• Hail Guest!
    We're looking for Community Content Contribuitors to Stratics. If you would like to write articles, fan fiction, do guild or shard event recaps, it's simple. Find out how in this thread: Community Contributions
  • 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.
  • Hail Guest!
    Please read the new announcement concerning the upcoming addition to Stratics. You can find the announcement Here!

POTW - Consensual PvP

B

BugsySiegel

Guest
i would not be happy with it simply because pk's are part of the game and always have been. sometimes its fun to just go out and mass murder people after a bad day at work. It also keeps you on your toes. consensual pvp would just suck.
 
G

Gareth420

Guest
50% of the people on these boards are less than 1% of the people in the game itself. Lets put this poll on the login screen and see how the numbers pan out. Happy people are not posting here for the most part they are playing the game. There is literally no way in hell UO would alienate 90% of the players in UO to please a few diehard PKs from 1998. Face it you guys have not quit after everything thus far you will not quit now either. PVP switch or not.

Exactly what problem do you have with a pvp switch on regular shards (shards not siege ruleset)? I mean if someone does not wish to be attacked by other players why should they be forced to? You guys have siege now yet most do not like it due to the fact there is no weak non-pvp template chars to kill there for the easy insurance money.

Fact is that any poll done here takes into account less than 1% of the total UO population. If they want to do an accurate poll they need to poll EVERYONE and not just stratics users. Until then the numbers really mean nothing. I assumed noone would vote for the trammel ruleset choice here. This site is badly skewed towards old time pre uo:r people who wish it would go back to that.

Again noone ever said ANYWHERE they were unifying tram/fel rulesets. They said they were unifying PVP rulesets which have not 1 thing to do with making non-consentual pvp happen anywhere besides where it already does. Everyone is putting words into their mouths. Also if you notice the numbers are pretty even which means not everyone shares your opinion on stratics. Imagine if you went to trammel and asked everyone at the bank. Or better yet put a poll on uo.com and make it only people with UO accounts can vote #1 and #2 make it 1 vote per account.

Fact is alot of these posters and voters are all visitors who have had accts a very short time. Its easy to skew numbers when you can make 100 new accts and vote on every one of them. Also most of the voters do not even play UO anymore including the mod who started this poll.
 
J

Justy

Guest
BlondeBeard & Krack:

I understand your basic points about risk and reward in Fel. I somewhat retract my statement concerning double-resources. I do consent to a greater risk for those resources. That risk is the Fel ruleset which does include PvP. Champ Spawns are a different story because there already is a risk involved in the PS collection.
 

Balazar

Seasoned Veteran
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
<blockquote><hr>

Exactly what problem do you have with a pvp switch on regular shards (shards not siege ruleset)?

<hr></blockquote>
Because a pvp switch would remove unwilling victims from PKs. These PKs are not into pvp for "a good match", they are into victimizing players and ruining their game experience.

<blockquote><hr>

I mean if someone does not wish to be attacked by other players why should they be forced to?

<hr></blockquote>
Because, for a large percentage of PKs, killing the unwilling is a lot more of an ego boost than killing a consenting pvper.

<blockquote><hr>

I assumed noone would vote for the trammel ruleset choice here. This site is badly skewed towards old time pre uo:r people who wish it would go back to that.


<hr></blockquote>
It isn't the gold, or the loot, and it never was. Real roleplay PKs are rare, that's why the murderers of the Guardians of the Undead Lords (GUL) are so appreciated by all that hunt Liches in Felucca. I used to look for them in Fel areas like Yew Cemetary and Fire Dungeon Lich Lords. Sadly, they are just not around any more. Roleplaying, fighting and being PK-ed by them was fun and exciting. However, with the fact that GUL regularly issue warnings before attacking, it was really consentual pvp and not non-consentual pvp.

Most PKs love to victimize other players. It's what gets them off. The chance to victimize the human being on the other side of the computer screen is the drug of choice for these people. There's no reasoning with folks like that, you can only band together, and use the weight and influence of vast numbers to force OSI to curbe their behavior with things like PK switches.

Frankly, the fastest way to get OSI to institute a PK switch is to turn PKs loose in Trammel, Malas and Ilshenar.
 

skrutchie

Crazed Zealot
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
"I am just not sure why people are so opposed to a switch"

With a switch..

