Still waiting for that first game to get it right, hasn't happened yet so far.
And probably will never happen on large scale...
There's too many different sets of prerequisites amongst the gaming public.
Several games have "got it right", but it was only "right" for 5K or 10K players, the rest left those games because they didn't like some part of the design. And FFA PVP games rapidly die once they start losing population, if there's nobody to kill and loot, what's the point of logging in ?
100% support full loot if they know how to implement it.
If there are items you spent months to unlock via raids that can be looted, then no. Not only would that be annoying to you, but it will inhibit progression for your entire guild if you actually play the game outside of that scope and get yourself killed.
Full loot like UO had is ideal, as there are no such things. Most items were easily obtained. Guilds supplied their members with armor, weapons, bandages, etc.
You have to be smart about what you bring outside. A stack of 20 bandages, three potions, a few poison cleansing potions, etc. Maybe a spare weapon or shield. The have equipped a plain GM level Iron plate.
In fact, I'd be excited about a game that brought you back to level 1 if you died. Especially if it took days or weeks to get each level. The risk / reward involved with that could be intriguing, even if few people would give it a chance.
I remember UO when I've killed a guy on a rare horse which has cost around 1M gold, he had farm for it like 3 months. This has happened almost 20years ago and I still remember that kill like it was yesterday.
God I miss these old times where people wasn't such pathetic morons like nowadays.
I see only one "pathetic" person in your little story... the guy who obtained in a few seconds what someone else worked on for months and doesn't realize what's wrong with that picture. Those people are bad enough in real life, most don't want them also ruining their video games.
That's the typical example of why FFA full loot PvP games don't work, and why that game you talk about, UO, had to patch in Trammel in a hurry to stop the player bleeding due to abusive permanent ganking.
If someone is dumb enough to wear a full set of Valorite Armor, carry several checks for 1,000,000 gold and show off something expensive in the middle of a PvP zone, then that's just them being a dumb dumb.
The game had pocket picking as well, so you could just brush against someone outside of the Town Guard's reach and take those checks. Which is why you had extra security with bags, and only carried the necessities when leaving safe zones or your guild house.
The game was about survival of the fittest and actually being intelligent. Bringing a rare mount out like that is just asking for it to be killed, once they loot your corpse for all your worth since you're obviously both dumb and rich -- a prime target.
I lost a lot of valuable items. I was dumb. It was my fault for flaunting them.
Then again, I was also a Knight of Justice when that system was released. Bounty hunted Reds (people who did the above) with my guild. There was a lot of betrayal and politics in that game. You had to know where PK guilds were and which guilds could protect you.
Due to frequent travel in my youth, English isn't something I consider my primary language (and thus I obtained quirky ways of writing). German and French were always easier for me despite my family being U.S. citizens for over a century. Spanish I learned as a requirement in school, Japanese and Korean I acquired for my youthful desire of anime and gaming (and also work now). I only debate in English to help me work with it (and limit things). In addition, I'm not smart enough to remain fluent in everything and typically need exposure to get in the groove of things again if I haven't heard it in a while. If you understand Mandarin, I know a little, but it has actually been a challenge and could use some help.
Also, I thoroughly enjoy debates and have accounts on over a dozen sites for this. If you wish to engage in such, please put effort in a post and provide sources -- I will then do the same with what I already wrote (if I didn't) as well as with my responses to your own. Expanding my information on a subject makes my stance either change or strengthen the next time I speak of it or write a thesis. Allow me to thank you sincerely for your time.
I would only support this only if there were realistic inventory (Weight+Volume). When someone can loot your life's work off of your body, or know that they have dealt you a giant blow every time (by losing your ship and having to activate insurance for example) it's just going to incentivize murder.
Murder needs to have a consequence that becomes more likely and severe as the killer proceeds unless there is a mitigating circumstance (War).
Without those constraints what you have is just online anonymous asshatting. Essentially you have to make death both meaningful and win/win. Getting killed should rarely be 1.4 seconds of a Predatory Player hitting with high alpha and burning down an enemy. When death is nothing but an ignominious fail it adds nothing but the masturbatory element for the one player. When death is meaningful then it's occurrence adds verisimilitude to the whole game.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
That's a good idea, why not offer insurance for gear and equipment in a full loot PvP open world. If I remember correctly SWG had insurance in which you could create a clone at a cloning center in case you died.
Well what would be the point if your gear is insured lol, what a totally pathetic idea.
Fact is if you play on the full loot server then you have to except the rules, simple.
That's why having the PVE server is great for those who are not interested in PVP at all.
It's great that they are having different servers, PVPers can enjoy hunting people down while they are PVEing knowing that the person they are killing is happy to put themselves at risk.
The PVE's can PVE on there server knowing that no one is hunting them, total PVE server is great. If they want to make another server with a flagging system then people can join that server.
So you have three different type of servers or four with the RP server, happy days for all concerned.
I think 2 items dropped with coin on hand is more appropriate for a game. Full loot can be pretty tough to stomach for players who don't want to be at the mercy of large groups.
I also support safe zones to allow people to learn the game systems vets have mastered.
Yes, and it also encourages players to not achieve because their gains are likely to be taken away so they arm themselves with a default rock and just travel in groups of other no-invo zombies hoping to outrun their brethren when the predators attack. If that sounds fun to you, then you are in luck because there are games in existence that work like that now.
To me it's a fatal flaw that the game world fails to give you a decent chance to reach an acceptable mean of success.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
I remember UO when I've killed a guy on a rare horse which has cost around 1M gold, he had farm for it like 3 months. This has happened almost 20years ago and I still remember that kill like it was yesterday.
God I miss these old times where people wasn't such pathetic morons like nowadays.
I see only one "pathetic" person in your little story... the guy who obtained in a few seconds what someone else worked on for months and doesn't realize what's wrong with that picture. Those people are bad enough in real life, most don't want them also ruining their video games.
