats (skills, stats, modifiers, level of spells and all that...), perhaps this could be a starting point to expand it so that a reliable comparison could be done "before" actual combat would start ?

I mean, if the combat engine currently existing in the game can determine -after an attack has been initiated- who wins and who looses, by assessing attacker's and defender's overall values, why could this not be done, with needed changes to it or a new engine that would expand the combat one, also BEFORE attack actually starts and produce an "estimate" of the attack outcome should it be initiated thus showing who would "presumably" loose and who would "presumably" win ?

For NPCs and monsters it would be easier, I imagine, as their abilities are stable and they could just be entered in a database, for players' characters, it would need to be done according to their skills and stats levels as well as armor worn, spells known and weapons in hand. Should the armor worn, or the weapon held change, the value would also change does prompting for a new check versus the opposing foe...

I see this as a VERY important addition to Ultima Online because, if it can be done and works with reasonable accuracy, it could help us get rid of the facets restrictions..... no more Felucca or Trammel rulesets but only the vast online world of Ultima Online......

Why ?

Because for PvP, if it is possible to make such a system work, then restrictions to PvP could be added where a player's character that is significantly stronger than another player's character (the % could be decided at a later time.... whether 10% or 20% stronger or whatever....) and the game engine would inhibit the stronger players to ever be able to attack the weaker player out of certain boundaries of power difference....

No more player killing, and perhaps even no more ganking if this could be also managed at group level like if 2 or more players attack another player, and their combined attacking value is higher than their target, the game engine would inhibit their attack and make their actions void and useless....

If this can be done in Ultima Online, it would be a huge milestone and achievement, IMHO, a really great feature to have in a game that plays out in a multiplayer online virtual world.....

I definately would favour it.......

 

[Aurelius]

someone like the risk and someone don't, that's why toggle exists

Toggles are great and we should have more, for all sorts of things, especially graphics - but given the options of insurance, people turn it on. Given the options of knowing more about tameable creatures before they tame stuff, they tend to turn it on. Given the option to know more, or reduce 'risks'... people almost always turn it on.... and then never turn it off again. They take the options that make it easier.... and then find it's easy, and thus less interesting, and less exciting... but even then virtually nobody turns the option off again.

 

[Pinco]

Toggles are great and we should have more, for all sorts of things, especially graphics - but given the options of insurance, people turn it on. Given the options of knowing more about tameable creatures before they tame stuff, they tend to turn it on. Given the option to know more, or reduce 'risks'... people almost always turn it on.... and then never turn it off again. They take the options that make it easier.... and then find it's easy, and thus less interesting, and less exciting... but even then virtually nobody turns the option off again.

lately I brought 3 people to play UO, new players that never known this game. 1 of them took the risk against the unknown, he died, lost everything and then he told me: "what a crap game, I lost all against this monster, and now what? should I farm noble at new haven to re-buy all? no thanks". After that and due to the fact that he couldn't find any purpose, he uninstalled the game.
The other 2 just got bored to kill skeletons and asked around to someone what they could do, but unfortunately they found the local jester that brought them in destard where they died immediately. Lost forever into the woods without a clue on what to do or any idea of what kind of monster they could really handle, they just quit forever.

In this experiment I did not intervene because I wanted to see what happen to new players when they start from scratch without knowing anyone and anything about the game. As you can see the result is quite sad, 3 players gone for good just because there are no info or any kind of system to guide them...
The times are changed, we are no longer in 1997 when all the games gives no info, right now the players want to know all they need to know when they need to know something without searching around the web. They also want to know what to do and to be led until they are ready to wander around by themselves.

Well, I suppose that the assessment would be done comparing the 2 characters "as they are" at the moment of the check....

The game knows all details that one is wearing, and what weapon one is holding in hand or what most powerfull spells one might be capable of using....

So, what all the game engine would need, is assign a value to one's own overall combat capabilities and then compare it to that of the opposing foe.

For NPCs and monsters it would be easier, I imagine, as their abilities are stable and they could just be entered in a database, for players' characters, it would need to be done according to their skills and stats levels as well as armor worn, spells known and weapons in hand. Should the armor worn, or the weapon held change, the value would also change does prompting for a new check versus the opposing foe...

I see this as a VERY important addition to Ultima Online because, if it can be done and works with reasonable accuracy, it could help us get rid of the facets restrictions..... no more Felucca or Trammel rulesets but only the vast online world of Ultima Online......

Why ?

Because for PvP, if it is possible to make such a system work, then restrictions to PvP could be added where a player's character that is significantly stronger than another player's character (the % could be decided at a later time.... whether 10% or 20% stronger or whatever....) and the game engine would inhibit the stronger players to ever be able to attack the weaker player out of certain boundaries of power difference....