- players could grief others with no risk or consequence, just like in trammel.
Grief includes vulgarity, spawn hogging, kill stealing and anything jerkish.

- players with pvp switched-off in felucca could help those who are switched on and would do so with no risk or price to pay. Example blocking/pushthrough.

- By allowing both pvp-on and pvp-off players within felucca, it becomes parallel to guild fighting in trammel. Felucca would no longer be an area of competition amongst players. Players used to compete for notoriety, skill, treasure, and whatever was available. Due to itemization, skill &amp; fame are no longer fought for. Those players have moved on after their game element was destroyed.
 
B

Blondebeard

Guest
Balazar, you've proven time again your only interest is to make generalizations and the same old tired arguments that have been discredited in every other post you have tried that in. Not everyone, nor even a majority, in felucca are pks or griefers. And I venture to say most of the people against a switch on this board arent even PKs (as I'm not either).

Of course don't let that get in the way. Because people who aren't malicious PKs but nontheless don't support a PvP switch don't count because they don't support your argument /php-bin/shared/images/icons/wink.gif
 
G

Gareth420

Guest
Ok so we make it that pvp-on characters cannot aid those who are pvp-on similar to war guild rules. As far as blocking etc thats just something people would have to deal with or get rid of pushthrough one of the two.

Being griefed also includes players killing other players, res killing, blocking etc. All of those are unique to fel so its not like the only people who use cuss words are in fel. Also I see people all the time in fel cussing and taunting other players. I see guilds hogging spawns (i.e champ spawns) all the time in fel. What are you going to do against an entire guild? Not a damn thing thats what.

Players can still compete among other players with a pvp switch. Just flip the switch on and there you go.
 
B

Blondebeard

Guest
You basically admit that it makes it exactly like a war guild. I don't want to be in a war guild so why would I want a PvP switch that equates to it?

We want non-consentual PvP as part of the danger of felucca. A switch makes it inherently consentual. No matter how you try to justify it, it's a huge felucca nerf.
 
C

CorwinWE

Guest
No. There has to be at least *some* means to express player justice.

In the old days you could do this without risking statloss, by killing someone once every 8 hours.

I just can't see being the poor sap with the dead beetle and some stealther walking off with my 18000 arrows that was discussed in another thread. If someone did that to me, I'd reveal 'em, kill 'em with spawn, pk 'em ... something.

Trammel when it was released was the only way you could have a consentual pvp guildwar without outside interference. No blue healing. None of those things everyone hated in order/chaos or guildwars in Fel.

How many PvP'ers dashed over to Trammel to take advantage of that?

None?
 
W

William_The_Lion

Guest
That's why Felucca is so unpopulated. Enjoy your empty land!
 
R

ralphEUR

Guest
<blockquote><hr>


I go to Fel for the double resources or the champ spawns, not because I consent to PvP. So, no I am not consenting a red to come and upset my apple-cart.

<hr></blockquote>


You are aware of the rules when you enter fel, therefor you are giving consent. To not give consent would be to choose "trammel" when you are in a moongate.

*edit* my bad.. replied before reading the later pages ..

Silly poll btw - far too vague.
Having a PVP switch would increase griefing ten fold without a doubt, and i for one would close all accounts instantly. There are plenty of other games out there....
 
G

Gareth420

Guest
The problem is the people who want non consentual pvp are becoming more and more of a minority. The dev team needs to look at the good of the whole game and not just one part of it. No matter what they do noone goes to fel b ut a few diehards. With a pvp switch people could still pvp its not removing pvp. Its removing the PK from the equation and attracting the kind of audience EQ has.
 

Balazar

Seasoned Veteran
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
<blockquote><hr>

Balazar, you've proven time again your only interest is to make generalizations and the same old tired arguments that have been discredited in every other post you have tried that in.

<hr></blockquote>
Man, this is just too funny! Only yeaterday, I agreed and supported one of YOUR opinion, BLONDEBEARD.

<blockquote><hr>

Not everyone, nor even a majority, in felucca are pks or griefers.

<hr></blockquote>
If your claim is I believe in the above, then you need to carefully read my post again. Take special note of the part where I pvp-ed with PKs from GUL.

