• Greetings Guest, Having Login Issues? Check this thread!
  • Hail Guest!,
    Please take a moment to read this post reminding you all of the importance of Account Security.

Lord British needs your opinion on PvP!

Rhiannon

Sage
Alumni
Stratics Veteran
This is an excellent example of the experiential opportunities produced by open PvP. It facilitates role-playing, and we are talking about a Role-Playing Game - the Ultimate one, which would likely include dastardly mountain brigands.
I actually told the guy I had never smiled while being robbed and thanked him for the experience.

So within the confines of this discussion, how do you incorporate that into the Ultimate RPG, and eliminate PKers who kill simply because they can, want to get rich and like pi**ing people off for the sake of doing so? Or is that simply not possible to have both?
 

Neves

Visitor
I actually told the guy I had never smiled while being robbed and thanked him for the experience.

So within the confines of this discussion, how do you incorporate that into the Ultimate RPG, and eliminate PKers who kill simply because they can, want to get rich and like pi**ing people off for the sake of doing so? Or is that simply not possible to have both?
I don't think you can have ultimate good without ultimate evil and all of the interesting gray areas in between. There are griefers and murderers and haters in real life, which sucks a lot, but we need the villains in our real and fantastic stories or they lack depth and meaning.

That you (Rhiannon) can recall and then share the tale of the mountain brigands is the most valuable thing you have from the experience, and it would have never happened had there not been risk.
 
Last edited:

Vanpry

Visitor
Stratics Veteran
I have to add here that in my first 6 months of playing UO, I was running to Skara Brae through that little pass through mountains when I came upon a band of PC thieves. They told me to stop and give them all my gold or I would be killed. Well that was a no brainer. I had like 50 gold on me and handed it over. And they let me go. Now THAT is how you role play brigands. It was by far one of the most interesting experiences I have had in nearly 15 years playing UO.

And that's why I mention it here (Petra :)). I don't see any way really to program that into the game. But RG is looking for input on PVP, what we like, what we don't like and to do that, we need to take learnings from what WAS to be used to create what WILL BE. At least that's how I look at it.
Cute story, but for every one person that is actually "roleplay" a evil person there are probably countless others that are just ****** bags.

The problem with the whole "I'm roleplaying" is every pker I ever ran into pretty much one shot me. So if they were truly "roleplaying" a "highway man" then their skills should reflect that. Let's be real what master villain would waste their time being a highway man. It would be like Lex Luthor stealing some old ladies purse instead of I don't know trying to take over the world, steal millions of dollars, etc.

I hate to state the obvious but old UO is dead, buried and completely decomposed. It can never ever be recreated again period end of discussion. Because the people that made up a good portion of the formula that made old UO so great now have the choice to not be someones amusement. So if you give UR a ffa pvp tag you will get pvpers and the adrenaline junkies. If that is the community you are shooting for then I wish you the best of luck. The ffa pvp sandbox sub genre doesn't do bad. I think they'd do better if they offered pvp optional servers but I guess our money is dirty to them.

Ok off my why ffa pvp sucks and I'm roleplaying is not a excuse soapbox. I'll try not to climb back up there but no guarantees. ;)

I'd say give people options and let them choose, have the esports pvp/pve servers with arena and battle grounds and then have ffa pvp servers for those that take pvp more serious. Now this is where the hardcore pvper start chiming in about how having alternate rule servers would diminish their play style. This is where I start scratching my head. I would never be playing with you on a ffa pvp server anyway so exactly how does me playing on a alternate rule server effect you? The typical response is the game isn't designed for that, it would take away from our design fund. Ok, this is partially true but the extra revenue that the pve server brings in would pay for itself over time. So in the end the pvper would get more design funds from the alternate rule servers that so offend them.
 

senescal

Adventurer
Cute story, but for every one person that is actually "roleplay" a evil person there are probably countless others that are just ****** bags.

The problem with the whole "I'm roleplaying" is every pker I ever ran into pretty much one shot me. So if they were truly "roleplaying" a "highway man" then their skills should reflect that. Let's be real what master villain would waste their time being a highway man. It would be like Lex Luthor stealing some old ladies purse instead of I don't know trying to take over the world, steal millions of dollars, etc.

I hate to state the obvious but old UO is dead, buried and completely decomposed. It can never ever be recreated again period end of discussion. Because the people that made up a good portion of the formula that made old UO so great now have the choice to not be someones amusement. So if you give UR a ffa pvp tag you will get pvpers and the adrenaline junkies. If that is the community you are shooting for then I wish you the best of luck. The ffa pvp sandbox sub genre doesn't do bad. I think they'd do better if they offered pvp optional servers but I guess our money is dirty to them.

Ok off my why ffa pvp sucks and I'm roleplaying is not a excuse soapbox. I'll try not to climb back up there but no guarantees. ;)

I'd say give people options and let them choose, have the esports pvp/pve servers with arena and battle grounds and then have ffa pvp servers for those that take pvp more serious. Now this is where the hardcore pvper start chiming in about how having alternate rule servers would diminish their play style. This is where I start scratching my head. I would never be playing with you on a ffa pvp server anyway so exactly how does me playing on a alternate rule server effect you? The typical response is the game isn't designed for that, it would take away from our design fund. Ok, this is partially true but the extra revenue that the pve server brings in would pay for itself over time. So in the end the pvper would get more design funds from the alternate rule servers that so offend them.
Would you be fine with it if the game was designed in such a way that someone couldn't just right click you once and make you die, giving you opportunities to escape or fight back?
 

Vanpry

Visitor
Stratics Veteran
senescal,
If there is a way to give a fighting chance to P&P&EvP (player & player & environment vs player) I'd be all for it, but you would be quite the wizard my friend. Escaping is how UO worked and I'm done with that.
 

senescal

Adventurer
I do feel the MMO genre could use a touch of wizardry right now.

I'm sure I'm not the only one who noticed that most bad PvP experiences that are usually described are about getting instantly killed without any chance of fighting back or about getting verbally harassed.

If we could find a way to fix those issues, perhaps more PvE only players would be willing to come over to the dark fun evil PvP side of the force.
 
V

Voiceless

Guest
Guys everyone love uo for a large variety of temp. U can decide, whom u should be from sandbox system
1) Skill based system should be in this game, cuz of huge variety temp, which u can create yourself ( 100% sucess )
2) Mage pvp should be similar to uo, the only reason many of players still playing uo, cuz of this pvp.
3) Insuarance only if arts ll means a lot in this game, like now in uo. Better if it ll be free loot system
I believe that this game wouldn't include 4 hotkeys, like diablo 3. Cuz everyone, whom i talk (hardcore pvp community) won't play the game on iphone with 3 hotkeys. They ll better pay for real game, than play in free game, with 4 hotkeys
4) If u gonna use target system ll be cool to have a chance to cast spells like in uo with cursor, and main thing of success this game = pvp
I talk to many of players, probably more than 50. And everyone said, all we need similiar style of pvp. Than we ll play. So u ll got already a huge base, if u stop this IpHONE mania with 4 hotkeys pvp ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

4th3ist

Journeyman
Stratics Veteran
//edit
This suggestion will be supportive of almost any meta game. Level based, skill based, twitch based (no lvl or skills), instance based, zone based like UO, pretty much anything...
//edit

I think a nice way to support a true open world PvP system that is in line with UO without making it a greifable system is to in a way almost FORCE the "roleplayed" PKer. This was a spontaneous idea I had while reading another reply, but one way to go about this would be as such...

To initiate PvP with a blue/innocent in the wild (outside of town, which for all intents and purposes should be 97% safe, just don't go afk full of treasures and riches) you would have to target them with an ability or something along these lines that would prompt the player that they have encountered a hostile player, and depending on what ability or paramaters the PKer has set, the person that is being confronted would be with a few possible options.
- Hand over a random % of your coin, or all of it maybe if the aggressor had snooped your pack perhaps?
- Present a trade window to barter for your safe passage where the aggressor can see your backpack and decide if they are happy with what you're offering
- Leave the zone within a time paramater or PvP is automatically enabled (Say your farming a desirable spawn and and don't want intruders), and you will not be able to re-enter the zone for another fixed time parameter
- Fight
- Run
- Feel free to add your own ideas?