That's the typical example of why FFA full loot PvP games don't work, and why that game you talk about, UO, had to patch in Trammel in a hurry to stop the player bleeding due to abusive permanent ganking.
If someone is dumb enough to wear a full set of Valorite Armor, carry several checks for 1,000,000 gold and show off something expensive in the middle of a PvP zone, then that's just them being a dumbass.
The game had pocket picking as well, so you could just brush against someone outside of the Town Guard's reach and take those checks. Which is why you had extra security with bags, and only carried the necessities when leaving safe zones or your guild house.
The game was about survival of the fittest and actually being intelligent. Bringing a rare mount out like that is just asking for it to be killed, once they loot your corpse for all your worth since you're obviously both dumb and rich -- a prime target.
Thank you for making my point.
What's the point of adding valuable items in such a game if people just can't use them?
I think we all know the answer, and Origin/EA realized it too when they added Trammel to save the game.
It's not the people who are dumb, it's badly designed games including both items requiring huge amounts of played time to collect or create and the ability to take them away in a split second, therefore making those items completely useless. That's dumb game design, and most people, those you call dumb but who are actually the intelligent ones valuing their game time and not willing to be bullied by Johnny Nolife losing all their hard work, quit those games to never come back.
@Jean-Luc_Picard, I think you've just met two naked ninjas, those kinds who are going to run around without any items trying to kill you with their bare hands. Set Phasors to obliterate!
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
If you allow me, sir, I will take this as my signature because it sums it all.
"I fully understand if you’re the type of player that simply likes to log in, get on, and accomplish something without risk, but if you’re that sort of player, a full sandbox experience likely isn’t for you anyway. Chopping away parts of a sandbox game in order to ensure it’s exactly to your liking is missing the point: you’re effectively only seeking an MMO with more depth, as opposed to a total package offering players complete freedom."
People is looking for a deeper experience while asking for less freedom, thats exactly why they fall sleeped of boredom in their keyboard for a hundred AAA themepark games and some sandboxes without full loot.
It's a ridiculous quote. It pretty much says "my way or the highway" or "Only my definition matters and how I think of things is the way it is".
But since that's not even remotely true as people don't see things the same way, it doesn't hold water.
There are sandbox games that don't have fighting at all. Besides the fact that none of us can agree to what a sandbox actually is.
You might think they are asking for "less freedom" but what some are asking for is to remove elements that are of no importance to them. They are "non-elements". They are things that, for them, mar game play and in essence ruin the freedom for them to enjoy the game.
This is not to say that all games should be the same or made for everyone, I fully support full loot games that are designed correctly, but just because one person sees full loot as freedom and defining a "sandbox" doesn't mean that all people view it this way.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
What's the point of adding valuable items in such a game if people just can't use them?
I think we all know the answer, and Origin/EA realized it too when they added Trammel to save the game.
It's not the people who are dumb, it's badly designed games including both items requiring huge amounts of played time to collect or create and the ability to take them away in a split second, therefore making those items completely useless. That's dumb game design, and most people, those you call dumb but who are actually the intelligent ones valuing their game time and not willing to be bullied by Johnny Nolife losing all their hard work, quit those games to never come back.
We are in agreement that the addition of rare items in a Full Loot game is dumb. Unfortunately, it's the community that decides what is expensive, so it isn't as if you're spending valuable resources of development time on creating a one of a kind items that can be easily looted.
Tamers could tame animals out in the wild. Some are more highly prized than others, not really from rarely seeing them, but due to the level of difficulty of taming them. Few people went the Tamer route because it offered little combat benefit (or could be countered with a Mage's portal). Though those that did tame animals, they oft spent their time in Britain and advertised selling them. Lining up their horses and dragons and whatnot up and creating a sort of Bazaar. This allowed for the creation of a Player Made Mall.
So someone bought, lets say a Nightmare, from a Tamer. Common horse. A tamer could find and tame it in a couple minutes. But it would sell for 1,000,000 gold (or whatever someone was willing to pay). I sold sets of GM Valorite Armor for about 1,000,000 gold, as well. It took me all of two minutes to mine the ore and craft the item (I knew the spawning locations, just as tamers could know the taming locations).
While it was technically the rarest ore -- or one of the strongest horses -- the information was readily available on how to get it in seconds. You just had to skill up mining or taming. In the early days, there were less of these miners and blacksmiths and tamers. It took upwards of a year to become a Grand Master. Though when they became common, you couldn't sell a Nightmare for 500 gold.
So, no, neither of those were rare. They were in abundance. They were common resources. It was the early player economy and the players that dictated prices. No auction houses existed, just player created town markets.
People, however, knew that the game was PvP based. That your body was lootable if you died. They knew your animals could be killed. Even in Trammel you had the ability to lose everything on your body if you didn't make it back before it decayed. So buying a common animal for 1,000,000 gold was ridiculous to begin with. Borderline crazy. The same goes with taking something out in the wild. Thieves and ruffians hanged around Player Made markets, seeing who made the big purchases. They then cut them down in the wilds if they didn't have an escort or portal or place the items in the bank so that they can take it out in another city. In essence, it was Role Playing in its truest form -- as that is what would have happened.
I warned every person I sold a Valorite set to that I could sell them a Iron Plate set for just a thousand gold. That it would improve their chances of survival in the wilderness and to not wear the Valorite Armor (which was a blue color) in the open, without friends (some of which backstabbed you for your items; it was a harsh early survival game). People still bought. Wore. Got killed in PvE or PvP.
The game was about survival. Living in a medieval world that had a medieval mindset. True criminal systems (Reds could not enter towns or cities; they got instantly killed by guards. If you saw a Red in the Wilderness, you ran if you were alone, as they're PvPers / PKers), thievery, pickpocketing, etc. Survival guides were made, yet some people read them. You learned quickly how to survive. Bring the necessities. Who was good and bad. Friendships were formed that lasted lifetimes, because you knew your buddy had your back if it didn't have a knife in it by then, despite all the stupid stuff that you did.