<blockquote><hr>

Of course don't let that get in the way. Because people who aren't malicious PKs but nontheless don't support a PvP switch don't count because they don't support your argument

<hr></blockquote>
Talking about making generalizations, kettle!

I respect all arguments, made in a logical and rational manner. That, by definition, excludes your post. I'll say it again, and s-l-o-w-l-y, so even you can understand. I'm in favor of a PK switch if (and only if) the Dev Team unify Trammel and Felucca rule sets. If they don't unify the two rule sets, then I am NOT in favor of a PK switch, because I believe going through a moongate to Felucca is consenting to the possibility of being pked, griefed, scammed or stolen from.
 

Darkholme

Grand Inquisitor
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
That's interesting... at the time I cast my vote it was split almost exactly 50/50 with 200 or so votes cast...
 
B

Blondebeard

Guest
<blockquote><hr>

The problem is the people who want non consentual pvp are becoming more and more of a minority. The dev team needs to look at the good of the whole game and not just one part of it. No matter what they do noone goes to fel b ut a few diehards. With a pvp switch people could still pvp its not removing pvp. Its removing the PK from the equation and attracting the kind of audience EQ has.

<hr></blockquote>

Umm excuse me, but there's not exactly a huge clamor for access to felucca. Sure the PvP switch has been a big topic (due to PvPers), but all in all the majority doesnt show any interest in occupying felucca.

Balazar:
I'm not going to sit there and pretend like you didn't say what you just said. After all the discussions and all the explanations given out 50 times, there's no reason for your generalizations. I don't care what you say at one moment if you contradict it at other times. You made baseless claims like people in felucca are just griefers and that's the reason they don't want it. You can try to play both sides all you want, but whenever you make comments like that, I'm going to call you on it. And you seem to be in the habit of doing it on every PvP post, then backtracking.
 

Ox AO

Grand Poobah
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
<blockquote><hr>

Would you be happy if there were no non-consensual PvP (i.e. no player killers), but PvP was made exciting, compelling and worthwhile?

<hr></blockquote>

wilki24 your question is highly bias. I would suggest to try again.

Let me word it the way it sounds to me.
"would you like to see no PKers if they replaced it with something that YOU find much better then the system in place?"

LOL try again please hehe

I have a feeling you might know something we don't? Because this sounds like a promotional type question. Very bias to get the best response possible.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Please don't yell of Wilki each time he make a poll, it's not that hard to translate it to "Do you want PK's out of the game if PvP systems was tweaked"

Facts is, 50% of the voters do not want PK's out of the game, that's nice to know /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

The poll is fine
 
S

Shadowblades

Guest
Well its kind of hard to have one without the other unless the game is totally centered around PvP. For example if factions would give big benefits such as faction only dungeons, items, pets, towns, and so on.

Also, faction hopping would have to be delt with somehow, maybe major penalties for leaving a factions and and a one month delay before you can quit after joining.

Basically make it so that if you want all the real high end stuff you gotta compete with other players for it. That way there would be no more DF bashing 24/7 for those who want to PvP. You would be rewarded for contributing to your faction instead.

Then we really wouldnt need PKing because there would always be someone to fight. And those who want to run vendors and decorate houses could do so, but I really dont think you need Berserkers's Maul, or Ornament of the Magi to make your house look good. People who dont want to PvP would simply have less options to them, but since they take less risk by not being vulnerable to other players they would not need access to the real high end items anyway.

If the game was made something like that, then yes, I think we could let go of PKs because there would be enough people to compete with.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Basically make it so that if you want all the real high end stuff you gotta compete with other players for it. That way there would be no more DF bashing 24/7 for those who want to PvP. You would be rewarded for contributing to your faction instead.

Then we really wouldnt need PKing because there would always be someone to fight. And those who want to run vendors and decorate houses could do so, but I really dont think you need Berserkers's Maul, or Ornament of the Magi to make your house look good. People who dont want to PvP would simply have less options to them, but since they take less risk by not being vulnerable to other players they would not need access to the real high end items anyway.