No more player killing, and perhaps even no more ganking if this could be also managed at group level like if 2 or more players attack another player, and their combined attacking value is higher than their target, the game engine would inhibit their attack and make their actions void and useless....

If this can be done in Ultima Online, it would be a huge milestone and achievement, IMHO.....

I definately would favour it.......

the pvp inhibition would cause a lot of exploit.... for example if I steal you something with a thief that only has stealing and goes around naked, you won't be able to kill me because I will be considered weak. Another example could be the fact that when you are low life on pvp you just undress so that you can be tagged as "weak" and run away.

Unfortunately the only way to make the pvp "fair" with a chaotic system like the current one is to create some kind of reward in doing it while inside a faction (or vice and virtue) or in duel inside of arena. Other than that there should be a malus in killing player outside those system. Bonus and malus should be so decisive to discourage any other form of pvp. This way you are still free to do whatever you want, but you are discouraged to kill people randomly without a purpose.
Another possible way to make pvp functional (and fun), could be to create a bounty system, where people gets rewarded in killing red players. Everytime a red player gets killed lose 1 kill point. With something like this, the kill points will generate a kind of mini-game blue vs red.

 

[popps]

the pvp inhibition would cause a lot of exploit.... for example if I steal you something with a thief that only has stealing and goes around naked, you won't be able to kill me because I will be considered weak. Another example could be the fact that when you are low life on pvp you just undress so that you can be tagged as "weak" and run away.

Well, having the "stealing" skil could be made the exception to such a PvP inhibitor.....
A player's character carrying the stealing skill on themselves, could be always attackable regardless of the comparison check.....

Since Thieves usually also have hiding and stealth (Siege Perilous has a wealthy comunity of thieves using hiding and stealthing....), I would not see this as too much a big problem for thieves, sure, if they walk around exposing themselves they would just walk around with like a big flag over their heads which says "kill me"...... but if thieves just stay hidden and stealth around at all times they could go around wandering the UO world as before....

Perhaps, a change to stealing could be added to protect those who do not want to steal from players but only from NPCs and the stealables around areas of the game....

A new "stealing from NPCs" skill could be added which would only work from NPCs and area stealables, NOT from other players' characters, and this skill would NOT allow to get attacked by other players' characters should they be too much weaker as their attacker (i.e. the PvP inhibitor would work with this second stealing skill).

The actual stealing skill that allows to steal from other players' characters, instead, would not work with the PvP inhibitor and these PvP thieves could be always attacked, no matter their weakness.....

Another possible way to make pvp functional (and fun), could be to create a bounty system, where people gets rewarded in killing red players. Everytime a red player gets killed lose 1 kill point. With something like this, the kill points will generate a kind of mini-game blue vs red.

Well, I see there some risks for exploit.....
How to prevent players with 2 accounts, for example, or with friends who have red characters, to just freely kill their other account's red or their friend's red a go-go, without the red defending himself, so that the blue can accumulate points for a nice prize ?

Such a system giving points to the killing blue character, should also have penalties for the red getting killed to avoid the bounty system to get exploited with reds letting themselves be freely killed over and over thus effectively "handying out" bounty system points to the attacking blue ...

If a red getting killed would bring penalties to the red that by far out value the advantage of points to the killing blue, then chances are that no red would want to let themselves get easily killed not to face the nasty penalties...

Even with penalties for letting oneself get killed, there is still room for exploit, I fear...

What if a player let's one's own red get killed, over and over to "hand out" bounty system points to their other account blue or a friend's blue and then when the red character is ruined beyond repairs for having been killed over and over they just delete the red character and make a new one ?

I think that, to avoid exploits, there should be a well thought out penalties system that would actually be meaningfull AND painfull to the red getting killed, beyond the possibility for that red character to get just deleted and made anew when it gets ruined beyond repair by having let it be killed over and over to "hand out" points to an attacking blue.....

I am not sure what these penalties could be, but I think that they should be such that could not be worked around one way or the other.....

 

[Petra Fyde]

Well, having the "stealing" skil could be made the exception to such a PvP inhibitor.....
A player's character carrying the stealing skill on themselves, could be always attackable regardless of the comparison check.....

...

You're re-writing the game! Please don't.

 

[popps]

You're re-writing the game! Please don't.

Well, any change to the game is a re-writing of the game, I would guess...