There would need to be some all sorts of details to the system, like you have 10 seconds to answer or you are automatically made available to PvP. You can't move until you answer the query, if you choose to Run you are given 2 or 3 seconds after selecting to make some headway, if you choose to Fight you and the aggressor may freely begin to trade blows. If you choose to bargain for your freedom you can't be combated for 1 minute afterwards to avoid a big group of wandering PKers from abusing such a system and taking turns aggro'ing you. If you choose to fight, the PKer is marked as the aggressor even if you trade the first blow. Reds and criminals can be engaged in PvP instantly, bypassing this system completely. It is only a safeguard for the PvE'ers.

I think it would also be very important that this protection is only extended to outside of town, and stays out of the most lucrative spawns in the game (Ultimate RPG's "champ spawns" if you will)


I wouldn't bother to suggest to many details, I trust Richard and his team can work out balance and tweaking far better then I could. I would like to address a few concerns I see some people having with a system like this however
- Its cheesy (Well, it may be a weeee bit cheesy, but its not an over the top immersion breaker. I think it is a happy balance between "carebear" and "hardcore".)
- It provides to much protection for blues (Sort of enabling perma-death for red characters, I think hardcore PvPers need to come to terms if they want real FFA PvP they need to play call of duty or a game like Darkfall)
- It doesn't provide enough protection for blues (Along the same lines as above, the Ultima franchise encompasses a huge demographic of players, and there MUST be a way to cater to them all without selling out your legacy.)
- It's an immersion breaker (Having menus like these pop up unexpectedly can be totally immersion breaking, true. But I argue that this system would be highly favorable instead of the alternative of being insta-killed by roaming bands of PKs while farming. One could also argue that it will add a layer of immersion to PvP by forcing light RP on all PKers.)

Looking forward to feedback if there is any :)
 
Last edited:
Z

Zarf

Guest
I believe that Richard Garriot is true visionary. I loved playing Ultima 1-8, 9 not so much :). Played UO for 8 years on and off, until WoW came out. If Ultimate RPG is to be successful, and by that I mean 100,000+ , if not millions of long term active players, you have to have sepparate PvE/PvP servers, or a option to disable PvP. If your game is like UO in the pre-Trammel time, most players will not stick around. Most players do not enjoy being murdered and looted over and over. If your game is full on PvP, it will be small niche like Darkfall. I look forward to future updates on your game.
 
L

Lord Azram

Guest
Dear Lord British

it is many years since I met you the last time on the Atlantic Shard during a guild festivity of the Lost Order Akalabeth south of Yew Bank, which you attended.

I'd like to give a brief overview of my personal experience as a newbie and later stage of my character and personal developmenet in UO. I won't talk about my personal end game, since PKs were no issue when my character and my personal way of playing were finalized.

I started to play UO in December 1997, when Dread Lords were still roaming. Even though I died frequently the PKs didn't bother me much, and here is why:

1. Other people helped out with lost gear
2. I didn't need much gear anyways to play as a new character
3. Most "blue" players you could trust (Old notoriety system)
4. The monsters dropped very good amounts of gold and gear for a new character and they didnt drop it randomly but always
5. NPC gear was pretty cheap
6. Several new players together could wipe a decently skilled player killer
7. NPC towns had everything you needed as a newbie
8. What ever NPCs didnt have was provided by other players advertising or the close to town player houses and their vendors
9. Good monster spawns around npc towns (Britain graveyard as an example)
10. Ability to make my own gear to a certain extend inside and close to the protected player town (Leather, wood, chicken feathers :)

Of those 10 points for me the most important were

Nr. 4 + Nr. 5 ie Monsters provide enough money to attain good gear without having to farm for hours. Many people, players, no matter how old, mature or how many MMO's they played do not like to lose hours worth of playtime each time they die during their learning curve and especially early on (Nevertheless UO offered many means of escaping and gave you a secure bank). So by ensuring that "loot" is "easy" to replace with good drops and cheap items (the quality might not be the best), this experience is not a total negative point but part of this world/game.

If I recall right, you could split a Slime in UO into 8 clones, giving you lots of loot and +-900 gold total, enough to buy a full chain set + weapons and regs.

During my later playign stage, lets call it young adult if my newbie stage would be comparable of being a teenager, PKs were much more anyoing, since I actually had more "to lose". This didnt just meant gear I was wearing being more expensive, also I would hunt much further away from secure environments and thus also having gathered more items of value which I would lose. What were my issues:

1. I did not know how to defend myself let alone how to stay alife

This might sound stupid, but there in 1998 were no way to learn pvp as a non player killer ie Dread Lord. You could not fight your guild friends and learn (No guild system yet). Thus I didn't really know when to heal, when to run and how to strike back. Later on I learned how to do it but interestingly many players did not see it as mandatory to be able to learn to defend, attack or flee even later in the game when guild systems were etablished. In UO you were able to out heal damage even against un even odds.

So what would I do for a futur game:

1. What UO had back in the day (Secure towns, easy loot for newbs)
2. A solid notoriety system with draw backs for players chosing to be cutthroats but not to harsh ;)
3. If there is a virtue system why not use it. I never understood why the different shrines of UO had no meaning. It could have been part of every character that per virtue he can gain points by doing certain tasks giving him possibilities like (Just examples!):

If you pray of the shrine of Justice near Yew, you can get points and you raise your status/affiliation to it. Reaching 100 in the Justice Virtue points gives you +2 damage vs player killers. Nothing too dramatic, still nice. You can lose those points though since they will rott away if you do not follow the virtue regularely or if you do evil deeds. If you follow the same system with the shrine of Sacrifice, you can die once by another player but you will keep your gear you had on you when praying at the shrine the next time. On death you lose points again, making you to regain your points. if you die without 100 you will lose your gear. You can only have one Virtue high. Murderers only get the virtue of chaos.

So a player can also deceide if gear is the most important for him or not.

I could write on for ever , really important is that gear does matter much early on, that there are secure ways to learn the game BUT not secure in the sense that I am detached from the rest of the game world, means of escape (recall) and maybe even a way to keep your gear on death at least once every few hours. Oh and Player skill dependant pvp and not tab target.

:)

PS: I forgot overhead ingame text from speaking. even if 3D, if you cant talk directly to someone in game, the atmospehere and the options of peacful confrontations are lost. Chat boxes are the worst.

PPS: The for me biggest reason for people quitting UO early back in the days were the stat/skill/house breakin and duping bugs, giving parts of the population a huge leap forward of character development on resources, making them half gods early on, destroying everything that moved. The same thing happened in the only game that had similar free mechanics, Darkfall. While there might always be a gap between veterans and new players, the first months of a game create the fundamental player base. Like in RL online games, and especially MMO's need a large middel class, else the social environment will fail.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
L

Lord Azram

Guest
About PvP:

I played from '97 to 2000. During those 3 years PvP got faster with every larger patch. I personaly found this not optimal since a lot of players are not the "fps" type of crowd but rather the "chess" player type of people.

What I want to say is, if you have a pvp system which offers action and reaction to player behaviour during an engagement, even to the extent, that you can think 3 steps forward while countering your opponents action you have a great system. Quick systems mostly are based on "FPS" type of logic of quickly "fragging". Also a good PvP system that is based on player skill ie using the characters options and gear to its max extend, will also offer someone the possiblity to battle several opponents of lesser "skill" or "character advancement" at the same time without it being comparable to a level difference like in WoW.

In UO I could fight two opponents of similar character stats, skills and gear with me killing both just because of the huge impact that experience brought.

When I look back I actually wonder if you guys created UO pvp by accident in the sense that player skill and creativity made a big difference in engagements.

Also, tab target is the worst. When you melee be at the enemy, if you swing wrongly you might hit your friends so watch out. For ranged damage like magic and archery it would be nice to have it fully FPS style, but then I think that is not feasable with ping and connection differences. I personaly wouldnt give totaly up on that though, possible mechanic:

Look at the enemy or mob you want to shoot your arrows on, center him on the screen so his name is shown up, start to draw your arrow. A round circle is shown on the middle of the screen similar to a cross hair, as long as the mob is inside the circle you can let it go and the arrow will hit him (similar to a tab target). This means if it is a player who moves around quickly, you need to follow him with your target circle, and keep him in, if he should hide behing a tree or rock the moment you release, the arrow or the magic projectily will not hit.

So a system like this offers the possiblity for ranged combat to mark your target at the same time it will still need "more skill" then conventional tab target, by moving with the target and keeping him in the target circle till release.

I absolutely loved the fact that casting could be disturbed and I think that definityl needs to be in. You could also have archery disturbed ie the circle disapearing or at least a chance of it being disturbed.