Glad that is your opinion and not everyone elses. I for one do not think that those of us that don't like pvp should be punished with less high-end items. PvM'ers do more than run vendors and decorate houses. You (pvp'ers) take the less options. Thank you very much!

You seem to think that non pvp'ing is some sort of crime or that those that don't want to participate in that playstyle, don't want to participate because they don't want the risk. Narrow minded and immature thinking, and the cause of to much hate and discontent by pvm'ers and pvp'ers alike.
When those types of pvp'ers finally except the fact that not everyone likes pvp, for the sake of not liking that playstyle and have the right to their own playstyle with just as much rewards, without being labeled "chicken" or whatever labels seem to fly out of some player's mouths at the time, then maybe some compromises can happen. Just as not everyone (pvp'er) is a pk'er, not everyone {pvm'er) is a chicken.

OH, and I want pvp to stay. I want the facets left alone, and pvp fixed in Felucca, because you see I realize that some like pvp, and have a right to play their playstyle also, with the same rewards as non pvp'ers. I may not be a pvp'er but I don't want that playstyle destroyed either.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Please don't yell of Wilki each time he make a poll, it's not that hard to translate it to "Do you want PK's out of the game if PvP systems was tweaked"

Facts is, 50% of the voters do not want PK's out of the game, that's nice to know



Hmm, I read it as more that would like it if pk'ers were out of the game and pvm is more exciting. I read that the ones that do not want pk's out of the game is 49 percent. 118 votes for yes, and 115 votes for no. Is this not correct?

But it is real close and subject to change quickly.
 
G

Guest

Guest
When I made my post it was 50/50, it had been close race from the start. Right now, there is a few more on your side than on mine, but that can changes again /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif
 
R

Rand Al Thor

Guest
The reason that Felucca is becoming less and less is because the Dev Team has listened to players like yourself in the past who want the game handed to them. They tried to balance it out so both sides could have what they wanted. But the Tramiee's wanted more and more. Which was fine, but a problem crept up. Everytime they made a change, or added something to the game, they couldn't balance it on both rule sets. So here for some reason the Dev team decieded to let the Felucca Players suck it up. Now, the tramiee's want more, now they want Felucca. Here is bottom line, if you want the game handed to you, then just say so and stop suggar coating it. I am not a PK'er, I belong to the oldest largest Honor guild on Cats. We play in Felucca, we love the rule set. Pk's are the check to stop the gold farmers who seek to wreck the ecomy. Pks are an important part of balance. I don't like them, but they balance the game. UO can not be everything to everyone. Felucca has far less grief than Tram. If you put in a PvP switch, all you are doing is allowing the griefers to win. I would rather get Pk'ed than have to deal with a punk lamer Griefer....... Please, Please leave Felucca to the Pvp'ers as you call it, stop winning because we have some risk for our reward. We like it that way, Stop asking to take away our Risk just so you can freely have our reward. We like to fight for it.....
 
K

KrackTheKlown

Guest
Very well put Rand.

How about looking at it like this? UO has 220k accounts? pvp/pvm is split roughly about 30/70? Assume 20% of the 30 are non-cons, thats 44k accounts that may leave if a switch came in. Thats a big chunk, assuming they don't have multiple accounts (I personally have 3 and most pvpers I know have 2)

Do you really honestly think they would attract enough people to compensate for the loss of anywhere from 44k to 88k (assuming 2 accts) accts? Doubtful, UO is old, lets face it. I like the game and am not bashing on it, its just a simple fact. UO would be hard up to compete for the new accts with games like star wars and EQ2 and so many other On-line games with nice new 3d engines and such. I mean look at guildwars, its free for crying out loud.

Now obviously all my numbers are not factual, thats all just a theory.

thoughts?

Al Roker
 
D

Duke X. Winter

Guest
I voted yes, but I am going to refrain from posting why. I read three pages of this thread, only to see the same PvPers make the same points over and over again to anyone who posted something opposed to them. My dad taught me to always listen to someone's opinion with an open mind. He also taught me that you should only have to listen to that opinion once. Fact is, once I have heard it, I don't need to hear it again. But as I said, it's the same people defending thier points, vicously I might add. When there's no room to agree on having different opinions then a conversation, or a debate as this is, turns sour.
 