One could prefer the current facets system (Felucca vs. Trammel) over a PvP inhibitor with just one global world for all, that I can understand, but personally, I think that a PvP inhibitor versus the current facets system would be able to bring more advantages, more people sharing the same hunting grounds, and perhaps even more people deciding to (finally) try out PvP and be part of it.....

It's a matter of different opinions, I guess......

 

[Aurelius]

lately I brought 3 people to play UO, new players that never known this game. 1 of them took the risk against the unknown, he died, lost everything and then he told me: "what a crap game, I lost all against this monster, and now what? should I farm noble at new haven to re-buy all? no thanks". After that and due to the fact that he couldn't find any purpose, he uninstalled the game.
The other 2 just got bored to kill skeletons and asked around to someone what they could do, but unfortunately they found the local jester that brought them in destard where they died immediately. Lost forever into the woods without a clue on what to do or any idea of what kind of monster they could really handle, they just quit forever.

We see a LOT more than three per week, either returning old-timers who know about the 'risks' in taking on monsters, many from freeshards who want to try the 'real' game, and a scattering of a few who have decided to try it out for the first time. Some kind folks help them get basic equipment, we explain things like insurance and talk with them about what they might best fight to gain skill and not continually die. That helps. So far, some leave and some stay. On balance I think we have more stayers than leavers....

None of what you are putting in a 'toggle' would help resolve problems with idiots who take new folks to strange places and abandon them that's a rather poor case to use to support it. A 'new' player dropped in Destard will hardly benefit from knowing the things killing them are way too powerful for them, when they are toe-to-toe with a monster it's WAY too late....

As for your first example - that'll happen, it happened to every single one of the old timers, regular players and anyone else who has been inUO for more than a week.... if someone gives up at such a first stage, are they honestly going to stay when they will run into many more situations they can't cope with?

Sorry, but it's another step towards the apparently endless decline into losing any sense of adventure, or mystery, or even immersion in the game. Maybe we should just copy the bog-standard industry model for MMOs and colour code monsters so everyone can see the easy ones and the hard ones...... apparently what makes UO 'different' is now seen as the 'problem' and moving towards being a clone of all the other stuff is the way ahead we are going on...

 

[Petra Fyde]

We see a LOT more than three per week, either returning old-timers who know about the 'risks' in taking on monsters, many from freeshards who want to try the 'real' game, and a scattering of a few who have decided to try it out for the first time. Some kind folks help them get basic equipment, we explain things like insurance and talk with them about what they might best fight to gain skill and not continually die. That helps. So far, some leave and some stay. On balance I think we have more stayers than leavers....

None of what you are putting in a 'toggle' would help resolve problems with idiots who take new folks to strange places and abandon them that's a rather poor case to use to support it. A 'new' player dropped in Destard will hardly benefit from knowing the things killing them are way too powerful for them, when they are toe-to-toe with a monster it's WAY too late....

As for your first example - that'll happen, it happened to every single one of the old timers, regular players and anyone else who has been inUO for more than a week.... if someone gives up at such a first stage, are they honestly going to stay when they will run into many more situations they can't cope with?

Sorry, but it's another step towards the apparently endless decline into losing any sense of adventure, or mystery, or even immersion in the game. Maybe we should just copy the bog-standard industry model for MMOs and colour code monsters so everyone can see the easy ones and the hard ones...... apparently what makes UO 'different' is now seen as the 'problem' and moving towards being a clone of all the other stuff is the way ahead we are going on...

I hope not! I'd hate to see UO dumbed down to that extent.
How do players die and 'lose everything' when we didn't? We lured the monster away from our body and went and got our stuff back!
I don't think I have any sympathy for someone who gives up at the first sign of adversity.

 

[Pinco]

I hope not! I'd hate to see UO dumbed down to that extent.
How do players die and 'lose everything' when we didn't? We lured the monster away from our body and went and got our stuff back!
I don't think I have any sympathy for someone who gives up at the first sign of adversity.

You have to understand something to like it, and if you don't like something why should you take some efforts to pass over the adversity?

Many people just try the game because they heard of it, and when they get inside they just need to learn something without talking to everyone you see, especially because when you try something you don't care to be involved with the community. So basically you know nothing and noone, you wander around without getting any info whatsoever then you die, you lose all and what kind of reaction do you expect if not quitting?

I mean you all are looking at the game by the point of view of someone who has played it and cares about playing, but if you are just passing by with your trial account, you need to find something that catch your gaze and let you tell: "hey I like that! let me try some more..." and then when the people start to grown some care about what they are doing, when they start to considering to pay for the account, only then he will start to use some efforts to recover his things, making friends and so on...

You must remember that a new player is not and old returning player, but someone bored to tears that wants to try something new and for some case find out about UO.