For melee I think the best system I have seen so far in any game, and I am absolutely sure it would work in an MMO, is the PS3 game Dark Souls, where you can side step, lunch forward, jump back, block, different attack variations who had pros and drawbacks. In a melee PvP fight this could absolutely rock to out play your enemies, also stamina makes a important role like in Ultima Online.

Most important and as a final word: the more player skill is necessary the better (no tab target). Also gear like in UO has to make less an impact as it does in other MMO's. And if PvP is not too fast, more people can learn and get decent.

:)
 
S

Sagitariuz

Guest
I can simply sign everything he said! ;D Good view!

The important question of the whole game is: Is the goal to earn as much money as possible OR to create an epic adventure like UO, which is loved by the players FOREVER?
UO is the only MMORPG, where me and friends are REALLY thinking back to! It is/was special. No other game caught me again like UO.

So, what PvP system and why? The great thing about UO PvP was, that it was based on skill a lot! You could add a little gear to give it the nice shiny finish, but as a good player you never needed much to be successful.
You could escape from groups which were chasing you and you could even hunt them down! And it was also possible to hunt down those skilled solo/team players. Everything was a matter of skill. I really loved that.
And also the free loot and PK system was very nice. Keep that up!

Skillpointsytem. No Skillcap. You can be with your char what ever you want! craft AND fight. no point of choosing, choosing sucks. I dont wanna have 7 chars and always relog to other chars/identities to play a different style. Hated that. Freeshardsystems without 700 cap where much more fun. Let me Macefight / Fence etc. when ever i want to! Thats no point of imbalance. It makes your opponent aware of what you are doing next, else he new which style u are and maybe he can counter you or not.

If you are planning to make this game possible on many devices, make sure to put a difference there. If it should be possible to play on PC and iPhone e.g. then the user has to know, there is no way of great PvPing on the iPhone.
He can wander around, chat with people etc. but in PvP, Players online with the PC client got the easy way here :D

Dont listen to opinions, that are not the heart of the game! Never create a game where everything is easy and save. Thats boring and made for idiots! Idiots are just important for profit.

So far. Regards

PS: No feaking nasty useless levelsystem. Levelsystems are also for target groups which are definitly not what you want!
 

Neves

Visitor
There are a lot of really thoughtful responses here about what makes good PvP. A few folks have mentioned the virtue system and how it could serve as a buff mechanic (see LOTRO's virtue trait system). A complementary idea: having replaceable armor sets associated with a virtue, so that if you die in battle and lose your armor (useless to the murderer with no virtue), you can return to a certain shrine for healing and replacement of your virtue pieces, making death less economically devastating. Give virtuous ghost players the option to return to their attuned shrine(s) upon death. Make virtuous shrines more geographically convenient for good players, and make the chaos shrine remote and hard to travel to and from. It could be that a solid virtue system will give a lot of PvP-averse players incentive and inspiration to seek out and fight the enemy.
 
Last edited:
M

Micro Magic

Guest
So the idea is to keep PvP and cut down on players sitting around and pking noobs for the pure schadenfreude?

Well, with that in mind, how about any healing ability or walk/run speed degrading in quality the more and more you purposefully pk noobs. Perhaps the only way to get your PK karma back up would be to perform an opposite action. For instance, if you initiate combat with an exponentially lower level than your own(outside of an agreed duel) and from killing that noob, he lost 25% of his exp for that level. As the pker, your skills decreased a bit, and the only way to get your skills back might be to group with someone in a similar level as you are, and help them gain a 25% exp increase for their level. If this doesn't help, take it a step further and make a group option to forfeit exp for karma gain. The higher your level, the harder it being to gain your karma back. And of course, if you initiate combat with someone similarly skilled, there should be no karma change. There's a difference between backstabbing, fighting a fair fight over loot, and kids sitting around just outside city limits PKing simply for the lawls.

There needs to be an objective, negative repercussion to this. I don't think bounties for PKers would work. Mostly because a player could create a second account, or have a friend create a second account and game the bounty system. Nor do I believe a court system would work efficiently. The big difference between an MMO world and the real world is, you only have one account in the real world and no save games.

I don’t see how the system described could be gamed easily. As it depends on who initiates combat. So 10 guys can't start new characters and initiate combat with a high level character and ruin his/her karma when they get destroyed. With this system, AoE attacks should be taken into consideration...

This system would be pretty complicated and would require fine tuning. But it would definitely cut down on PKers and IMO add an Ethical Hedonistic statement within the game mechanics.
 

morPR

PRmeister
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
DO other games have PKs? How do they govern them then??
 

Zosimus

Grand Inquisitor
Alumni
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
They have lands designated for consentual PvP. DaoC, Warhammer Online, and soon to be release Guild Wars 2 are some I will mention. Guild Wars 1 has an island with a selection of PvP styles. GvG as an example. Some games have PvP servers only. This includes many f2p games. Basically they give options to any players style to choose to be on a pvp server or not.



Now RG wants a similar style PvP world compared to old UO and let me add Darkfall into the equation. There are players that want that open style of PvP. No laws or rules. Some UO freeshards has that style. Siege on the EA prodo shard has the same style. Darkfall falls in the same catagory of the previous two mentioned. There are communties that do play these styles and enjoy them.

I am not sure what RG is wanting to build as a RPG open world PvP but he is asking players for input. Even though he said like the open UO system of PvP but we have to remember that it will not be UO. Electronic Arts has UO and is an active MMO. He is making a game similar to what he began but he also has to reach not just previous players that like this style of PvP but future possible players that may enjoy the same thing.


In the early days of UO players policed their own world. It was a social experiment to say the least. You could play the villan or be the savior. Blues vs reds. I also remember days when reds would be around but the insta ganks did not happen like they do today's UO. I'm not saying they totally didn't but still back then it was more of an even playing field. It was more about skill and luck than items.


In todays MMO's most games you dont lose items. In UO back in the day you did. So will this be a factor in his decision when RG decides how he wants it done? I think so but that is my opinion only. I can't speak for him. Any pvp game should be about skill more than items itself. Pixels are nice but if they become over powered in a game and take away the true core element of the game then it's not the same game.

So as a pker would I want to kill the poor resource gather just to let my ego grow because I could just kill him and he/she had no chance to defend themselves? Nope! Not worth my time. This same person wanting to craft may be the person I may want to buy armor and weapons from. Then again we do not know what the exact roles characters will have in the game. Can the player be a warrior or mage but also be able to have crafting professions? It's possible but we also have to look outside of the UO world. How do other games do it and how healthy is that community that has the same playstyle RG is aksing about?
 
K

Kooree

Guest
While I resided in Felucca near the end of my stint in UO I disagree with any kind of unmoderated open world PVP, even if only in certain areas. There's too much opportunity for grief and while bandits exist, whole areas being held by roaming packs of murderers who kill everyone on sight and then take all their things is hardly immersive.

I thought that PVP worked best in UO when it went through guilds. The guild warring system let the community police their own guidelines by opting in to PVP, but not on an individual basis so there was no /pvp command that could be abused by getting out of PVP when things got "too hot". The only way to do that was to convince your guild leader to unwar the opposing guild, or to leave your community entirely.

Basing PVP on community opt-in would therefore have the best effect, I think. Join this faction? Get PVP with that other faction. But have these factions actually mean something to players on a community level, don't just make opposing factions by name with no real player on player engagement within that faction, such as in games like World of Warcraft.
 
T

Tofuu

Guest
What ever you decide to do along the lines of pvp, please consider adding a hardcore server where people can enjoy the old days of UO once again where dying meant you actually lose something and killing another player meant you felt very rewarded for it. I know not everyone enjoys full loot, but for those of us that do have very few options as far as hardcore pvp games go. I know for me at least, the early days of UO is still the most fun I ever had.
 
V

Voiceless

Guest
to be true really want to see a one screen shot from world
 

Neves

Visitor
What ever you decide to do along the lines of pvp, please consider adding a hardcore server where people can enjoy the old days of UO once again where dying meant you actually lose something and killing another player meant you felt very rewarded for it. I know not everyone enjoys full loot, but for those of us that do have very few options as far as hardcore pvp games go. I know for me at least, the early days of UO is still the most fun I ever had.
Is there any fantasy RPG that is open/full-loot PvP anymore? The FPS DayZ is the only game I know that is full-loot open PvP, but is an FPS title. DAYZ is in alpha - WITH 997,928 PLAYERS JOINING IN 4 MONTHS AT $30 A POP!!!! --- sorry, I get excited about these things. These types of numbers show that A LOT of people enjoy challenging gameplay because when you survive and flourish in hostile environment, it's a real accomplishment because it is based in competition between players, not just trotting out to kill mobs. Don't get me wrong - PvE is fun, but it is not challenging to the advanced gamer.