There was truly never an experience like it. It was a living world. A fantasy world. A world with a true community. True heroes. Friendships. And rivalries. A world with consequences. True Guilds with banners and reputations, that actually geared out their members with items from their craftsmen and went on adventures that had more risk than corpse runs. Elitism got you killed. Flamboyance got you serrated.
But what have we now? Treadmills. "Epic Items" that mean nothing. Spend an hour to get them. Then yell at people who don't have them for their low DPS. People with anonymity and bad attitudes. Guilds full of Drama, who just invite randoms and create addons to mass invite, offering nothing in return and just wanting them to be another number in their ranks. No trials or memberships or friendships or trust gained or form. No going through massive defeats, losing caravans and equipment. Watching the army you lost against in a guild or faction war pick your bones clean. No coming together with your crafters, having meetings, handing out equipment, planning things out -- all in game and not in a voice chat. Building resources together. Having BBQs and Tournaments.
The true game of UO didn't need rare items. It was a community based game. A Sandbox where the players decided the worth of everything, and everything was, essentially, common. The few magic items it had were crap, obsolete compared to the GM Armorsmith's skills. Anything that was expensive was due to aesthetics (and they typically weren't rare, but rather, rarely sold, and thus had to be custom ordered). For cosmetics. For declarations of being rich or powerful. And if you flaunted it without actually being rich or powerful, then you paid the price. The real game was about survival and building social interactions. And risk, loss and consequence go hand and hand with that, in a lot of ways. Though if you played without trying to be a special snowflake, you never lost anything of value. And you were always one of the strongest.
Join a guild and you never wanted for armor or weapons. They were easy to make. Iron was best. You never lost gold. You only had fun with your friends. I even made friends with the leader of the most notorious red guild on the server. I was perhaps the only Blue allowed in their guild hall. Given a rune to their territory, etc. We even went to war with each other out of fun (our guilds).
Due to frequent travel in my youth, English isn't something I consider my primary language (and thus I obtained quirky ways of writing). German and French were always easier for me despite my family being U.S. citizens for over a century. Spanish I learned as a requirement in school, Japanese and Korean I acquired for my youthful desire of anime and gaming (and also work now). I only debate in English to help me work with it (and limit things). In addition, I'm not smart enough to remain fluent in everything and typically need exposure to get in the groove of things again if I haven't heard it in a while. If you understand Mandarin, I know a little, but it has actually been a challenge and could use some help.
Also, I thoroughly enjoy debates and have accounts on over a dozen sites for this. If you wish to engage in such, please put effort in a post and provide sources -- I will then do the same with what I already wrote (if I didn't) as well as with my responses to your own. Expanding my information on a subject makes my stance either change or strengthen the next time I speak of it or write a thesis. Allow me to thank you sincerely for your time.
Here's a novel idea. I support full loot in games that are designed to be full loot and I don't support it in games that aren't designed with it in mind.
If you like it, then you can play games that have it. If you don't like it, then you can leave. When did we fall into the mentality as gamers that every single game should be made exactly to our personal tastes? Some games are made for other people's tastes.
A few people have thrown EVE into the debate, but honestly, EVE is a bit of an anomaly. Unlike many planet-bound, humanoid avatar based games, EVE uses a different system of combat. There are only three ways to kind-of force someone to PVP and a good dozen ways to avoid it. If you get forced into unwanted PVP in EVE, then I'm sorry, but you didn't take enough precautions.
The game was about survival. Living in a medieval world that had a medieval mindset.
That's what Garriott and team tried to provide. Sadly, the players turned it into what looked more like a Doom goes medieval gankfest than a RPG in a medieval setting. Even in medieval times, you couldn't murder and steal at will without being hunted down. And when caught, you were permanently defeated, which makes a huge difference with MMORPGs where the player can be back a few minutes later.
And that's why they added Trammel: because the model just did NOT work for the majority of players, and they were losing them fast, even faster when EQ arrived with its 100% PvE servers and offered an alternative.
Proper consequences for criminal behavior would be too harsh for a game, yet they would be the only way to make such a FFA full loot PvP MMORPG viable and more than a permanent gank fest. Thieves and murderers should be removed from the main game entirely for an extended period (up to weeks of real life time), maybe on some prison island. But as long as they can just come back over and over again, FFA PvP will fail, even more if it has full loot.
It seems like it all comes down to the nature of conflict in the game. Is conflict there because without it there is nothing to do, or does it serve some end? It's ok to have a small number of anarchists running about, but when all of the player vs. player activity is driven by that crowd it becomes predictably meaningless.
A different way to deal with this would be to have more options than simply killing the foe. Defeat could come in grades rather than what it is now, with characters becoming wounded and requiring time away from the fight. Death could be something that tends to happen randomly rather than the way it is now, with purposeful death blows carrying some weight (so many allowed an hour?).
I like the prison island, especially since it puts the anarchists with each other in the environment they prefer. The low hanging fruit would be hard to get frequently, but the den of killers would be an oft visited area for the PKs. This is what tends to happen in reality: the anti-social are marginalized and set upon one another.
MMORPG players are often like Hobbits: They don't like Adventures
Well, one of the reasons full loot doesn't work is because it's a realistic mechanic tied to several simulated mechanics.
If you're going to have realistic player looting, then you have to have realistic player death (permadeath) and realistic player consequence (jailing and/or execution if caught), otherwise the system is unbalanced and allows players to kill without repercussions. That alone has fostered the snot-nosed little brats who regularly PK in games. It's the gaming form of internet anonymity.
No permadeath, no full loot. Man up if you want to PK.
The game was about survival. Living in a medieval world that had a medieval mindset.
