1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Greetings Guest!!

    In order to combat SPAM on the forums, all users are required to have a minimum of 2 posts before they can submit links in any post or thread.

    Dismiss Notice

Notoriety system does not work as intended any more

Discussion in 'UHall' started by imported_revenant2, Mar 13, 2008.

  1. The UO Dev people have been doing a ton of stuff for us lately, in bringing us things that we actually like, and fixing things that we dont!

    I don't feel like the information in this post should necessarily interrupt anyone, and like, how they are making good crafting changes and cleaning up so much age-old, serious nastiness (pet balls as PVP tools, people who script housing placement, people who trash the economy through duping and gold farming, and so on). I'm throwing this out here as a fact to be noted for possible consideration in the future.

    The notoriety system does not work properly any more in its attempt to identify good vs. evil characters by their color. Here's a quote from another thread showing the outdated expectation of this system:

    <blockquote><hr>

    The colour of your character's name (being displayed) DOES define your characters moral judgement. A blue character is someone who has not committed a crime or murder (general statement). A grey name is someone who has recently done something wrong (but not evil) and a red name is a player who has murdered another player.

    Read every manual since 1997....

    [/ QUOTE ]

    The way it actually works today is that Felucca champ spawns have introduced two factors that mess it up. Felucca champ spawn "protection" encourages players of all colors to attack and defend spawns against one another, independent of any "evil" vs. "good" theme. Also, certain other game dynamics involving area effect spells and fields creates a need for reds that is independent of this theme.

    The system says that a single group of people who moves into a champ spawn area and kills the champ spawn boss without interference from people not a part of the group will be rewarded with double the power scrolls (champ "protection"). A group of players assigns one "protector" person who presides over all of the people who kill the champ. To collect their extra scrolls, the group must kill the champ without unprotected strangers (of any color) running up and attacking the champ spawn boss along with them.

    The original intent of champ spawn "protection" may have been different. It looks as though it may have been intended to encourage good-notoriety, high-performing PVPers to help the less PVP-experienced players complete champ spawns by 'protecting' them from presumed red invaders (the more Justice virtue the protector has, the greater the number of extra power scrolls that are rewarded). I don't know this for sure, you tell me, it's just a suspicion.

    Today, the concept of protection works into champ spawns like this. Guilds with some size will do champ spawns, and with only 6 power scrolls per spawn and most of them being unusable for PVP chars (lots of 110s, 115s, a number of nearly-useless 120s, etc.), it's most ideal to set up "protection" with a pre-determined Knight of Justice char in order to get 12 scrolls.

    In this context, other guilds show up to attempt to take the champ away from the original group that worked up the spawn. Nobody raids a champ spawn to politely ask, "can we get protected by your protector and kill it with you?". Regardless of the raiding characters' notoriety, they are there to kill the original champ spawn participants and kill the champ for themselves so that they can get the power scrolls.

    If the original guild happens to have a large number of reds, the raiding players may choose to raid on their blue chars, or in any case you often see raids being done with their red chars. If the raid is succesful, the raiding guild might call in it's own blues to set up their own "protection", or they might just "red-kill" it to get it done quicker.

    The original guild that worked up the spawn through all 4 levels feels that it has a form of rightful ownership to killing the champ and getting their hard-earned scrolls. Therefore, they feel justified in defending "their" champ boss against the raiding guild, and that feeling is independent of whether the raiders are utilizing reds or blues.

    Note that it's called "raiding" when one guild shows up to attempt to take a champ spawn away from another one, it's not called "visiting" or "helping". This term is used because it accurately reflects the circumstances.

    So what all of this means is: characters can and do start out as "blue" and perhaps even prefer to be "blue", and even do no player-killing except in the context of defending "their" champ spawns from raiders, and as time goes on, these players pick up murder counts.

    Some people try to work around this by idling their blue spawn characters for hours and hours to get the murder counts they never really wanted to drop off. It's really quite silly in the context of a modern video game for them to have to do this; they set up some means of staying connected and go to bed/work, leaving the character on line.