For UltimateRPG, I could see making PvE-only and PvP servers. It makes sense business-wise. From a gameplay standpoint, I think it stinks. Think about it: if you make a game with specific rules that reflect your belief in what is a great game, and then a bunch of people play that game, and then start to complain about the rules, and then you have to make two rule sets to accommodate everyone, well...then it's just a rigged carnival and not a game. Yes, everyone should have "fun", but say I go play poker and get beat a few hands, and turn to the dealer and say, "Hey I think it really stinks I had three of a kind and that guy had a flush and he won. Can we make a table where sets beat flushes?" Because if you take RPG gaming all the way back, the rules were hard, REALLY HARD, and lately the whole industry has gotten away with trying to please everybody instead of making a really good game (the elusive RGG!) that won't attract everybody, but will attract many, many more than anyone expects.
 
Last edited:

T'Challa

Certifiable
Stratics Veteran
I know this will not be a popular opinion. Being a "bad guy" should not be simple and easy. There should be wanted lists, lawmen, bounty hunters and judges and prisons.
Similarly, being a "good guy" should not be easy either. There should be robberies, assaults, thefts, murders, crimelords, and prison gangs!
 
L

Lord_Toast

Guest
I need to play the “Devil’s Advocate” more often, so much quality discussion going on.
I would like to make a request to the guests who are reading the forums that haven’t played Ultima Online. Please create an account and chime in!
 

senescal

Adventurer
Is there any fantasy RPG that is open/full-loot PvP anymore? The FPS DayZ is the only game I know that is full-loot open PvP, but is an FPS title. DAYZ is in alpha - WITH 997,928 PLAYERS JOINING IN 4 MONTHS AT $30 A POP!!!! --- sorry, I get excited about these things. These types of numbers show that A LOT of people enjoy challenging gameplay because when you survive and flourish in hostile environment, it's a real accomplishment because it is based in competition between players, not just trotting out to kill mobs. Don't get me wrong - PvE is fun, but it is not challenging to the advanced gamer.

For UltimateRPG, I could see making PvE-only and PvP servers. It makes sense business-wise. From a gameplay standpoint, I think it stinks. Think about it: if you make a game with specific rules that reflect your belief in what is a great game, and then a bunch of people play that game, and then start to complain about the rules, and then you have to make two rule sets to accommodate everyone, well...then it's just a rigged carnival and not a game. Yes, everyone should have "fun", but say I go play poker and get beat a few hands, and turn to the dealer and say, "Hey I think it really stinks I had three of a kind and that guy had a flush and he won. Can we make a table where sets beat flushes?" Because if you take RPG gaming all the way back, the rules were hard, REALLY HARD, and lately the whole industry has gotten away with trying to please everybody instead of making a really good game (the elusive RGG!) that won't attract everybody, but will attract many, many more than anyone expects.
I like you. Call me maybe.
 
G

Gulluoglu

Guest
I would like to make a request to the guests who are reading the forums that haven’t played Ultima Online. Please create an account and chime in!

I fall into this group; the only UO experience I've had was playing a freeshard for a few hours before growing bored and quitting.

In any case, the most fun I've had with a MMO that allowed PVP, free housing, and world manipulation/terraforming was a game called Haven and Hearth. Pretty low-end graphics, but the concept was amazingly fun and engaging. A player could alter the world in significant ways by cutting down trees, building cabins, paving roads, planting fields of crops, mining for ore, blacksmithing tools, crafting furnishings, etc. One could play in this way as a hermit or group up with friends or strangers to build entire towns, villages, fortified castles, and so on.

PVP played a major role as well, because it was entirely open. No newbie areas, no rules, no hard-coded restraints other than those provided by having the appropriate skills or not. In other words, you had to spend some of your skill points to buy the ability to murder, steal, or vandalize property; no flag or viewable status indicated whether someone had these skills, so you basically had to make an educated guess as to whether someone you just met out in the woods could kill you or someone who just wandered onto your property could raze your home.

So why not just fight everyone you meet or trash everything you see? Permadeath, backed up with a crime-system. Each crime (murder, assault, vandalization, theft, or "tresspassing") left an in-game object generating point at the site of the crime called a scent that allowed ANYONE to collect it and then track the criminal back to their current in-game position if online or their hearthfire (basically home point) if offline. Tracking consisted of invoking one of the scents and then following an onscreen arrow that appeared for a second or two; you really only got a general idea of where the person was, and so you had to either know the lay of the land or be prepared to deal with any terrain surprises like mountains, rivers, swamps, enemy territory, etc. If the criminal was offline when you had the scent and found their hearthfire, you could then force-summon the character for major crimes (murder/theft/vandalization) and essentially be at liberty to freely pk the character. The scents and scent-generating point at the scene of the crime had a different life-duration depending on the severity of the crime, with murder scents lasting upwards of 72-96 real life hours (maybe longer, it's been a while) and the other lesser crime durations lasting some proportionate tiers below.

While still an imperfect system, it provided for a very fun game.

I started as most probably would, by playing a hermit. After a few weeks of exploring my surroundings, hunting animals, building up a homestead, watching the neighbors, and realizing there were objects I wouldn't be able to get without some solid leads or connections with other players (primarily good quality food, timber, ore, and metal tools), I eventually joined with another player to work together. We eventually had a second, and then third, and fourth join us, and soon we had a little community going. Access to metal and good clay, and soon we could replace our flimsy palisade walls with sturdier brick and mortar walls. By building up a sizeable village with impressive walls, we attracted more and more attention - lower skill players, other hermits, newbies. Some of who wanted to join our village, others who wanted to be within our sphere of protection for trade goods.

We also attracted "undesirables" -- people who wanted to join the village just to loot communal belongings or people from other villages who would size us up to see if they could pull off an armed raid. One day, we didn't hear from one of our friendly newbies living outside the village walls (he had flip-flopped on whether or not he wanted to stay a hermit or live with us), so a Ukranian friend and I went to investigate and found that "our" newbie had been attacked and killed. We gathered the scents (the "evidence" of the crime) and contacted some allied villages to see if they had any news; it turned out our suspect had been going on a bit of a spree, vandalizing, attacking, and killing others in the region. My friend and I were pretty skilled hunters and okay combatants at this point, so we split up to track the criminal, and eventually found him in a little hut alongside a river. He had built a palisade around his house, and we realized his hearthfire must be inside because he came out and then dodged back inside a number of times to taunt us, presumably behind the safety of his wall. He didn't count on us each having a bow and a number of arrows, though, so on a prolonged taunt, we put an end to the killer. (As a note, this act generated our own murder and assault scents as well, of course, and had anyone cared about the guy, they could have tracked us the same way.)

What's the point of all this?

PVP can be a lot of fun, even desirable for a game. As a system, it nudged players together, even the ones who wanted to play non-PVPers. Our village had plenty of people who just wanted to farm, or weave, or craft. The newbie who got killed eventually reincarnated and moved in with us after realizing some of the danger of being alone, or living too close to a populated area, or whatever reason. In a massive world, you want your playerbase interacting regularly. PVP can also exist pretty fairly with appropriate checks and balances; one of these for this particular game was permadeath. It is hard for me to say how fun the game would have been with lesser risks/rewards for opting to engage in PVP without it. Permadeath brings its own challenges, of course, since most people don't want to lose a character or the "work" and "time" spent playing it.

Just some thoughts. For those interested, I am pretty sure the two guys who made Haven and Hearth have gone on to join Paradox Interactive and their upcoming game Salem is a direct child of H&H. I believe an ongoing H&H server is still up, but I haven't played in a couple years.
 

4th3ist

Journeyman
Stratics Veteran
Just another tid-bit I wanted to add... If PvE is done in a way that loot of epic proportions is in the game, please design the items in a way the the affixes apply only to PvE and not PvP. :)
 

senescal

Adventurer
I had forgotten about Haven and Hearth. I played it a few months ago because I wanted something free that would give me the opportunity to freely build a house like UO. Started by playing alone, but the time I spent playing it and the fact that I had an in game house caught my girlfriend's attention and she joined me. She had a hard time learning the mechanics, but simply loved the game because of the freedom - and because it was a way to play house after growing up: she was the housewife taking care of our home, I was the hunter providing for the family.

She hates PvP on those korean games she usually plays, but on H&H she would get PKed, get pissed, complain about it and then just proceed to create another character and play more. And more. She eventually dragged her niece into it too.