That's what Garriott and team tried to provide. Sadly, the players turned it into what looked more like a Doom goes medieval gankfest than a RPG in a medieval setting. Even in medieval times, you couldn't murder and steal at will without being hunted down. And when caught, you were permanently defeated, which makes a huge difference with MMORPGs where the player can be back a few minutes later.
And that's why they added Trammel: because the model just did NOT work for the majority of players, and they were losing them fast, even faster when EQ arrived with its 100% PvE servers and offered an alternative.
Proper consequences for criminal behavior would be too harsh for a game, yet they would be the only way to make such a FFA full loot PvP MMORPG viable and more than a permanent gank fest. Thieves and murderers should be removed from the main game entirely for an extended period (up to weeks of real life time), maybe on some prison island. But as long as they can just come back over and over again, FFA PvP will fail, even more if it has full loot.
It seems like it all comes down to the nature of conflict in the game. Is conflict there because without it there is nothing to do, or does it serve some end? It's ok to have a small number of anarchists running about, but when all of the player vs. player activity is driven by that crowd it becomes predictably meaningless.
A different way to deal with this would be to have more options than simply killing the foe. Defeat could come in grades rather than what it is now, with characters becoming wounded and requiring time away from the fight. Death could be something that tends to happen randomly rather than the way it is now, with purposeful death blows carrying some weight (so many allowed an hour?).
I like the prison island, especially since it puts the anarchists with each other in the environment they prefer. The low hanging fruit would be hard to get frequently, but the den of killers would be an oft visited area for the PKs. This is what tends to happen in reality: the anti-social are marginalized and set upon one another.
I agree, and I very much agree with the prison isle.
It doesn't really make sense with how these games work to "kill" or "execute" a player only for them to come back seconds later. If a player is a "murderer" then they would probably be on the run, laying low, trying not to get caught. MMO's don't really deal with this in a decent way.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
The game was about survival. Living in a medieval world that had a medieval mindset.
That's what Garriott and team tried to provide. Sadly, the players turned it into what looked more like a Doom goes medieval gankfest than a RPG in a medieval setting. Even in medieval times, you couldn't murder and steal at will without being hunted down. And when caught, you were permanently defeated, which makes a huge difference with MMORPGs where the player can be back a few minutes later.
And that's why they added Trammel: because the model just did NOT work for the majority of players, and they were losing them fast, even faster when EQ arrived with its 100% PvE servers and offered an alternative.
Proper consequences for criminal behavior would be too harsh for a game, yet they would be the only way to make such a FFA full loot PvP MMORPG viable and more than a permanent gank fest. Thieves and murderers should be removed from the main game entirely for an extended period (up to weeks of real life time), maybe on some prison island. But as long as they can just come back over and over again, FFA PvP will fail, even more if it has full loot.
Mileage varied on a per person basis, for sure. Though there were criminal systems in place. Inability to enter cities without being instantly killed by guards. Being unable to access bank accounts. PKers rarely survived by themselves, and had to join guilds and build their own settlements. Though even then there was a lot of backstabbing and limited access to banks to keep your assets safe. There were bounties and groups dedicated to hunting down Murderers and Thieves; later on there was a justice system whereby you earned specific titles for killing reds.
I would concur with the concept of permanent deletion for Reds. It will add to their notoriety if they're still alive, and make them all the more fearsome while offering serious consequences for their actions. Offering little else but your head as a trophy, the few items on your person and perhaps your own pride, the Reds had little to fear despite being ostracized by the game and being unable to use City Services. Though it was also easy to know their territory and to see the Red name off screen and run. Not to mention offering Order and Good guilds an opponent to fight when Faction Wars aren't going on.
Though, as a Red, you also had a target painted on your head, and no safe zones to go other than a potential guild hideout where other Reds -- who could backstab you at any time -- hung out. They had to be confident, skillful and intelligent to survive witch hunts. Which is why some of them became to be infamous and considered "baddasses" by some of the populace. Those who did it for the extra challenge of always being hunted would, I gather, welcome the harsh penalty of permanent death, as that adds another layer of challenge and notoriety to actually being alive -- and risking it all.
Those who entered with a solo mindset definitely did not see it like this. Though back then games were more social oriented. It may also be rose colored glasses on my end, or me just being lucky that I founded a guild and was part of an alliance of a thousand or so Blues who constantly hunted Reds into submission. Many quit, bought new houses or just made new characters because PKing without reasons simply wasn't tolerated.
It is absolutely true that, nowadays, such a system would be even more niche. Not business savvy to pursue it. Heck, even I am a casual who just crafts and refuses to play any game that doesn't have a PvE server. My days of PvP are over, save for instanced PvP and Arenas. Though I believe calling a system like that to be bad design to be a little over the top. My ideal game would be the harshest available -- character death for everyone being permanent. People needing to work together and those who try to start trouble are dealt with.
Though what we're looking at right now is the following contradiction:
1) People don't like punishment for being beaten by another or in PvE and won't stay -- the system is bad 2) The system is bad because there isn't enough punishment (I.E. there should be permanent death for Reds).
But a gamer should look into what type of game they are playing first. Do research on it and know what they're getting into. Adapt to the system, and not have the system adapt to casuals. Lest we have a carbon copy of every successful game out there -- what people are most use to. We have seen over the years people hate on games because it is different and they don't like different systems; they say WoW or this other game they know and are established in are better. Then they complain when copies of such are released.
Therefore, if I spend a month to buy something, I go to an area with Full PVP and Full Loot activated and then I cry that someone killed me and took it. Is that truly the game's fault? My opinion still remains that I would be dumb. I should have known what the item was about, what the game was about, and understood the risks. Someone who did not do research or just wanted to do the things they wanted, expecting the game to cater to them, would likely leave that that point. Thus, it would be bad business if you want to make money off of the masses.