    The system forces characters who do a lot of spawn defense to eventually become red, and have to suffer all of the same inconveniences that an intended "evil" character endures. There are almost no red healers around, that player can no longer protect or be protected at champ spawns, that character can no longer use any virtues, the character can be attacked freely in towns, and so on. This happens without the char having participated in any behavior that the Felucca playerbase perceives as "evil" - spawn defense is accepted as part of how the whole thing works.

    The next involved issue is that "blue" players' area effect spells and mage fields do not naturally effect other blues. The reasons for this make sense in the non-champ oriented notoriety system itself, but for the purposes of spawn defense, the chars need their fields to catch all non-friends regardless of color. This, coincidently, happens to be the current behavior of a red player's fields and area effect spells. The only means a blue has of changing this is to perform the odd act of deliberately flagging "criminal" and then maintaining that criminal status. This is awkward and problematic to do well; odd work-arounds like this due to a character's 'good' notoriety shouldn't be necessary.

    The end result of all of this is that there is a need to deliberately maintain "red" chars for purposes that are completely outside of the whole good vs. evil notoriety system.

    I have also directly observed this. Going "red" this way can create a gravitation toward genuine "PK" behavior in the case of a player who has never done it before and would not have considered it otherwise. Once a char already has 50 some counts, is red, gets attacked wherever they go by chars of all colors, cannot leave Fel, cannot get rezzed easily, - the char is literally treated like an evil guy who must live in danger constantly - it becomes that much easier to participate in the behavior he's been accused of. I don't feel like this situation is ideal.

    Having explained all of that, if my home shard were my own personal shard that I was running, and considering the whole situation as I understand it, I would, without reservation, change my shard's notoriety system in the following ways. These things change the existing system as little as possible while tearing the champ spawn notoriety issues out by the roots.

    Champ spawn areas would be handled differently from other areas of the shard. Murder counts from fights which were initiated within the champ spawn areas would not always be assigned. The differences are best described this way:

    <ul> [*]All players would have a means to select either "I wish to take murder counts in champ spawn areas of Felucca" or, the opposite, "I do not wish to take murder counts in champ spawn areas of Felucca". The default setting for a new char would be not to take counts.

    [*]All players would have a means to select "I wish for my area effect spells and fields to affect all players in champ spawn areas of Felucca, regardless of their notoriety, except for players in my party and players in my guild/alliance". A point on this: the biggest effect is for blues, but the added means of allowing party members to be immune to one another's area affect spells and fields is a great addition for both reds and blues. If pressed, one could implement this for guild/alliance only, but its not as good that way and in that case it only makes sense to offer it to blues.
    [/list]
    (The two above effects would actually apply to fights that were initiated in the champ spawn areas, similar to how fights initiated outside of guard zone and continued inside of it are handled. It wouldn't involve the server tracking the ongoing location of the fight for the purpose of murder count assignment.)

    <ul> [*]Offer an optional amnesty for reds, to clean up the mess that the current notoriety clusterf*ck has created.[/list]

    The means by which players select the first two options doesn't matter so much - one could have them do it at a shrine, like karma is locked and unlocked right now, who cares, as long as it's there.

    If in the future, the UO Dev people would like to retain the existing notoriety system while making it work properly alongside the Felucca champ spawns, they should consider doing something like this. And also realize that there's a number of players who either don't participate in Fel champ spawns enough to really understand what these differences would mean on the whole, or, they like the strategy of using the problems in the existing system to grief the blues of other guilds. These two things aren't good reasons to not move ahead with such changes, imo.

    These things would make it possible for reds to continue being exactly as they are now, not interfering with their notoriety choice and allowing them to continue to take counts at all times. And at the same time, it allows blues to fully participate in champ spawns as a 'blue' without being punished with the 'evil' Red status for what are expected, normal behaviors in the Felucca champ spawn environment.

    Another thing about this is, I suspect that the changes wouldn't be horrible to implement into the existing server code that controls the champ spawn regions. It looks some of it's already around and some of the framework is there already.
     
  2. Dean478

    Dean478 Seasoned Veteran
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    488
    Likes Received:
    0
    As you can tell by my quote you've used, I never really bothered much with champ spawns for this exact reason.

    I tried it back when they started to come out. Increased my skills past 100? didn't like the idea but I'd try it. When I went to the first spawn, I saw nothing but 3-4 different guilds all fighting and murdering each other for control of the spawn... this is stupid. Where is the fictional explanation and justification for it?