We stopped playing when I lost interest because it felt like I was spending too much time with her. A man needs some alone time every once in a while, even in-game.
 

Raptor85

Certifiable
Stratics Veteran
As a player who returned to UO not too long ago and ended up leaving again mostly due to the lack of open world pvp and the thrill from it, this topic is near to my heart. I have played many, many MMOs, i've jumped all over looking for ones that suit my playstyle. UO back in 98 prior to the split is still the closest/most memorable I'd come across yet, though I have played a few others nearly as good, and seen some improvements that I would have loved to see in a more "UO-like" game. What follows here is an attempt to list out and explain which features from games have drawn me into the game (related to the topic) more than any others.

1. Full loot - This is a hotly contested topic, and many claim it is for nobody but griefers, but it's simply not true. Of course nobody likes being looted, and yes some players will choose to not play the game or get upset at it over this, but for an open world system to work this is absolutely essential. Without chance of loss dying is meaningless, removing any thrill in combat, or in desperately trying to escape from a foe chasing you. When you can simply choose to use the most expensive items imaginable and bring them into combat without second thought the system breaks and becomes severely unbalanced. Without chance of loss also most who would normally play as a brigand or such won't bother as you would essentially have to "finance" that useless character with another, and the role of "PK'ing" goes mostly to those that are simple griefers. (Many here should be able to attest to this, post AOS the origional lands were a griefer paradise for quite some time until it became mostly a ghost town)

2. no permissioned areas - permissioned areas such as private housing, again to use UO for the analogy (as it's probably the one that would be most familiar, though other games do have this), destroy any sense of immersion and invariably lead to "cheap" tactics and abuse. If one player is able to enter an area, any player should be able to, though it does not have to be "safe" for them to do so (guards, considering it a criminal action, etc...)

3. no instant death/perfectly safe zones - another contested area, but a huge problem with old UO and many other full pvp MMOS is areas that completely disable combat or portions of combat. While zones "safe" for players do need to exist "guard zones" as UO implemented them are extremely flawed. It is again, an immersion breaker, but also in every game with a similar system a huge tool for griefing, afking, macroing, and name calling in safety. A better solution that I have seen is for different types of criminal actions within guarded zones to change your status with the owning faction, with the best implementation i've seen being Vendetta online. Firing on another ship or the station in a guarded zone you will only receive a warning but if you continue hostilities or destroy the ship you more or less lose all standing with the faction that owns that sector and become kill on sight to the guards, which while not immortal are significantly more powerful than a handful of players could easily take, and it takes quite a bit of work to "pay back" the damage to be allowed to visit those sectors safely again. (Would be similar in UO to, say, if each town had loyalty, if you murdered someone in skara brae even without any murder counts left you would be permanantly red and attacked within those city limits). This makes most "cities" relatively safe, though you do need to still stay on guard and avoid dark allys, but still allows players to make a choice to flaunt the system and risk everything, i've played 3 mmo's now that use this system for guarded zones and it works extremely well.

4. no combat flags/non-combat zones - This goes without saying with the others listed above, but should be stated as it's own item. World of Warcraft and UO both have a bad implementation of this with the same servers having entire lands that allow world pvp and, on the same server, lands that do not. When this is allowed, of course the vast majority of players will do almost everything possible in the non-pvp areas, even the people who are primarily pvpers will. Why? because it's EASIER and the vast majority of people will always use the easiest and most guaranteed method of success. (not something you can really blame them for either). Having a land split allowed with the same character practically guarantees that the pvp zones will only be occupied by those that, at that exact moment, and itching for a fight, and now you no longer have a working world, but only an arena far too large for it's occupants.

5. gear needs to be simple/easy to judge - In an open pvp world, gear must be easy to obtain and easy to judge if one piece is better than another, though not necessarily the "best" gear should be easy, but at least enough to make the battle nearly even. UO "almost" got this right early on with the origional simpler weapon/armor system, as at a glance you could tell that the plate tunic you put on added an extra 5ar over the chain one. The more properties that a single item can have on them the harder it gets to "re-equip" after dying and the more frustrated people get, plus with a simple system you can always be assured that a "short sword +1" is always better than just a "short sword". Now that isn't saying that items can't have properties, just as all things it needs to be in moderation and it needs to be extremely clear which one is better, and there should never be a case where it's impossible for a player with a "short sword" to ever win in a fight against someone with the "short sword of pwnage". Many other games also use colors to indicate how good an item is and it works very well.

6. random outcomes - The RNG should never be the deciding factor in a fight, and in fact in a MMO should be almost completely eliminated or at least replaced with "guaranteed" weighted systems. Perhaps the most frustrating parts in old UO and many older mmo's is chains of misses, or entire battle tactics getting destroyed by a simple roll of the dice.

7. level/skill differences...aka "whiffing" - while RNG factors into this too, the core of this problem is that the "chance to hit" is generally controlled by level/skill and the range is almost always very small, for instance in most mmos a player 5 levels under another player will literally miss 90% of attack attempts, same with skill based mmo's like UO comparing a new player with a grandmaster. This has "close" to the desired effect when only looking at 1v1, but neglects player skill from the equation, as no matter how good the lower player is he is simply not allowed to hit at all, and even if 50 people his level were to gang up they could do nothing against the higher level guy. A way to fix this i've seen in other mmo's that works well is to instead of scaling the chance to scale the damage caused, similar to how the "tactics" skill works in uo. In games with systems like this even a brand new player, just created, can fight back against an attacker and at least do some damage, and if they're significantly better even beat a much "higher level" player. (Vendetta online is nice in this regard as your skill levels only effect the level of weapons you can equip, so though you might be completely outgunned a clever player can still be a threat even brand new.)

I can think of a few more issues but I don't want to just toss topics up here without backing them up, and unfortunately i've run out of time and need to get going, but for the most part in every pvp based game i've ever played these main issues have been the ones that caused the most grief.
 
L

Lord_Toast

Guest
F2P PvP: Thieves

The future model for MMOs is shifting to Free to Play (micro-transactions, possible limited commercial interruptions) The Ultimate RPG is considering implementing some form of PvP (full open or limited closed environment)

Here is a scenario I would like to hear thoughts on from the Ultimate RPG Design Team and/or fellow players:

A player, Smith, has a character that is a moderately successful bread maker. Smith decides to buy an in game item for the character. Smith chooses a shiny belt buckle, which costs $5 dollars real world currency. There is no virtual cash equivalent; Smith has to pay real cash. This amount comes from Smiths' credit card or an Ultimate RPG Giftcard. Along comes player Jones whose character is a thief. Jones sees the shiny belt buckle on Smiths character and successfully picks pocket from him in a busy market place. Jones evade an escapes the NPC town guards and other players.
The problem: another player literally stole $5 from another player.
The solutions I have come up with are:
1) Smith spent real world currency on the shiny belt buckle so it should not be click-able for theft.
2) It should be click-able for theft but Jones automatically refunds the money to Smiths account. An insufficient fund means instant return.
3) Jones should be able to steal the item. When Jones clicks on the shiny belt buckle, a buy option window opens. Jones purchases a duplicate called, Smiths Shiny Belt Buckle, for the same price (prevent future abuse of the economic system) Jones gets bragging rights about the item 'stolen'.
4) Player vs Player theft shouldn't be allowed at all. No exceptions.

So, what do you choose? Or do you have an alternative solution.


** This is a repost from the facebook site. Skillz answered on Facebook, hopefully he wouldn’t mind doing a repost over here too.**
 

Neves

Visitor
F2P PvP: Thieves

The future model for MMOs is shifting to Free to Play (micro-transactions, possible limited commercial interruptions) The Ultimate RPG is considering implementing some form of PvP (full open or limited closed environment)
Here is a scenario I would like to hear thoughts on from the Ultimate RPG Design Team and/or fellow players:

A player, Smith, has a character that is a moderately successful bread maker. Smith decides to buy an in game item for the character. Smith chooses a shiny belt buckle, which costs $5 dollars real world currency. There is no virtual cash equivalent; Smith has to pay real cash. This amount comes from Smiths' credit card or an Ultimate RPG Giftcard. Along comes player Jones whose character is a thief. Jones sees the shiny belt buckle on Smiths character and successfully picks pocket from him in a busy market place. Jones evade an escapes the NPC town guards and other players.
The problem: another player literally stole $5 from another player.
The solutions I have come up with are:
1) Smith spent real world currency on the shiny belt buckle so it should not be click-able for theft.
2) It should be click-able for theft but Jones automatically refunds the money to Smiths account. An insufficient fund means instant return.
3) Jones should be able to steal the item. When Jones clicks on the shiny belt buckle, a buy option window opens. Jones purchases a duplicate called, Smiths Shiny Belt Buckle, for the same price (prevent future abuse of the economic system) Jones gets bragging rights about the item 'stolen'.
4) Player vs Player theft shouldn't be allowed at all. No exceptions.