Then again, I'm also against hand holding in games. Saying something is bad design over individual stupidity is like me claiming that WoW Raids are bad, because I died to fire and now have to pay 200g for repairs. Sure, I knew fire hurt. I knew I would lose an item out in the field. But the mechanics suck and I'm immortal; I'm supposed to be the strongest hero. This is not bad design; at most it is bad business decisions for those who want to strike it rich by copying successful games and following what a casual like myself wants. Good business would be holding your hands, creating a mode where fire doesn't kill you and you can afk, and handing out things like candy. But I'd argue that's bad design when it comes to games. Though I suppose one would be correct to associate profit with design philosophy. It's no longer about the games anymore.
But I'm a bit old fashioned and still remember days where games were supposed to be challenged or have some sort of risk in them and not treat everyone like an idiot. I can become an idiot on my own by doing something stupid like running into the bright red flashing spots on the ground when a boss is about to do a move. Or /yell that I have a fancy item and to please come kill me for it.
Due to frequent travel in my youth, English isn't something I consider my primary language (and thus I obtained quirky ways of writing). German and French were always easier for me despite my family being U.S. citizens for over a century. Spanish I learned as a requirement in school, Japanese and Korean I acquired for my youthful desire of anime and gaming (and also work now). I only debate in English to help me work with it (and limit things). In addition, I'm not smart enough to remain fluent in everything and typically need exposure to get in the groove of things again if I haven't heard it in a while. If you understand Mandarin, I know a little, but it has actually been a challenge and could use some help.
Also, I thoroughly enjoy debates and have accounts on over a dozen sites for this. If you wish to engage in such, please put effort in a post and provide sources -- I will then do the same with what I already wrote (if I didn't) as well as with my responses to your own. Expanding my information on a subject makes my stance either change or strengthen the next time I speak of it or write a thesis. Allow me to thank you sincerely for your time.
OWPVP threads are awesome when butt hurt Massively Munchausen Online players invade them like they're trying to be objective about OWPVP but they're totally not... because they don't like OWPVP, but they can't stay away from the threads.
"Hey guys look at my sore booty, a player did this to me back in the Shadowbane days. I will never forget! *Points at random people* I know YOU! You're the one who did this to me! Ganker!!! GRIEFER!"
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
The game was about survival. Living in a medieval world that had a medieval mindset.
That's what Garriott and team tried to provide. Sadly, the players turned it into what looked more like a Doom goes medieval gankfest than a RPG in a medieval setting. Even in medieval times, you couldn't murder and steal at will without being hunted down. And when caught, you were permanently defeated, which makes a huge difference with MMORPGs where the player can be back a few minutes later.
And that's why they added Trammel: because the model just did NOT work for the majority of players, and they were losing them fast, even faster when EQ arrived with its 100% PvE servers and offered an alternative.
Proper consequences for criminal behavior would be too harsh for a game, yet they would be the only way to make such a FFA full loot PvP MMORPG viable and more than a permanent gank fest. Thieves and murderers should be removed from the main game entirely for an extended period (up to weeks of real life time), maybe on some prison island. But as long as they can just come back over and over again, FFA PvP will fail, even more if it has full loot.
It seems like it all comes down to the nature of conflict in the game. Is conflict there because without it there is nothing to do, or does it serve some end? It's ok to have a small number of anarchists running about, but when all of the player vs. player activity is driven by that crowd it becomes predictably meaningless.
A different way to deal with this would be to have more options than simply killing the foe. Defeat could come in grades rather than what it is now, with characters becoming wounded and requiring time away from the fight. Death could be something that tends to happen randomly rather than the way it is now, with purposeful death blows carrying some weight (so many allowed an hour?).
I like the prison island, especially since it puts the anarchists with each other in the environment they prefer. The low hanging fruit would be hard to get frequently, but the den of killers would be an oft visited area for the PKs. This is what tends to happen in reality: the anti-social are marginalized and set upon one another.
I agree, and I very much agree with the prison isle.
It doesn't really make sense with how these games work to "kill" or "execute" a player only for them to come back seconds later. If a player is a "murderer" then they would probably be on the run, laying low, trying not to get caught. MMO's don't really deal with this in a decent way.
The concept of a prison isle carries a hidden danger -- the content there may be more interesting enough to encourage lawbreaking in the 'main' world. That subverts the concept of 'a prison is for punishment' into a 'reward for misbehavior'. People don't break laws in order to go to jail. I don't trust any developer to not include an 'itemized' prison experience where inmates can gear-up and level up, and that would be one of the first complaints levied against a punitive prison experience in game -- we need something to do in jail.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
The game was about survival. Living in a medieval world that had a medieval mindset.
That's what Garriott and team tried to provide. Sadly, the players turned it into what looked more like a Doom goes medieval gankfest than a RPG in a medieval setting. Even in medieval times, you couldn't murder and steal at will without being hunted down. And when caught, you were permanently defeated, which makes a huge difference with MMORPGs where the player can be back a few minutes later.
And that's why they added Trammel: because the model just did NOT work for the majority of players, and they were losing them fast, even faster when EQ arrived with its 100% PvE servers and offered an alternative.
Proper consequences for criminal behavior would be too harsh for a game, yet they would be the only way to make such a FFA full loot PvP MMORPG viable and more than a permanent gank fest. Thieves and murderers should be removed from the main game entirely for an extended period (up to weeks of real life time), maybe on some prison island. But as long as they can just come back over and over again, FFA PvP will fail, even more if it has full loot.
It seems like it all comes down to the nature of conflict in the game. Is conflict there because without it there is nothing to do, or does it serve some end? It's ok to have a small number of anarchists running about, but when all of the player vs. player activity is driven by that crowd it becomes predictably meaningless.
A different way to deal with this would be to have more options than simply killing the foe. Defeat could come in grades rather than what it is now, with characters becoming wounded and requiring time away from the fight. Death could be something that tends to happen randomly rather than the way it is now, with purposeful death blows carrying some weight (so many allowed an hour?).