S

Shimmy

Guest
I think this may be a bit late but, the reason we the pvpers oppose the switch is that people will be flooding into felucca to do nothing but PVM, they would have to take out double resources, the Fun of PvP in fel is that you can be attacked at anytime by anyone, not that i can just attack when i want to or be attacked when I want to. There is no fun in that, and i don't want people coming into fel just because there is more hunting space.
 
G

Guest

Guest
<blockquote><hr>

Fact is that any poll done here takes into account less than 1% of the total UO population. If they want to do an accurate poll they need to poll EVERYONE and not just stratics users

<hr></blockquote>

Polls are accurate with far less than 1% of EVERYONE. How do you think they find out if Bush or Kerry is ahead? Do you think they poll all of the US?

Ridiculous.
 
A

Astuur

Guest
Good poll, as long as we all keep in mind that this forum is dominated by pro-(non-consensual)-PVP players.
It is not going to be representative.

The decision to take part in PvP (and with which character)
should be up to each player, but binding for a certain period of time.

We have that already by choosing the facet. That is fine, but any additional "incentives" to go to Felucca must be done away with. They have never been more than a highly unfair method to supply Felucca PKs with some victims. Does anyone really think that miners are there, because they are the prefered characters to do PvP with?
But that also reserves the facet to a minority of players.
If you want to repopulate Felluca, introduce a PvP switch. Felucca would then become an area where PvM is a bit harder (blocking etc) And PvP should be possible everywhere for those that want it.
Just my point of view, of course
 
M

Matrim Cauthon

Guest
What is up with this poll? Why is that the Tramiees are never happy with what they got? Why do they think they need to destroy Felucca? Easy answer, they want all the reward with no risk........Where is the fun in that. EA needs to put more Risk Vs Reward in Felucca. Fix PvP and ask the Tram players if they want some cheese....
 
D

Duke X. Winter

Guest
Could we please stop using the term trammies as a negative conentation? It's getting really stupid. As long as you shop in Trammel, as long as you use the moongates, as long as you have a house there, as long as you mine in trammel, as long as you bank sit in trammel, YOU'RE A TRAMMIE!
 
A

AmandaRekonwith

Guest
Unfortunately, your poll question's badly biased wording in the last clause immediately discredits any poll results.
I hope they do eliminate non-consentual PvP, though. If no one cheated, I'd prefer the current PvP ruleset. Of course, there are too many players that abuse the code and/or use financial resources others don't have to buy artifacts to dominate in PvP and that ruins it for everyone, including them in the long run, though most of them are too caught up in themsleves to see that game balance would mean more participants, which I think translates into more challenge and fun...as well as more revenues for EA, and you can bet your mom's honour that revenues are one of the main issues at the heart of this issue.
I know that is a tired opinion; however, I still see status quo PvP advocates dragging out old "purist" ideas that do not account for cheaters (or, perhaps they are cheaters hiding behind purist arguements) so I put it forth again.
With the next expansion, I look forward to again using a PvM character for champ spawns without concern of getting ganked by code abusing reds with artifacts.
 
J

jagarr

Guest
play the game for what its worth. if half of you spent a fraction of the time you spend complaining about game mechanics and harping on us pks (who, trust me, have gotten more than our fair share of 'the shaft' over the past 6 years) on being a little more open minded and improving your characters, we'd probably have a lot more people enthusiastic about PvPing. but the Tram generation often denies felucca its rightful chance. don't let the few bad apples ruin it, there is lots of fun to be had! there is nothing stopping any of you from saving up for artifacts and a powerscroll or two.

Personally, I sell crap in tram and thats absolutely it, because brit bank is the only densely populated place in the game really (besides skara). as far as i'm concerned trammel's intro was the pvp switch. i could go off about the overkill that was trammel for eons but i won't. its all been said a thousand times before.
MOST UO veterans, even the ones who don't actively PvP, heavily prefer felucca over trammel for the sole reason that it offers a feeling of true risk vs. reward and accomplishment. sad sauce AI doesn't 'do it' for the majority of skilled players any longer. a good rl bud of mine's father has played UO as long as me and absolutely hates pking, but i'll be damned if i ever see him set foot in trammel. he says he feels like hes cheating himself by playing there. UO's defining characteristic is its versatility and VARIETY most of all, a large part of which is non-con pvp. it has already been crushed with the introduction of trammel, and complete removal of the system would doom my accounts to the great end-all cash-in that is eBay.