    Factions? Makes sense, you're fighting for control of the kingdom for your team. As a True Britannian I don't want to see Minax controlling the towns of my citizens.

    Order/Chaos? Made sense. British and Blackthorn's idealogies getting out of hand.

    But power scrolls? It's teh same gameplay I hate about Everquest and it's big sister, World of Warcraft. It's personalised and self-centered character progression. If everyone teams up, there isn't enough reward for everyone. So they fight for it. It's greed. In WoW/EQ, they offer instanced areas. But it's still anti-social gameplay.


    This kind of gameplay is one of many things added through-out the years by developers who have aboslutely no clue as to the foundation of Ultima (Online) and couldn't think too far into the future and forgot all about the past.
     
  3. 5% Luck

    5% Luck Guest

    I have a 3X legendary bard with 4 counts on him. I agree this is a problem. A provoking disorder is perfect for champ spawning but very bad at defending one LOL and still I have counts for just a few spawns being blue raided. This char gets the champ up in under 5 mins during the last stage solo! To me he is indispensable all around and making him red is totally UN EX CEPT ABLE
     
  4. Babble

    Babble Guest

    I would suggest removing 'red' status from UO anyway at this stage.
    It serves no real purpose anymore.

    There is no statloss and reds can go to towns anyway.
    So time to throw away an outdated concept.
     
  5. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    I would suggest removing 'red' status from UO anyway at this stage.
    It serves no real purpose anymore.

    There is no statloss and reds can go to towns anyway.
    So time to throw away an outdated concept.

    [/ QUOTE ]
    if only....
     
  6. utilitron

    utilitron Guest

    <blockquote><hr>


    Champ spawn areas would be handled differently from other areas of the shard. Murder counts from fights which were initiated within the champ spawn areas would not always be assigned. The differences are best described this way:

    <ul> [*]All players would have a means to select either "I wish to take murder counts in champ spawn areas of Felucca" or, the opposite, "I do not wish to take murder counts in champ spawn areas of Felucca". The default setting for a new char would be not to take counts.

    [*]All players would have a means to select "I wish for my area effect spells and fields to affect all players in champ spawn areas of Felucca, regardless of their notoriety, except for players in my party and players in my guild/alliance". A point on this: the biggest effect is for blues, but the added means of allowing party members to be immune to one another's area affect spells and fields is a great addition for both reds and blues. If pressed, one could implement this for guild/alliance only, but its not as good that way and in that case it only makes sense to offer it to blues.
    [/list]
    (The two above effects would actually apply to fights that were initiated in the champ spawn areas, similar to how fights initiated outside of guard zone and continued inside of it are handled. It wouldn't involve the server tracking the ongoing location of the fight for the purpose of murder count assignment.)

    <ul> [*]Offer an optional amnesty for reds, to clean up the mess that the current notoriety clusterf*ck has created.[/list]

    The means by which players select the first two options doesn't matter so much - one could have them do it at a shrine, like karma is locked and unlocked right now, who cares, as long as it's there.


    [/ QUOTE ]

    Interesting concept. However, I think you are looking at how to change the mechanics of the game in a light that may not be well recieved.

    I would suggest a concept that encourages people to not murder, ask to join, and make alot more people happy.

    ------------------------------------------
    Protected champ spawns and non-protected champ spawns would behave differently...

    The effect of creating a protected champ, would cause would be raiders to recieve a noto query message, letting them know they are in danger of being attackable if they proceed. This would be a ORANGE flag, not grey or red. The flag would only be obtainable in the spawn area, and act like a criminl flag.

    You can avoid flagging by being invited into the protected group.

    To flag:
    [*] Attack a protected champ.
    [*] Attack a protected player.

    --------------

    Additionally, if the ability to negate the "protected 12 scrolls" would have to have more then x% of damage to the champ by non-protected people... to prevent last-hit greifing.
     
  7. <blockquote><hr>

    I would suggest removing 'red' status from UO anyway at this stage.
    It serves no real purpose anymore.

    There is no statloss and reds can go to towns anyway.
    So time to throw away an outdated concept.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    I know just what you mean... heh.