So, what do you choose? Or do you have an alternative solution.

** This is a repost from the facebook site. Skillz answered on Facebook, hopefully he wouldn’t mind doing a repost over here too.**
This is a great hypothesis that raises relevant gameplay questions about the micro-transaction model.

I am not a huge proponent of the micro-transaction philosophy. My belief is that developers would be better off sticking to a subscription-based model, providing a quality gaming experience at a $7.00 - $10.00 per month price point. In the event that a micro-transaction model is used, in no case should an item bought from a cash shop be lootable. So if a developer develops an open PvP/free loot system with a cash shop, none of the cash shop items should be equippable or able to be placed into players' inventories, meaning no gear or weapons available in the cash shop. I can see things like real estate, house decoration items, cosmetic outfits, or +% skill gain items being made available for cash purchase, but not gear of any kind. In my experience, purchasable gear always results in serious gamers complaining or abandoning a title because it's gone P2W (pay-to-win).
 
Last edited:
S

Sagitariuz

Guest
7. level/skill differences...aka "whiffing" - while RNG factors into this too, the core of this problem is that the "chance to hit" is generally controlled by level/skill and the range is almost always very small, for instance in most mmos a player 5 levels under another player will literally miss 90% of attack attempts, same with skill based mmo's like UO comparing a new player with a grandmaster. This has "close" to the desired effect when only looking at 1v1, but neglects player skill from the equation, as no matter how good the lower player is he is simply not allowed to hit at all, and even if 50 people his level were to gang up they could do nothing against the higher level guy. A way to fix this i've seen in other mmo's that works well is to instead of scaling the chance to scale the damage caused, similar to how the "tactics" skill works in uo. In games with systems like this even a brand new player, just created, can fight back against an attacker and at least do some damage, and if they're significantly better even beat a much "higher level" player. (Vendetta online is nice in this regard as your skill levels only effect the level of weapons you can equip, so though you might be completely outgunned a clever player can still be a threat even brand new.
I can think of a few more issues but I don't want to just toss topics up here without backing them up, and unfortunately i've run out of time and need to get going, but for the most part in every pvp based game i've ever played these main issues have been the ones that caused the most grief.
I also think it would be better to give no luck chances like 45% fencing skill gives not 45% chance to hit but 45% of the dmg, which the weapon could do.
There should also be no things like "critical hit" and no passive skills like "magic resistance". All these things are the only way to keep PvP really
balanced. You should be able to SEE how you can beat your opponent. If he wears a Platemail, you will know that he gets reduced physical dmg.
If he wears Leather, he gets reduced magical dmg. etc.
 
B

Broman

Guest
The world should be big enough (i.e. bigger than one facet of UO) to allow for different zones of playstyles. There could be an area for example which is sorrounded by mountains and only has a few strictly NPC-guarded entrances, where certain people could play their game without being interrupted by PvPers like 99% of the time. 1% of the time, the entrances are not guarded and the safe area can be invaded. On the other hand,there should be areas without any safety, like pure PvP-Areas. The amount of resources/hour or gold/monster should be slightly higher than in the safe areas.3

No instanced areas to maintain the old UO-feeling of being connected to everyone playing at any time.
 

aoLOLita

Sage
Stratics Veteran
I enjoy UO as it is, with two sep pvm and pvp facets, but a world that merges both would be ideal if "trammies" like myself are protected from players that use PvP just to harass and not actually roleplay.

In a "civilized" area there really should be little to no chance of PvP occuring. It is assumed that the Ruler vigorously protects his subjects with swift and permanant justice. Travel outside the Lord's realm is also safe (free from most PvP) if one travels via Caravan or Convoy (both modes safe but slow and expensive). If one wants to travel faster (solo), always a risk of brigands and/or if braving the wilderness, even more so!

As a honest craftsman/merchant I can stay in town and sell my wares at market price. If I want to get a much larger profit, I can take the voluntary "risk" of traveling to a lawless border town or one of the areas Faires.
 

Lord British

Portalarium Team | Ultima Creator
VIP
No 1 hit kills from guards. Guards should travel in packs and be as strong as an advanced player but not a 1 hit killer. If its item based items shouldnt make or break pvp. The high level PvM should all happen in pvp zones. This will prevent powergamers from making templates that mow through bosses because they will require some survivability in pvp situations.
I agree - No 1 Hit Guards, but we need to be able to be sure that players cannot make the guards irrelevant. Perhaps guards that are both tough and get tougher with each moment they are enraged at you, so you can never truly get stronger than them?
 

Lord British

Portalarium Team | Ultima Creator
VIP
Without knowing how the game will be structured (will there be one game world or multiple etc.) it's hard to really give an opinion. But to keep customers happy there has to be an option. It's why most games have PvP and PvE servers. Even on the PvE variations there are ways to engage in structured PvP, and that's good it lets people get their feet wet without being thrown into the pool so to speak. Looking at UO, the lesson learned from having only open world PvP is the one that most games took to heart, the PvP community and the PvE communities are largely incompatible.
"Incompatible" - Interesting assertion. May be right. yet, I would like to find a way... Separate is two different games really.....
 

Lord British

Portalarium Team | Ultima Creator
VIP
I know this will not be a popular opinion. Being a "bad guy" should not be simple and easy. There should be wanted lists, lawmen, bounty hunters and judges and prisons.
"Wanted Lists" - What a great idea! The game can offer an ever increasing "bounty" that grows exponentially, for all the non-repented lives you have taken. And the higher that "infamy", the higher the probability you will be recognized by guards. We can also make that "Infamy" only go UP when you PK in town or other ":seen" location. Ganking someone in the dark forest may be able to be gotten away with with no "Infamy" cost?...
 

senescal

Adventurer
"Wanted Lists" - What a great idea! The game can offer an ever increasing "bounty" that grows exponentially, for all the non-repented lives you have taken. And the higher that "infamy", the higher the probability you will be recognized by guards. We can also make that "Infamy" only go UP when you PK in town or other ":seen" location. Ganking someone in the dark forest may be able to be gotten away with with no "Infamy" cost?...
What about ganking someone disguised as someone else? :D
 

Lord British

Portalarium Team | Ultima Creator
VIP
Before trammel it was a days work to farm monsters for gold, dodging pvpers, hopeing not to get looted, get your goods back to the bank/house. Hell, when I even had a good item it was hell trying to sell it because of thiefs!! This sounds bad but you know it was the best UO experience ever as a new player. Now everything is to easy, lets go fight this AI monster and loot/repeat/repeat ect. I can only pvp in certain areas/servers bc the population has dwindled so much. Bring back a world were anything can happen like the real world. (Some argue play siege if you want this style of play- the reason i never will play siege is bc trying to 5 other players on the shard is impossible/no shard xfers/one char only)

1. Some type of shard merger would bring a lot of excitement back to the game (my home shard of origin is a ghost town maybe 15 active players play, a whole server for 15 players?)

2. Felluca rule set except for towns
I almost completely agree! We need to find a way though to make sure that true Newbies, are not run off by things like this. so I still think we need to expose the "danger" slowly and fairly.
 

Lord British

Portalarium Team | Ultima Creator
VIP
I know I certainly must be in the minority, but I was so incredibly disappointed when I loaded up UO and was killed non-stop for months (years?). I wanted to be able to do what I had been able to do in all the previous Ultima titles: be the heroine, saving the world from evil creatures and bad guys. But instead, me and my group of friends had keys stolen (multiple times) to our guild house that we had spent literally months saving for, we died just running from town to town, we had stuff stolen out of our bank box (isn't that supposed to be a secure place to keep things?), we couldn't kill monsters because we were constantly being PKed. It was absolutely no fun and nothing like what the Ultima franchise had been like.

Now, over the years, the UO developers did fix those things and did make it more fun for the non-Pvper. The reason I bring it up in regards to this question is that I think there needs to somehow be a division between the diehard PvPer and the person who wants what the single player Ultimas offered. It might not be a popular stance but it's certainly one from a lover of the Ultimas.
As you can read, I am agreeing with both sides of the separate and together argument. I am looking for a have my cake and eat it too answer potentially... But IF we make towns safe most all the time (or all), and you are not immediately preyed upon outside the gates, because the main roads and paths of the game are well "protected" whatever that means. and you could "feel" the tension going up, as you went into danger. I hope their still might be room for this.
 