I like the prison island, especially since it puts the anarchists with each other in the environment they prefer. The low hanging fruit would be hard to get frequently, but the den of killers would be an oft visited area for the PKs. This is what tends to happen in reality: the anti-social are marginalized and set upon one another.
I agree, and I very much agree with the prison isle.
It doesn't really make sense with how these games work to "kill" or "execute" a player only for them to come back seconds later. If a player is a "murderer" then they would probably be on the run, laying low, trying not to get caught. MMO's don't really deal with this in a decent way.
The concept of a prison isle carries a hidden danger -- the content there may be more interesting enough to encourage lawbreaking in the 'main' world. That subverts the concept of 'a prison is for punishment' into a 'reward for misbehavior'. People don't break laws in order to go to jail. I don't trust any developer to not include an 'itemized' prison experience where inmates can gear-up and level up, and that would be one of the first complaints levied against a punitive prison experience in game -- we need something to do in jail.
Kesmai had a good idea when it comes to PK'ers, if they died they ended up in the underworld, and to get back out again, they had to complete tasks, it wasn't fun, and how many times you had to complete those tasks varied on how 'bad' a person you were, i am not sure it dissuaded people from PK'ing, but it did mean that doing so had consequences.
It's definitely not that OWPvP can't be done, it just is a type of setting that needs consequences. As Jean stated there is an issue when a game fails to address how a PvPer can kill other players, die, and quickly hop back into killing other players.
RP as an excuse doesn't float well there because if we played it by RP standards, that player should be dead, or apprehended in jail somewhere, or in some other person's basement...
So something needs to take that into account mechanically. Porting people into a PvPer specific zone for a time, plunking them in the underworld like Phry mentioned, or otherwise. There has to be something there to properly simulate and enforce the consequences of a player's actions.
If such a system is well implemented, then OWPvP could actually work well because there would be much more moderation and calculation behind the PvP people choose to engage in rather than it being endless and sometimes rather indiscriminate.
It'd be nice, since we could then play games that can take great advantage of OWPvP for better faction conflicts and zone control.
@Phry and @Jean-Luc_Picard. If the developers aren't disciplined enough, they will put quests, xp and loot into the prison content -- that's the danger. Then the criminals have the opportunity to progress, then it becomes just a semi-private playground for lawbreakers. If that prison content is perceived to be 'better' (in any way) than the normal content, then it becomes encouragement for people to misbehave in the 'main' world, rather than a punishment.
I had intended to use an afterlife (and quests from the various gods) as a means to address the death-instant respawn situation for everyone, not just criminals. I had planned to use such a mechanism to restrict zerging. But, yes, actions in the world would have repercussions in the afterlife.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Comments
so no, won't be happening
This isn't a signature, you just think it is.
And probably will never happen on large scale...
There's too many different sets of prerequisites amongst the gaming public.
Several games have "got it right", but it was only "right" for 5K or 10K players, the rest left those games because they didn't like some part of the design. And FFA PVP games rapidly die once they start losing population, if there's nobody to kill and loot, what's the point of logging in ?
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
If there are items you spent months to unlock via raids that can be looted, then no. Not only would that be annoying to you, but it will inhibit progression for your entire guild if you actually play the game outside of that scope and get yourself killed.
Full loot like UO had is ideal, as there are no such things. Most items were easily obtained. Guilds supplied their members with armor, weapons, bandages, etc.
You have to be smart about what you bring outside. A stack of 20 bandages, three potions, a few poison cleansing potions, etc. Maybe a spare weapon or shield. The have equipped a plain GM level Iron plate.
In fact, I'd be excited about a game that brought you back to level 1 if you died. Especially if it took days or weeks to get each level. The risk / reward involved with that could be intriguing, even if few people would give it a chance.
If someone is dumb enough to wear a full set of Valorite Armor, carry several checks for 1,000,000 gold and show off something expensive in the middle of a PvP zone, then that's just them being a dumb dumb.
The game had pocket picking as well, so you could just brush against someone outside of the Town Guard's reach and take those checks. Which is why you had extra security with bags, and only carried the necessities when leaving safe zones or your guild house.
The game was about survival of the fittest and actually being intelligent. Bringing a rare mount out like that is just asking for it to be killed, once they loot your corpse for all your worth since you're obviously both dumb and rich -- a prime target.
I lost a lot of valuable items. I was dumb. It was my fault for flaunting them.
Then again, I was also a Knight of Justice when that system was released. Bounty hunted Reds (people who did the above) with my guild. There was a lot of betrayal and politics in that game. You had to know where PK guilds were and which guilds could protect you.
Murder needs to have a consequence that becomes more likely and severe as the killer proceeds unless there is a mitigating circumstance (War).
Without those constraints what you have is just online anonymous asshatting. Essentially you have to make death both meaningful and win/win. Getting killed should rarely be 1.4 seconds of a Predatory Player hitting with high alpha and burning down an enemy. When death is nothing but an ignominious fail it adds nothing but the masturbatory element for the one player. When death is meaningful then it's occurrence adds verisimilitude to the whole game.
Well what would be the point if your gear is insured lol, what a totally pathetic idea.
Fact is if you play on the full loot server then you have to except the rules, simple.
That's why having the PVE server is great for those who are not interested in PVP at all.
It's great that they are having different servers, PVPers can enjoy hunting people down while they are PVEing knowing that the person they are killing is happy to put themselves at risk.
The PVE's can PVE on there server knowing that no one is hunting them, total PVE server is great. If they want to make another server with a flagging system then people can join that server.
So you have three different type of servers or four with the RP server, happy days for all concerned.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
But since that's not even remotely true as people don't see things the same way, it doesn't hold water.
There are sandbox games that don't have fighting at all. Besides the fact that none of us can agree to what a sandbox actually is.