    I've thought for a while that it makes sense to make Felucca work in a way that is less punative toward reds. There's different ways to do that, some of them novel and involved, and some straightforward.

    The overall impact of removing red status entirely is hard to get my head around in the space of 5 minutes, but I do understand.
     
  8. Gildar

    Gildar Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    4
    <blockquote><hr>

    The way it actually works today is that Felucca champ spawns have introduced two factors that mess it up. Felucca champ spawn "protection" encourages players of all colors to attack and defend spawns against one another, independent of any "evil" vs. "good" theme.

    [/ QUOTE ]1. Person A attacks monster.
    2. Person B attacks same monster.
    3. Person A attacks Person B.

    How is Person A not evil?

    Yes, Person A has more reason to "defend" their position at a Champion spawn by attacking Person B... but that doesn't make it a non-evil act. Person B has just as much right (in the strict good/criminal/murderer sense of morality that Britannia has) in attacking the evil Champion and its spawn as Person A does, and attacking that spawn doesn't give Person A the right to attack Person B without becoming a criminal or a murderer.
    Person A is attacking Person B out of greed towards obtaining the most powerscrolls, not out of some inherent right to being the only person fighting the spawn.
     
  9. <blockquote><hr>

    Interesting concept. However, I think you are looking at how to change the mechanics of the game in a light that may not be well recieved.

    I would suggest a concept that encourages people to not murder, ask to join, and make alot more people happy.

    ------------------------------------------
    Protected champ spawns and non-protected champ spawns would behave differently...

    The effect of creating a protected champ, would cause would be raiders to recieve a noto query message, letting them know they are in danger of being attackable if they proceed. This would be a ORANGE flag, not grey or red. The flag would only be obtainable in the spawn area, and act like a criminl flag.

    You can avoid flagging by being invited into the protected group.

    To flag:
    [*] Attack a protected champ.
    [*] Attack a protected player.

    --------------

    Additionally, if the ability to negate the "protected 12 scrolls" would have to have more then x% of damage to the champ by non-protected people... to prevent last-hit greifing.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    One type of solution would indeed, as this solution makes an effort to do, identify which group of people should be considered as the rightful 'owners' of the champ spawn, and work the notoriety system within that context.

    I cannot figure out a a way to implement this which works correctly within the Felucca UO champ spawn system, plus isn't abusable or worse, completely defeatable. It might take instanced champ spawns to make that work right, and one of the base characteristics of the Felucca champ spawn implementation is that it is expressly NOT instanced.

    A form of abuse would be that a group of people could come along and activate a champ spawn and establish their 'protection' over it, and then not work the spawn, leaving it there as an inconvenience to other players. Tricks to attempt to tell the server when a spawn has been abandoned would either be defeatable by abusers or too hard for a small group of spawners to keep up with. By definition, it's only through instanced champ spawns that the incentive to do this abuse would be removed.

    If to attempt to prevent this abuse, it was set up so that the spawn had to be worked up a bit before protection could be done, they could just work it up to the required level and then abandon it. Furthermore, should the guild that pops the spawn actually work it for real, the raiders could just raid early, before the protection could be put into place, creating a situation in which the notoriety clashes continue to perpetuate.

    When one group raids and takes over a spawn from someone else, and the raiders are working the champ, does it mean that the the raiders cannot protect at all, or can they assume ownership once the original spawn owners had been defeated? If they can't, it forces notoriety clashes should a third guild come to raid that second one. If they can, the raiders could assume the protection position of the spawn and then cancel protection so that the original spawn owners cannot raid back without creating a notoriety clash, despite the original fight having been done within the protection notoriety context.

    I can't think of a way to make this sort of thing work well in the existing context of non-instanced champ spawns. Maybe some means exists, but I can't figure out how.
     
  10. Guest

    Guest Guest

    You can't "Protect" the Champ, you can only "Protect" players. Protecting players serves no purpose whatsoever if that person does not earn a Powerscroll. In order to earn a Powerscroll, you must do enough damage to the Champ. If the "Protector" is killed, it cancels Protection, and it cannot be re-used for awhile. Why guilds generally have reds and blues work the spawn, then when the Champ is spawned, they only have blue char's attack it while they have a blue protecting them staying out of the fight. Reds are then used to repel raiders. "Raiders" can have their own blue's Protected at the same time as the original spawners have blues protected.