Lord British

Portalarium Team | Ultima Creator
VIP
I think PvP needs to be split into different options, as PvP appeals to different people on different levels, and no system is going to make anyone happy.
Again I agree with previous posters that it is hard to give finite answers without full disclosure on how the game will operate and what levels will be like.
I am going to break it down into 3 categories....

Complete Newbie:
First off, It should be impossible for a player to kill another player until a certain level is reached. Lets say level 10. Therefore someone new to the game, who doesn't yet have a grasp of where there are or what they are doing can get a feel of the game without worrying about wandering outside town limits to do some sort of newbie quest or whatever and getting killed but someone just for kicks. Obviously this level should be in tune with the games leveling system, and can be as low as 5 or high as 20, based on game mechanics.

Semi-Experienced Player:
Once you pass by that level, be it 5 or 10 or 20, there should be a warning. ie.. "From this moment on, you can be killed by other players if you leave the safety of a town." That again is based on where PvP will be allowed... but players should be warned visibly that they are now able to be killed. This would also be the correct time to institute a PvP flag... If the game mechanics will allow for those players who wish to not be involved in PvP they can opt at this point not to be eligible for PvP. If that is the case, they are safe to a certain level (Let's say 30 for arguements sake.. at which point after level 30 you are PvP wether you want to be or not) Once you accept a PvP flag you cannot remove it, however if you elected to be non PvP, you can switch it on whenever you want, but again once on, it stays on)

Experieced players:
Once you are set to PvP mode, there must be guidelines. Other then city restrictions. For example a level 90 player cannot attack a level 21 character, unless they are in an arena or a 'chaos' area. In general, a player should not be able to initiate an attack on a player 15 levels below them, however if a level 21 character decides to attack a level 90, it's his/her funeral.

PvP can be fun, but it's not for everyone. Part of the whole PvP issue becomes what happens to the players corpse when they die.
Does the winner get to loot the corpse and the player loses everything, having to start over from scratch? Does the body end up in a temple somewhere?
Do you respawn when you die with your body and gear intact? All of this plays into factors that need to be considered when setting up a PvP system.

I have more thoughts.. but I think this is a good starting point.....

PsiHawk

RG: I also like the idea of protecting newbies directly... Make Lowest level player not PK able, Make Mid Level Players of NO VALUE to PK, and reserve the full experience for those at high levels. Perhaps even a Switch like After both parties are high enough to be at "full risk" killing down more than X levels is of little or no value. Only killing near equal or higher, provides points and loot. That way higher level people are feeling the most paranoid about young guns trying to prove themselves, but also feel a bit confident in their own superiority.
 

Lord British

Portalarium Team | Ultima Creator
VIP
As I said elsewhere PKers (flagged as murders and they know it) need to pay the ultimate price if they are killed.
Full character wipe, they chose to be 'evil', they chose not to redeem themselves before dying. This would prevent griefers from plaguing the game and prevent certain people from picking on the newbies, camping dungeon hot spots or shrines.
Consensual PvP is another matter.
Interesting idea!
 
R

Rejor11

Guest
I've read quite a few of these suggestions (not all, that's a lot!) and I have to agree with some and disagree with others.

Still, here's my opinion... and sorry if there's any mispellings, just got done rock cimbing and my hands are completely torn up.

I enjoyed the UO world when I first started playing in '97. I got ganked, yes. But I also met people who helped me get my stuff back, or helped me out. I also met PKers who actually held respect for other players and/or actually did a bit of roleplaying.

Bottom line is, you can't really do anything mechanical for that. Perhaps you could create a rating system though? Such as, say I go out and get ganked and am verbally disrespected. I could "rate" that player on how he acted. Perhaps this can impose some sort of bounty on the wanted boards (either player made or mechanical) depending on the rating the pk'er receives. Granted, that could be used the wrong way (I get pk'd, the pker was respectful and/or roleplayed, but I still give him a terrible rating).

I don't know, it's just an idea.

Next, I don't agree with separating servers by pvp and pvm. Most of the roleplay types might end up going pvm, or in general, most of the players will end up going pvm simply to have a "safe" and "easy" experience. To have a full and good experience in an MMO, I believe that you must have some level of difficulty and danger. This is the main reason why I don't play MMOs anymore.

Also, please don't instance. Instancing is perhaps the best way to demolish community play. Example: In SW:Old Republic, you go into instanced zones with your party to complete a quest. Yes, this helps reduce the "waiting" periods for a boss monster to spawn, but at the same time you lose the ability to communicate and play with everyone around you. Of course, one way to fix this is not to have the usual "kill monster B" quests.

But beyond that, instancing will most likely reduce the ability for people to engage in PVP.

Safe zones I believe should still be restricted to towns and villages, and perhaps virtue shrines as well, if you have those incorporated in some form.

Wish you the best of luck, Lord British. You've been quite a big influence on my life with your games.
 

Nexus

Site Support
Administrator
Moderator
Professional
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
Wiki Moderator
UNLEASHED
"Incompatible" - Interesting assertion. May be right. yet, I would like to find a way... Separate is two different games really.....
I say that because in almost every game I've played the community splits, you have the PvP groups arguing for changes that will ultimately effect PvE, either by drawing those who don't wish to PvP into the PvP arena as "easy pickings" using one carrot on a stick method or another, or by lobbying for buffs or nerfs to certain play styles that they claim are over powered in PvP while totally ignoring the negative aspects of those play styles, with no concern beyond the broader ranging impact on their actions that effect those who don't PvP. All while typically looking down their noses and insulting anyone who wishes to not engage in PvP, never mind that the majority of equipment, and craftables, even those the PvP community relies on at one point are obtained through PvE .

On the other hand the PvE community typically wants left to do their thing, kill mobs and craft goodies. Some just want to RP, and many of those that do PvP as a form of RP want it in an organized civil fashion, something open world will never get you. They typically want to be able to farm resources, and craft goodies. Do Dungeon crawls without having a group of players come in and reap the rewards from their efforts via slaughtering them and taking the fruits of their labors.

The reasoning as far as I can see for other games doing PvP and PvE servers is it allows freedom of choice. The PvP servers allows those who wish to risk the dangers of PvP to do so, while the PvE servers let those who's idea of enjoyment doesn't involve getting jumped by half a dozen people, or be able to build up characters without being as they see it harassed to do so.

I'm not saying the two ideals can't cross over in some regards, it's the overall attitudes of the communities that are largely incompatible. Even on PvP servers there is a large PvE Base supplying equipment and items only obtainable through PvE methods. While most games with PvE servers have some type of arena system in place to allow PvP on a controlled scale.

*** Additional Final Thought ***

Most Players have no idea of how the development process works, what is and isn't feasible. In the end we can give all the opinions we want, but the heart of the matter is simply that players rarely know what is best for a game as a whole since our view is colored by our own unique preferences and play styles.
 
Last edited:
L

Lord_Toast

Guest
The reasoning as far as I can see for other games doing PvP and PvE servers is it allows freedom of choice.

It is all about Freedom of Choice. I want to be able to choose one or the other.


Honestly, I would play on both types of servers.
 
S

Sagitariuz

Guest
Changes in PvP dont have to effect PvM and viceversa. Simple example:

Skill A does 100% dmg to other players and Skill A does 80% dmg to NPCs.
Other example: Skill B has a critical chance on NPCs and Skill B has NO critical chance on players.

You can also simply change the way, monsters get affected by your skills/weapons.

The wrong way, which everyone is always thinking of is: "Skill A does not enough dmg for the huge mana cost in PvM, so lets give it more dmg" Result: "Damn you can onehit players"
Thats for sure not the way you should choose.

There are several other possibilitys.
 
B

Bad Karma

Guest
Am I the only one who thinks PvP in UO is outdated? I played OSI servers since late beta (I think August 1997) and I tell you PvP in UO is one of the greatest MMORPG PvP system ever created. PvP in UO was the primary game feature. Basically the game told you can do whatever you want (fish, treasure hunt, play cards etc.) but in reality PvP was like the only option to have fun. Britannia was the land of constant civil war fool of griefers, antis, PK's etc. That kind of situation in real history can be seen at the first years of the collapse of Soviet Union when Russia and ex-soviet countries were crowed by racketeers and gang wars. But even then there was something to prevent the bloodshed... prisons, military, militia. In UO it was Anarchy despite what early developers (no offense) promised us fully peristent world, reputation system and ethics/vitues.