You might think they are asking for "less freedom" but what some are asking for is to remove elements that are of no importance to them. They are "non-elements". They are things that, for them, mar game play and in essence ruin the freedom for them to enjoy the game.
This is not to say that all games should be the same or made for everyone, I fully support full loot games that are designed correctly, but just because one person sees full loot as freedom and defining a "sandbox" doesn't mean that all people view it this way.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
We are in agreement that the addition of rare items in a Full Loot game is dumb. Unfortunately, it's the community that decides what is expensive, so it isn't as if you're spending valuable resources of development time on creating a one of a kind items that can be easily looted.
Tamers could tame animals out in the wild. Some are more highly prized than others, not really from rarely seeing them, but due to the level of difficulty of taming them. Few people went the Tamer route because it offered little combat benefit (or could be countered with a Mage's portal). Though those that did tame animals, they oft spent their time in Britain and advertised selling them. Lining up their horses and dragons and whatnot up and creating a sort of Bazaar. This allowed for the creation of a Player Made Mall.
So someone bought, lets say a Nightmare, from a Tamer. Common horse. A tamer could find and tame it in a couple minutes. But it would sell for 1,000,000 gold (or whatever someone was willing to pay). I sold sets of GM Valorite Armor for about 1,000,000 gold, as well. It took me all of two minutes to mine the ore and craft the item (I knew the spawning locations, just as tamers could know the taming locations).
While it was technically the rarest ore -- or one of the strongest horses -- the information was readily available on how to get it in seconds. You just had to skill up mining or taming. In the early days, there were less of these miners and blacksmiths and tamers. It took upwards of a year to become a Grand Master. Though when they became common, you couldn't sell a Nightmare for 500 gold.
So, no, neither of those were rare. They were in abundance. They were common resources. It was the early player economy and the players that dictated prices. No auction houses existed, just player created town markets.
People, however, knew that the game was PvP based. That your body was lootable if you died. They knew your animals could be killed. Even in Trammel you had the ability to lose everything on your body if you didn't make it back before it decayed. So buying a common animal for 1,000,000 gold was ridiculous to begin with. Borderline crazy. The same goes with taking something out in the wild. Thieves and ruffians hanged around Player Made markets, seeing who made the big purchases. They then cut them down in the wilds if they didn't have an escort or portal or place the items in the bank so that they can take it out in another city. In essence, it was Role Playing in its truest form -- as that is what would have happened.
I warned every person I sold a Valorite set to that I could sell them a Iron Plate set for just a thousand gold. That it would improve their chances of survival in the wilderness and to not wear the Valorite Armor (which was a blue color) in the open, without friends (some of which backstabbed you for your items; it was a harsh early survival game). People still bought. Wore. Got killed in PvE or PvP.
The game was about survival. Living in a medieval world that had a medieval mindset. True criminal systems (Reds could not enter towns or cities; they got instantly killed by guards. If you saw a Red in the Wilderness, you ran if you were alone, as they're PvPers / PKers), thievery, pickpocketing, etc. Survival guides were made, yet some people read them. You learned quickly how to survive. Bring the necessities. Who was good and bad. Friendships were formed that lasted lifetimes, because you knew your buddy had your back if it didn't have a knife in it by then, despite all the stupid stuff that you did.
There was truly never an experience like it. It was a living world. A fantasy world. A world with a true community. True heroes. Friendships. And rivalries. A world with consequences. True Guilds with banners and reputations, that actually geared out their members with items from their craftsmen and went on adventures that had more risk than corpse runs. Elitism got you killed. Flamboyance got you serrated.
But what have we now? Treadmills. "Epic Items" that mean nothing. Spend an hour to get them. Then yell at people who don't have them for their low DPS. People with anonymity and bad attitudes. Guilds full of Drama, who just invite randoms and create addons to mass invite, offering nothing in return and just wanting them to be another number in their ranks. No trials or memberships or friendships or trust gained or form. No going through massive defeats, losing caravans and equipment. Watching the army you lost against in a guild or faction war pick your bones clean. No coming together with your crafters, having meetings, handing out equipment, planning things out -- all in game and not in a voice chat. Building resources together. Having BBQs and Tournaments.
The true game of UO didn't need rare items. It was a community based game. A Sandbox where the players decided the worth of everything, and everything was, essentially, common. The few magic items it had were crap, obsolete compared to the GM Armorsmith's skills. Anything that was expensive was due to aesthetics (and they typically weren't rare, but rather, rarely sold, and thus had to be custom ordered). For cosmetics. For declarations of being rich or powerful. And if you flaunted it without actually being rich or powerful, then you paid the price. The real game was about survival and building social interactions. And risk, loss and consequence go hand and hand with that, in a lot of ways. Though if you played without trying to be a special snowflake, you never lost anything of value. And you were always one of the strongest.
Join a guild and you never wanted for armor or weapons. They were easy to make. Iron was best. You never lost gold. You only had fun with your friends. I even made friends with the leader of the most notorious red guild on the server. I was perhaps the only Blue allowed in their guild hall. Given a rune to their territory, etc. We even went to war with each other out of fun (our guilds).
If you like it, then you can play games that have it. If you don't like it, then you can leave. When did we fall into the mentality as gamers that every single game should be made exactly to our personal tastes? Some games are made for other people's tastes.
A few people have thrown EVE into the debate, but honestly, EVE is a bit of an anomaly. Unlike many planet-bound, humanoid avatar based games, EVE uses a different system of combat. There are only three ways to kind-of force someone to PVP and a good dozen ways to avoid it. If you get forced into unwanted PVP in EVE, then I'm sorry, but you didn't take enough precautions.
A different way to deal with this would be to have more options than simply killing the foe. Defeat could come in grades rather than what it is now, with characters becoming wounded and requiring time away from the fight. Death could be something that tends to happen randomly rather than the way it is now, with purposeful death blows carrying some weight (so many allowed an hour?).