    One fix for the "Notoriety" system is to turn off counts in Champ Spawn areas, and to turn Friendly Fire back on in Fel. So if a blue casts a EQ, that EQ will also hit any other blue in the region and damage them. That would also effectively eliminate Wither Cannon Choke Points.
     
  11. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Person B attacked the monster that Person A was already fighting because he wanted the loot, despite Person A doing most of the work. It's called being greedy/lazy, it's also a different form of griefing.

    Used to happen all the time, both when only Fel existed and even when Tram was first introduced. If a person tried looting the corpse of a monster/player they did no damage to, they would turn criminal, because they did not earn the right to loot it. Which allowed them to be guard whacked and for anyone to attack them. Back when Tram was first introduced, you were able to attack Criminals on sight as well. To get around this, some people would wait for you to have the monster redlined and near death, and then they would hit the monster once and take the gold, despite you doing all the work. Used to happen alot in the Covetous Lich Room. Which is why they later introduced the system to where in the Tram Ruleset that if you didn't do any damage to the monster, you couldn't loot it at all for 3-5 mins after it died. Then Script Looters came along, which caused them to introduce Instanced Corpses.
     
  12. <blockquote><hr>

    <blockquote><hr>

    The way it actually works today is that Felucca champ spawns have introduced two factors that mess it up. Felucca champ spawn "protection" encourages players of all colors to attack and defend spawns against one another, independent of any "evil" vs. "good" theme.

    [/ QUOTE ]1. Person A attacks monster.
    2. Person B attacks same monster.
    3. Person A attacks Person B.

    How is Person A not evil?

    Yes, Person A has more reason to "defend" their position at a Champion spawn by attacking Person B... but that doesn't make it a non-evil act. Person B has just as much right (in the strict good/criminal/murderer sense of morality that Britannia has) in attacking the evil Champion and its spawn as Person A does, and attacking that spawn doesn't give Person A the right to attack Person B without becoming a criminal or a murderer.
    Person A is attacking Person B out of greed towards obtaining the most powerscrolls, not out of some inherent right to being the only person fighting the spawn.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    It's tied to the concept of kill-stealing, something which was determined to be anti-social enough to be eliminated from Trammel completely, and is limited in Felucca as well.

    At Fel champ spawns, ALL of the reward from working the champ spawn comes from killing the champ at the end of the spawn, not from working up the spawn itself. Working up the spawn is exactly that: work.

    People naturally feel that after having worked a champ spawn up through 4 entire levels of difficulty with no reward, it's only fair and right to be able to complete the process by killing the champ and collecting their reward of power scrolls.

    If as the champ pops, another guild moves in to take the champ away and kill it, there's a clear injustice. The other guild is committing "kill stealing" on a grand scale.

    In the absolute best situation, it's the equivalent of someone walking up to a monster you have been killing, getting the kill shot on it, and that causing you to get 1/4 or less of the loot that you were supposed to. This best situation is entirely theoretical, however! You virtually never get that if you are raided and lose the spawn, what you get is nothing at all and you lose insurance money because you died.

    The kill stealing aspect of champ spawn raiding is independent of the fact that, in practical application, raiding guilds will attempt to kill you. Who fires the first shot in a raid, and who was red or blue, is not an indication of your "good" or "evil" characteristics. When you see them flood onto your screen, be they red or blue, you know what they are there for, and as they charge into your fields and get you to flag on them, things proceed from there.

    In this context, the spawn workers perceive themselves as having a right to defend against raiders and it makes perfect sense. Additionally, Felucca is the PVP zone of the game, and the whole situation builds toward it being natural for violent spawn defense to proceed on behalf of the people who worked the spawn.
     
  13. <blockquote><hr>

    One fix for the "Notoriety" system is to turn off counts in Champ Spawn areas, and to turn Friendly Fire back on in Fel. So if a blue casts a EQ, that EQ will also hit any other blue in the region and damage them. That would also effectively eliminate Wither Cannon Choke Points.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    We're saying the same thing, except that your solution is a more simplified version =p

    This version would disturb reds who prefer to take counts, although that's not necessarily a show stopper.