the problem is, a vast percentage of UO's current population was not around for the enthralling red vs. blue wars that took place around every hotspot during the game's best years (late 98-2k1). i personally loved pking then, even WITH statloss (it separated the men from the boys, so to speak, and was a fine system for limiting the number of pkers) because it was such a rush. when you killed a pk, you basically set them back a serious amount of character development, which felt great for the antis=P and pking itself required great teamwork and concentration. on top of that, every lost connection as a 7x red with over 1000 kills left me sweating like an idiot, praying for colors when i got back into the game. hell, even DISCONNECTING was exciting.

righting myself from that wild tangent, on the cheating issue: NOT THAT MANY PEOPLE ACTUALLY SPEEDHACK! when whiners die, they blame speedhack or just make up some 'cheat' their killer was using. sure, there are scripts and speedhacks i guess, but few serious players use them (they don't need to!). just because you read about them from posters using the F word and angry ALL CAPS once and a while doesn't mean they're such a rampant problem. it often just means the poster got bizzowned in a hardcore embarassing manner (like a lucky exp-fs-armorignore or something=P ) and is mad about it. it happens to the best of us. chill out.

i guess i just miss the community aspect of pre-Tram PvP. belonging to a guild MEANT something; you had numbers and protection on a hunt. pks couldn't just mow your PvM asses down as easily because the hunters went in groups just as large as pks and skill (not item) based pvp applied as much in the blues favor as the reds. equilbrium! calling my buds to blood elems to own some random para ganker from DnA or a high bounty from SUN who had just rocked my warrior was some of the most fun UO has ever given me, and I miss it. the revenge sure was sweet, and it worked both ways.

i'll never forget how much fun it was to hide inside destard entrance with KaBoom-DnA, Luba and Zemial to surprise-tactic drop Jasos (the founder and leader of once-mighty GoL anti-pks) in front of 10+ of his loyal guildmembers on their hunt. they fought back fiercely every time, and it was great. thats all over now, unfortunately =/ and a 'true' PvP switch would kill the last of that excitement for good. guild wars, factions, etc. are great, but no stone-chisled ruleset will ever replace true governing by the players.
 
V

Varelse

Guest
Truly "non-consensual" PvP was eliminated from the game when the mirror facet, Trammel was opened and people could hunt in dungeons, harvest resources, and own houses in a non-PvP environment.

All PvP that takes place now is our choice. We consent to PvP when we log on to Siege or Mugen, when we join a warring guild, and whenever we enter Felucca.

As much complaining as I see on the boards, I also notice many people in game still having a blast with PvP even though for several years now, it has been their choice whether or not to participate.
 
Z

ZeroLS

Guest
I love this game for its Non Consensual pvp, without it, I'd leave forever.
 
S

Shadowblades

Guest
Im sorry but what are you talking about? I think I explained my reasoning quite well. PvPers will take more risk while PvMing because they might be attacked by other PvPers, to compensate for this they will have access to better items, they will need these with the extra risk they take.

And there are reasons for prefering or not prefering a playstyle. So if its not the difficulty then what is it?

Then we have the slight problem of PvPers being forced to PvM. And unlike you most of them can provide a real explenation for why they dont like it. Some examples would be because its boring, repetative, and non-challanging, now thats a real reason against a playstyle, "I dont like something because I dont like it" is a meaningless statement.
 
S

Shadowblades

Guest
Whats getting stupid is the assumption that just because someone goes to tram their a trammie. Its how you act and how you play that makes you a trammie. If we were to go by your assumption in RL then the second you cross the border to another contry you would become its citizen.

And while Im commenting on stupid statements I should also mention that going to fel does not make it concentual PvP. According to people who think that way UO must have never had any, because the second you left guards zone you gave concent, or to go even further the second you logged in. But thats not quite how it works, concentual means you agree to something so just because you agree to leave trammel does not mean you give concent to be PKed, you simply take the risk of being PKed. Giving concent would be two players agreeing to a duel.
 