I like the prison island, especially since it puts the anarchists with each other in the environment they prefer. The low hanging fruit would be hard to get frequently, but the den of killers would be an oft visited area for the PKs. This is what tends to happen in reality: the anti-social are marginalized and set upon one another.
If you're going to have realistic player looting, then you have to have realistic player death (permadeath) and realistic player consequence (jailing and/or execution if caught), otherwise the system is unbalanced and allows players to kill without repercussions. That alone has fostered the snot-nosed little brats who regularly PK in games. It's the gaming form of internet anonymity.
No permadeath, no full loot. Man up if you want to PK.
~~ postlarval ~~
It doesn't really make sense with how these games work to "kill" or "execute" a player only for them to come back seconds later. If a player is a "murderer" then they would probably be on the run, laying low, trying not to get caught. MMO's don't really deal with this in a decent way.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Mileage varied on a per person basis, for sure. Though there were criminal systems in place. Inability to enter cities without being instantly killed by guards. Being unable to access bank accounts. PKers rarely survived by themselves, and had to join guilds and build their own settlements. Though even then there was a lot of backstabbing and limited access to banks to keep your assets safe. There were bounties and groups dedicated to hunting down Murderers and Thieves; later on there was a justice system whereby you earned specific titles for killing reds.
I would concur with the concept of permanent deletion for Reds. It will add to their notoriety if they're still alive, and make them all the more fearsome while offering serious consequences for their actions. Offering little else but your head as a trophy, the few items on your person and perhaps your own pride, the Reds had little to fear despite being ostracized by the game and being unable to use City Services. Though it was also easy to know their territory and to see the Red name off screen and run. Not to mention offering Order and Good guilds an opponent to fight when Faction Wars aren't going on.
Though, as a Red, you also had a target painted on your head, and no safe zones to go other than a potential guild hideout where other Reds -- who could backstab you at any time -- hung out. They had to be confident, skillful and intelligent to survive witch hunts. Which is why some of them became to be infamous and considered "baddasses" by some of the populace. Those who did it for the extra challenge of always being hunted would, I gather, welcome the harsh penalty of permanent death, as that adds another layer of challenge and notoriety to actually being alive -- and risking it all.
Those who entered with a solo mindset definitely did not see it like this. Though back then games were more social oriented. It may also be rose colored glasses on my end, or me just being lucky that I founded a guild and was part of an alliance of a thousand or so Blues who constantly hunted Reds into submission. Many quit, bought new houses or just made new characters because PKing without reasons simply wasn't tolerated.
It is absolutely true that, nowadays, such a system would be even more niche. Not business savvy to pursue it. Heck, even I am a casual who just crafts and refuses to play any game that doesn't have a PvE server. My days of PvP are over, save for instanced PvP and Arenas. Though I believe calling a system like that to be bad design to be a little over the top. My ideal game would be the harshest available -- character death for everyone being permanent. People needing to work together and those who try to start trouble are dealt with.
Though what we're looking at right now is the following contradiction:
1) People don't like punishment for being beaten by another or in PvE and won't stay -- the system is bad
2) The system is bad because there isn't enough punishment (I.E. there should be permanent death for Reds).
But a gamer should look into what type of game they are playing first. Do research on it and know what they're getting into. Adapt to the system, and not have the system adapt to casuals. Lest we have a carbon copy of every successful game out there -- what people are most use to. We have seen over the years people hate on games because it is different and they don't like different systems; they say WoW or this other game they know and are established in are better. Then they complain when copies of such are released.
Therefore, if I spend a month to buy something, I go to an area with Full PVP and Full Loot activated and then I cry that someone killed me and took it. Is that truly the game's fault? My opinion still remains that I would be dumb. I should have known what the item was about, what the game was about, and understood the risks. Someone who did not do research or just wanted to do the things they wanted, expecting the game to cater to them, would likely leave that that point. Thus, it would be bad business if you want to make money off of the masses.
Then again, I'm also against hand holding in games. Saying something is bad design over individual stupidity is like me claiming that WoW Raids are bad, because I died to fire and now have to pay 200g for repairs. Sure, I knew fire hurt. I knew I would lose an item out in the field. But the mechanics suck and I'm immortal; I'm supposed to be the strongest hero. This is not bad design; at most it is bad business decisions for those who want to strike it rich by copying successful games and following what a casual like myself wants. Good business would be holding your hands, creating a mode where fire doesn't kill you and you can afk, and handing out things like candy. But I'd argue that's bad design when it comes to games. Though I suppose one would be correct to associate profit with design philosophy. It's no longer about the games anymore.
But I'm a bit old fashioned and still remember days where games were supposed to be challenged or have some sort of risk in them and not treat everyone like an idiot. I can become an idiot on my own by doing something stupid like running into the bright red flashing spots on the ground when a boss is about to do a move. Or /yell that I have a fancy item and to please come kill me for it.
"Hey guys look at my sore booty, a player did this to me back in the Shadowbane days. I will never forget! *Points at random people* I know YOU! You're the one who did this to me! Ganker!!! GRIEFER!"
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
RP as an excuse doesn't float well there because if we played it by RP standards, that player should be dead, or apprehended in jail somewhere, or in some other person's basement...
So something needs to take that into account mechanically. Porting people into a PvPer specific zone for a time, plunking them in the underworld like Phry mentioned, or otherwise. There has to be something there to properly simulate and enforce the consequences of a player's actions.
If such a system is well implemented, then OWPvP could actually work well because there would be much more moderation and calculation behind the PvP people choose to engage in rather than it being endless and sometimes rather indiscriminate.
It'd be nice, since we could then play games that can take great advantage of OWPvP for better faction conflicts and zone control.
I had intended to use an afterlife (and quests from the various gods) as a means to address the death-instant respawn situation for everyone, not just criminals. I had planned to use such a mechanism to restrict zerging. But, yes, actions in the world would have repercussions in the afterlife.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.