    Straight-up allowing friendly fire of blues-on-blues would indeed make for big changes in field combat. If I ever saw it, I don't recall what UO with friendly fire turned on was like, so I don't have a good sense of all the things that would develop from it.
     
  14. Dean478

    Dean478 Seasoned Veteran
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2007
    Messages:
    488
    Likes Received:
    0
    <blockquote><hr>

    <blockquote><hr>

    The way it actually works today is that Felucca champ spawns have introduced two factors that mess it up. Felucca champ spawn "protection" encourages players of all colors to attack and defend spawns against one another, independent of any "evil" vs. "good" theme.

    [/ QUOTE ]1. Person A attacks monster.
    2. Person B attacks same monster.
    3. Person A attacks Person B.

    How is Person A not evil?

    Yes, Person A has more reason to "defend" their position at a Champion spawn by attacking Person B... but that doesn't make it a non-evil act. Person B has just as much right (in the strict good/criminal/murderer sense of morality that Britannia has) in attacking the evil Champion and its spawn as Person A does, and attacking that spawn doesn't give Person A the right to attack Person B without becoming a criminal or a murderer.
    Person A is attacking Person B out of greed towards obtaining the most powerscrolls, not out of some inherent right to being the only person fighting the spawn.

    [/ QUOTE ]


    Person A still has 4 more counts before they become red, no-one can take revenge.
     
  15. Guest

    Guest Guest

    i just wish they made it so the party who worked the spawn is the only ones who can get the scrolls would completely stop spawn raiding griefing.
    griefing is exactly what it is and if i remember correctly griefing is supposed to be a violation of the tos?
    but who knows anymore because i dont ever see rules being enforced
     
  16. utilitron

    utilitron Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    <blockquote><hr>

    The way it actually works today is that Felucca champ spawns have introduced two factors that mess it up. Felucca champ spawn "protection" encourages players of all colors to attack and defend spawns against one another, independent of any "evil" vs. "good" theme.

    [/ QUOTE ]1. Person A attacks monster.
    2. Person B attacks same monster.
    3. Person A attacks Person B.

    How is Person A not evil?


    [/ QUOTE ]

    What you are describing could be defined as "Poaching". Where person B would be in the wrong for attacking person A's monster.

    The right to hunt this animal is claimed by somebody.

    Encarta
    2. To encroach on somebody's rights, territory, or sphere of operation in order to appropriate or remove another person or thing.

    <blockquote><hr>


    Yes, Person A has more reason to "defend" their position at a Champion spawn by attacking Person B... but that doesn't make it a non-evil act. Person B has just as much right (in the strict good/criminal/murderer sense of morality that Britannia has) in attacking the evil Champion and its spawn as Person A does, and attacking that spawn doesn't give Person A the right to attack Person B without becoming a criminal or a murderer.
    Person A is attacking Person B out of greed towards obtaining the most powerscrolls, not out of some inherent right to being the only person fighting the spawn.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    The inherent right of "owning" the champ, come from working the spawn to gain access to the champion. For anyone to impinge the champion that they were not a part of summoning, is in fact is just plain debauchery.
     
  17. Tsk! the KB has a topic NAMED kill stealing ... [​IMG] ...

    Answer

    Kill stealing is<font color=red> allowed</font color=red> in Ultima Online. Each player has as much right as any other player to any NPC or monster. There are no line ups, no seniority, no claiming areas or spawns, and no taking turns. All of these things are great if players agree to them and in the long run will improve your enjoyment of hunting, but they are not the rule. It is not appropriate to page on another player who is interrupting your game play by interacting with the NPC spawn in any regard.

    Please note, if a player targets you specifically to harass this may be physical harassment. For this to be the case you must recall to a completely different dungeon or hunting area and this player follows you and persists harassing you. Failure to recall (not gate) away to a completely different area indicates you are not interested in resolving the issue and it is not yet physical harassment.

    Debauchery ????
    1 a: extreme indulgence in sensuality bplural : orgies
    2archaic : seduction from virtue or duty
    [​IMG]
     
  18. utilitron

    utilitron Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    Kill stealing is<font color=red> allowed</font color=red> in Ultima Online.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Murder is also allowed in UO. That doesn't make kill stealing NOT considered poaching, especially considering the added note:
    "Please note, if a player targets you specifically to harass this may be physical harassment."