This is what I wrote on FB :

I think PvP should stay as open as possible but the consequences should be real. The reason early UO was a bane for new players is that there were virtually no consequences for PK's. Of course they added stat/skill loss at some point, but I do not really find it as a consequence. PK level did not slow down after adding stat/skill loss system. Reds could not enter the town. Well, nt really a consequences as many people used so-called blue alts in order to kill/blind robb afk people in towns as there were many ways to do it.

What I am saying is that consequences shuld be real. Up to the permadeath (perhaps with public executions/bounty hunting system) for griefers, but PvP should remain as one's choice.

Secondly, let's make something clear here. What is PvP? What was PvP in UO (early UO as I think this is the only thing that matters) and what it will be in URPG? Well... in early UO pvp was nothing but massacre. Simply fun. Without any virtues, consequences, small penalties etc. People who liked to PvP never really cared who to kill. There were some exceptions of anti-red players who intentionally hunted PK's but that's it. What Im saying is that UO was meant to be a huge game where everybody can d what he likes. And I quess URPG is all about that. However, if we take a closer look at what UO was it was nothing but a bloodbath wthout a reason.

I suggest making PvP option as oen as possible BUT to design the game the way that not many players or any would just kill for fun, as it was in UO. Fights should be reasonable: personal duels, tournaments, other events as well as personal Vendettas. Let's say somebody robbed somebody's house, is tracked down and is punished. Just as an example. But not as it was in UO where PvP turned out to be the primary feature of the game and all other actions (trading, rare hunting, IDOC'ing, farming, craftin, roleplaying etc) were either strongly related to PvP or were simply secondary tasks. PvP was always primary in UO.

In short, I was PvP to be as open as possible BUT at your own risk. So taht if one likes to run around wild and kill everybody on sight he won't stay safe long. Basically, everyody should have the right to build customize your character as he wants. If one likes combat-orientatad gameplay he can be anybody, thief, assassin, warrior, whatever. But what Im saying is that PvP should be an option at your own risk..so play hardcore but watch your actions as they may lead to consequences.




Ok so to sum up I think PvP in URPG should be following:

- Reputation system. Up to bounty hunting, your name/portrait on walls, even exposure by the town crier. People who have got the bount should either hide for he unspecified time before the situaion becomes calmer or go to jail, and would be also great if one could escape from it too. The guild could also buyout their fellow guildmte in jail by paying ransom (gold sink).
Reputation system should be wide and should involve many aspects of the game: how NPC's treat you (and of different classes and social ranks too.. I believe New Britannia should have nobles, common folk, outlaws etc.), how players treat you and perhaps Karma system too.. if Karma is negative you will be unlucky (bad luck) in crafting and/or other chance-based features.

- PvP SHOULD NOT be that constant running, pot chugging, macros hotkeys smash thing. Seriously, in my vision (and I am UO vet) PvP should be an option, rather than Olympic sport. It should not be based on those crazy skills people employ in UO (sync dumps, x heals etc). Of course there should be potions and Alchemy in game...but it shoul not be used on regular in combat. PvP should be an art, not the sport. Let's say I want to asassinate a guy. I want to do it fast and quitely, without witnesses so as not to get reputation penalty. So I get myself a dagger, go to the nearest Swamp, find some Nightshade...then I approach a guy providing Alchemical services and pay him to make me some poison from that Nightshade. So I cover my dagger with poison and hide it under my belt. Now all I have to do is to watch my victim and wait for him/her to walk in the abadoned area without many eyes arond. When he/she does, I run and struck him with a knife and maybe whispering some sweet words at his/her ear. He/she is poisoned, walking speed ceases down dramatically and he/she gets double damage..one from the bleeding wound, another from poison. After failing to approach a healer, he/she dies and falls on ground. I grab the corpse and dump in in the nearest river so that people with Detective (for instance) skill could not say it was done by me. Woot. I am all clean. Just an example.

- PvP should have reason behind it. Other professions should be more essetial than combat. But if one has to fight for one or the other reason then there should be reason behind it.Maybe even implement protection racket so some guild could extort money from local player run shops and those players who will have to pay could either pay or fight back.
 

senescal

Adventurer
Separate is two different games really.....
Agreed.

Couldn't factions be the answer to this problem? Take this little feud between PvP and PvE players and make it a feature of the game. One faction controls one part of the game's world and favors war, pillaging, banditism and all that. The other is more pacifist and favors whatever, let's say a virtuous, more honorable and pacific lifestyle.

Members of the bellicous faction could freely engage in PvP, consensual or not, against members of both factions. Members of the pacifist faction would only be able to engage in consensual PvP or PvP for self defense. Members of both factions would find everything they'd need to fully develop their characters on their own territory, but interacting in any way with the other should be somehow beneficial. The territory of each faction could contain unique resources, for instance, and killing players from the other faction or trading with them could give access to those resources. Maybe players could even disguise theirselves as enemies and simply walk into Mordor to buy that particularly rare kind of potion from a red wizard.

The problem I see with this is: how could the pacifist faction ever defend themselves against the bellicous faction's incursions? Perhaps players could invest somehow on their own factions, allowing the pacifists to have more secure borders with automated defenses ("Guards!") or even hire mercenaries to do the dirty work (third faction?), while the martial ones could get better transportation, siege machines and whatever would be necessary to cross the borders.

Completely new players could familiarize themselves with the game's mechanics within the safety of the walls of the PvE centered faction and, if it were their choice, spend their whole carreer there. Experienced players that are familiar with the game could create characters straight into the PvP faction. Players from both factions that would like to experiment with the playstyle of the other faction could change their allegiance with some sort of penalty or long quest to show loyalty.
 

Goodmann

Babbling Loonie
Stratics Veteran
any red player could face stat loss like a pet does, upon death -1.0 in all skills. This not so severe that it kills the idea of pking but certainly makes you think twice while being red.
 
Last edited:

kelmo

Old and in the way
Professional
Alumni
Supporter
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
UNLEASHED
Dread Lord
Similarly, being a "good guy" should not be easy either. There should be robberies, assaults, thefts, murders, crimelords, and prison gangs!
I disagree. Those anti social things may happen. Being a law abiding citizen should be easy. Work hard, be smart and take care of your business.

If you want to take the easy route and steal what honest folks have worked for... Then you should be ready to accept the penalty of law. I know none of you bad guys expect to get caught.

Your names will be on wanted posters... What if you did get caught?
 

cazador

Grand Inquisitor
Stratics Veteran
First and foremost! Super excited for this game to emerge RG..welcome back! Secondly please just one race! Human and that's it..hybrid classes are fun to play as a tank Mage and such but I don't think as a Mage you should carry a weapon at all unless it be a staff or book..but a Mage with a broadsword is..well just plain wrong..
Anyways for this to be the "ultimate" RPG rules should be very limited in every aspect of the game whether it be PVP PVM or RP..or any other abbreviated aspect of the game I'm forgetting lol..
PK- a must!!! Some flaws from UO need to be rectified as in griefing which I think can be easily remedied..I'm sorry rpers or soley pvmers but in any game there must be risk..but I do suggest that after the first kill there is no pentaly other than karma loss a murder count and a drop in notoriety..but you're infamy as a dread goes up which can benefit you in specific towns ie: isle of the dastardly or wherever you get the point..but I believe what griefing actually is is basically harassing somebody who you obviously know is weaker such as RKing..or blocking in and killing which all should be legal..frowned upon but legal so once u kill an player character the person that killed you is then logged into a server system and then on resurrection or whatever kind of system that is in place a timer is placed say 2 minutes and if that same character kills you the killed player has an option they can send the offender into a mini stat loss that lasts x amount of time first offense maybe 10% skill drop for 5 minutes and the system gradually perpetuates on offenses that can be worked off just like murder counts in UO or some other options as in taking an x amount of gold from the perps account based on his negative notoriety rating..and eventually that person can kill himself into a state where when he/she commits negative acts can actually give him a perma stat loss every time..therefore making it an actual risk to reward for both the killed and the killer..

PvM - should be fun but at the same time risky to a certain extent there should be dungeons that are non-pvp but they can only be entered up till a certain skill/level therefore the griefing isn't being done to noobs but toons that can somewhat protect themselves..

Granted I'm sure the smarter posters will find loopholes and what not but the system could work if tweaked the right way..thank you for reading my book :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Top