G

Gareth420

Guest
There is no reason for a pvp person who is in fel pvm'n to need any better gear. If you have better gear you cannot lose then what exactly is the risk again? I think they should make a duplicate doom (nothing better or worse but the same) put it in fel. Do the same thing with power scrolls except in trammel. Make it so people do not have to go anywhere they do not wish to go.

That is fair to me. If you enjoy the fel rulset then by all means put doom in fel or just make artifacts spawn somewhere else in fel. I think people need to pay for AOS to get artifacts but most everyone has anyways for customized housing. Actually unless its a +20 power scrolls are now worthless pretty much. I can buy any powerscroll in 2-3 days of stocking my vendors. No reason for anyone to goto fel.
 
S

Shadowblades

Guest
Actually I was saying that should be done if non-consentual PvP was removed and a whole new system was put in place. This would then be needed so that those who choose to PvP can still compete in other aspects of the game with those who dont. So for example if two people are fighting the same monster type, but one must constantly be on the lookout for the opposing faction, that person will have a big disadvantage over the person who does not choose to PvP. In order to compensate for this players who choose to join a faction would have access to more powerful items.

And your first sentence doesnt make much sence. First of all lose to who or what? Are you talking about PvP or PvM here? In fel you would need better gear because you might be attacked by a PK. For just PvM you can pretty much use whatever. However, once again, Im talking about a whole new unified PvP system here, with non-consentual PvP gone, so Fel/Tram rules no longer apply.
 
Z

ZeroLS

Guest
Christs sake people there already is a "pvp switch" its called Trammel(Off)/Felucca/(On) - Lets not forget that 75% of the landmasses are based around the (Off) switch?
 

Kas Valentine

Stratics Legend
Stratics Veteran
Stratics Legend
Voted; No.

Just because a PvP switch is a bad idea, the reasons why have already been mentioned (several times over /php-bin/shared/images/icons/love.gif).
 
G

Guest

Guest
Why would a PvP switch have to eliminate reds? I am sure you could make PvP more exciting in other facets, completely consentual, whilst introducing more risk vs reward into felucca (i.e. stat loss again). With item capping and more balance coming to PvP'ing stat loss would once more be a considerable option, I am sure that many PKs would be willing to go back to the old ways. ofc it would involve a count wipe but I am sure many die hard PKs would get back to being red instantly. This would also give the people who have gone red due to AoS a chance to PvP in new places, and also other people to join them there.
The only thing that I feel would completely ruin this is luck armour. How many PvM'ers do you see in felucca with resist armour? Barely any, it makes it such an easy kill. Also, although the items you acquire are still slightly random, its all about the size of your bank box. Some1 who just PvMs in fel for items should be able to live through 2 spells/hits from a good PK'er, and then maybe give a good fight back against them. And some1 who is poor should have the same chance of getting items as some1 who is amazingly rich!
I feel what keeps people away from PvM'ing in fel atm is the fact they will die too quick in luck armour, or else they are not going to get anything good if they don't use luck. If there was a PvP switch in malas, Ilsh (I would love to fight in that juka town /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif ) and tram (maybe not tram, because its so like fel) and then its turned off whilst in fel, so that you aren't assaulted by the guild/group/however else they plan on doing it you aren't ganked from another side by a group of reds.
That way, you could keep double resources, maybe repopulate fel (although quite a lot of the time on Europa its quite busy), keep powerscroll hunts and give people an oppertunity to defend themselves (I think you would have to have no short term counts in PS zones because there is a garunteeded reward there and normally there are a lot of people there, so too many short term counts!
Whatever happens you CAN'T get rid of reds, please!!
Anyone who says move double resources out of fel can stfu tbh. You ruin this bloody game and you prolly exploited the ingot bug and vendor bugs to the full extent to futher your bank boxes as much as you could. You deserve to have halved resources and monster spawn rates! You can't have more spawn and other things without a price!
 
G

Guest

Guest
I vote definitely NO! Myself and my entire guild would be out of a job.. If there are no murderers, there is no need for defenders. If there are no villains.. how then do you define a hero? Sounds like a total sham! No risk? No danger? No thanks!