    Now guilds will target other guilds Champ spawning... and will proceed to follow them to other champ spawns, and raiding them. Is that then considered Physical harassment? Or would it be better to make a better game mechanic to allow spawns to be murder-free...

    ----------

    and Debauchery.
    immoral behavior: unrestrained self-indulgent immoral behavior, or an instance of this
    [​IMG]
     
  19. Babble

    Babble Guest

    Actually in the sense it is not true that any player has the right to kill steal.
    Non ML enabled accounts cannot kill steal in ML dungeons.
    Where is the right?
     
  20. The Alliance I belong to has some true Murderers in it, but the majority of the reds in my Alliance never wished to be Red, they went Red being good Alliance Mates.

    Defending Sigils in Faction Battles where our Orange counterparts routinely use Blue Helpers in and out of town to fight Faction Wars, Including running the blues almost all the way back into some of the bases.

    And crosshealing faction Reds causing them to go gray and then having to defend themselves aginst blue helpers that will go suicide at the drop of a hat to give out a count.

    At least 50% of our alliance is red now from faction related activites, some deserve Red Status because they are Murderers, but a very high percentage are red because they are just good guildmates or they have been wrongfully made Red from circumstances.

    I have seen many more Blues act in a way that would be termed "Evil" then any of the Reds I associate with. But most People do not see things this way, they only see Red or Blue and have no long term experience with PvP and the reality of what is "Evil".

    Any Character that will not Crossheal or Rez his Guildmates isnt a Guildmate, he is only thinking of himself. Going Gray and then having to fight your way out of Blues leads to taking counts, eventually becoming red and causing someone else to take counts when they come to your aid now that you're red.

    Green should be Green and not cause you to become Criminal.

    Orange should also be the Overiding Color if you are Red or Blue, you see Orange if the Enemy is Blue, but all you see is Red if your Faction Enemy is Red, that causes alot of problems for players that dont know every single name of their enemies.
     
  21. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Well said, sir.
     
  22. <blockquote><hr>

    i just wish they made it so the party who worked the spawn is the only ones who can get the scrolls would completely stop spawn raiding griefing.
    griefing is exactly what it is and if i remember correctly griefing is supposed to be a violation of the tos?
    but who knows anymore because i dont ever see rules being enforced

    [/ QUOTE ]

    to bad the roc wont let me say what i really think about this!

    Champ spawns are designed to promote raiding.

    in fel getting killed by another player is not called greifing its called pvp.

    there is no such thing as greifing in fel since you agree to the rules when you go there.

    if you dont like it stay out.

    (by the way your post was totaly of topic, the reason for this thread is some people want to do champs and stay blue)
     
  23. [​IMG] "Poaching" requires there being a rule/law that "some condition other than proscribed: will be considered poaching"

    The rule/law IS: Kill stealing is allowed in Ultima Online.
    So ...
    no such thing as "poaching" in Ultima Online ...
    didja MISS the line:
    It is not appropriate to page on another player who is interrupting your game play by interacting with the NPC spawn in any regard.
    ?

    Harassment is an entirely different matter ...(as noted in the rule above)
    Its NOT about "interacting with the NPC spawn "
    Harassment is "The PLAYERS actions and interactions"
    [​IMG]
    Whats the first condition stated in the rule to determine IF harassment ...
    For this to be the case you must recall to a completely different dungeon or hunting area and this player follows you and persists harassing you.

    watch closely now ... [​IMG]
    IF the one who came second, ticks you off ... and makes you leave .. and They DO NOT follow ...
    YOU who were there first ... technically were the poacher ...(if there were such a thing)
    [​IMG]

    (debauchery STILL doesn't apply ... even by your definition"unrestrained self-indulgent immoral behavior, or an instance of this" .. [​IMG] IF it does ... then your gotta take your marks TOO! [​IMG] there is no moral law for YOU to wave the banner of: "Kill stealing is allowed in Ultima Online" ... and your hardly showing any restraint ... in Indulging in further debate ...Motivated by ...??? oops! may I suggest "self interest"? [​IMG] I'm missing any established statement about "for the good of the game" ((too late to edit one in)) ... Nor some offer of compromise or turn taking ...(( again too late to edit one in)) )