Sounds like all these nightmares come from the regular ruleset shards. I just thank my stars I have Siege. When they shut it down, I will quit. No way in Hades will I ever play the distorted mockery of UO I have seen on regular shards.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Resources are double in Fel for a reason. The risk is greater. Same with champ spawns. High risk, high reward.

Grief is good for UO. It gives something to strive against. There are 3 out of four facets that are non consentual. It is the very risk of Felucca that makes it worthwhile.

I get my ass handed to me alot, but I get better. It's a misconception that everyone in Fel is fighting with 70's suits and artifacts. Sure those players have an advantage and there are a good many of them out there. But groups of players are learning how to even the odds through teamwork.

In my opinion a pvp switch is a bad idea. It's just going to further tame the game and make it boring and pointless for people who have outgrown Balrons.

This is sounding more and more like some cure all that will break all. Its drastic changes to the game system like the sudden introduction of dozens of item properties and the impact that these sudden and large changes have that destroy the progress which is earned through the investment of player time. Even worse than what AOS did to pvp was the slate wiping effect it had on peoples sweat equity.

Be careful Dev team. PvP changes and balancing yes. Major restyling, no.
 
C

Crazed on Siege

Guest
I'm have to say No as well and incourage everyone else to do same unless.... They just leave siege how it is. I don't play the lame shards much anyhow so just leave pk's alone in siege cause we like it real there not some lame candyland 100% item based game you made it out to be on regular shards. With a clearification on what would be compensated for the pk lifestlye then maybe I'd try it to see what it's about.

They need a Faction shard tho with two char slots per account you pick your faction when you make first char and second char is put in automaticly. No leaving to join a new faction unless you deleat both chars on account and loose all you worked for. I think an unlimited bank would be nice and NO HOUSING. maybe make a customizable area by faction leaders that cost faction funds to design your own stronghold areas. give each faction a town that will suround their strongholds and eqaul area to customize so no advantages cept an idiots design. could also maybe alow oposing factions to damage the strongholds with siege equipment so the strongholds would show the battle wounds. I'd play a server simular to that
 
B

Blackstone

Guest
<blockquote><hr>

I vote definitely NO! Myself and my entire guild would be out of a job..

<hr></blockquote>
What does your guild do?
 
B

Blackstone

Guest
<blockquote><hr>

Grief is good for UO.

<hr></blockquote>
This was what Adrick and Evocare believed, and they were dumped by OSI management. Sunsword is now in charge, and he is less friendly to the idea that griefing is "good" for UO.

If OSI plans to re-unite the two rule styles, then I am all for a pvp switch.
 
G

Guest

Guest
I like fresh roasted coffee and little bunny slippers...do these views count?
 
L

LadyBelladonna

Guest
I used to never go to Fel, but now it seems deserted. I can get better prices on just about everything there, and on the very rare day I see someone else, he or she is usually afraid that I am a PK and runs. It is a lot different than the old days when everyone was forced to PvP on one landmass and your lumberjack/carpenter/tinker would get killed as soon as he stepped outside of town. Of course, you would have a poison-trapped chest in your pack for the lucky soul who looted you... hissssssssssssssssssssssssss!

It is funny to me to see all the "uber" characters parading around the Trammel banks with their artifacts and neon, etc. etc. but to see no one - not a soul - in Fel, even in town.

Having said all that, I vote for leave the darned game alone.
 
B

Blind fury

Guest
K, this is how it is, I don't like item based pvp. Really I think it sucks a lot and insurance is the dumbest idea ever. But if you don't like the way pvp is if you don't want to go to fel and die then don't go, we don't want you there. How about instead of trammies trying to change fel so it's even lamer then it is at this point; how about we change trammel, how about reds are allowed in trammel and are allowed to kill in towns, and thieves can steal in any facet they want.
Either change fel back to the olden days or just leave it alone. non-consensual pvp is the lamest thing ever. either then insurance, because I am a thief
 
P

Panzer

Guest
I wouldnt care as long as the consent meant guild wars. Please dont add a switch to the game. Personally i was having fun before they split the lands. I wasnt pking none. But there was plenty of guildwars going on, so we where haveing a blast. When they finally split the lands, the guild wars died out.

I would definatly at take guild wars, and wipe fel. People the landsplit killed the Community of UO.
 
Top