    Your entire premise:
    " The inherent right of "owning" the champ, come from working the spawn to gain access to the champion. For anyone to impinge the champion that they were not a part of summoning, is in fact is just plain debauchery. "

    therefore ...
    is shown to be false ... attend:

    Kill stealing is allowed in Ultima Online
    Thus : No Poaching
    No Poaching
    Thus: NO inherent right of "owning"

    Burma Shaved again [​IMG]
     
  24. Guest

    Guest Guest

    What about having characters accumulate "spawning rights" as they work through the spawn (using a similar counter as looting rights uses for individual creatures) and then only those with spawning rights are allowed to attack the champion without going gray (and thus being attackable by those defending "their" spawn), but only for the first few minutes. If the spawn is left up too long, their "ownership" expires (similar to how a corpse reverts to a freeforall after a minute or so)

    (I realize that's sort of just a rewording of some of the ideas above ... just writing aloud trying to get it all straight in my head)
     
  25. Revenant2 Very nice explaintion of the spawns...

    Here is an other way. Guild one does a spawn guild two comes in an trys to out them by killing the spawn faster an better than guild one. Well guild one gets mad an Wars guild two.. If guild two does not except the war than guild one hires murders to help them on the spawn the next time they go out to do the spawn.

    Now what make the murders help well the gold payment of course an they have a chance to get scrolls also.. An there paid a hefty sum. Why well there is stat loss. ya see risk vs rewards...

    Also this could be a great way to get guild wars back in game an lets not forget Chaos/Order an while we are at it lets bring factions in there are 2 good an 2 evil factions. Well now we really got a reason to do the champ spawns an it brings PVP back with PK,s an there we have a very intence game in felucca again.. Oh well i can dream can i... [​IMG]

    Well you did mention guilds alot in your post an here we can have a little of everything An why stat loss to keep mindless killing at bay. Where a bunch of murders come in an clean everyone out with 0 consequences... Risk vs Rewards
     
  26. RTLFC

    No incarnation of the reputation system in the entire history of UO has ever actually "worked" per se.
     
  27. 5% Luck

    5% Luck Guest

    when my spawns buddy (red) gets attacked by raider(blue) I attack them(count).

    When I dont help my spawn buddy(red) from raider (blue) new raider(red) kills me.

    I will be red.
     
  28. Yes and I want to add that in Fel you should have the right to decide to be red or blue. But with champ spawns, if you want to be effective, you have to take murder counts.
     
  29. 5% Luck

    5% Luck Guest

    And heres the real kicker. Ive declined giving out counts now for over 3 years!
     
  30. Lord Gareth

    Lord Gareth UO Content Editor | UO Chesapeake & Rares News
    Reporter Professional Wiki Moderator Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2006
    Messages:
    5,167
    Likes Received:
    401
    Hmm.... Well if you dont want to get raided and killed go to a Tram or Tokuno Spawn? No one has a right to any monster in the game.

    if you kill someone for attacking what you say is your boss then you deserve to be evil. You did an evil act.

    "That guy took my frog from the pond so I shot him"

    Umm..... So ya


    Maybe you should show some COMPASSION to the person raiding your spawn.

    Compassion is nonjudgmental empathy for one's fellow creatures. - Ultima V
    Human is to have compassion on the unhappy.

    Maybe the person raiding is very unhappy.... LOL
     
  31. utilitron

    utilitron Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    [​IMG] "Poaching" requires there being a rule/law that "some condition other than proscribed: will be considered poaching"


    [/ QUOTE ]

    In my original post i stated the situation "could be considered as poaching", not "is poaching", but could be considered, given the state of mind of player A.

    In a situation like champ spawns, its not mere "kill stealing"...
    <blockquote><hr>


    The rule/law IS: Kill stealing is allowed in Ultima Online.
    So ...
    no such thing as "poaching" in Ultima Online ...


    [/ QUOTE ]

    just beacuse its not currently defined as such, doesn't change how people feel. Its just a word that describes, quite well, how many people feel about their right to the champ after working the spawn. if semantics are your only arguement in this thread, then you seem more like a troll. You have not challenged the principals of my arguement, but the words I used to express my opinions.

    <blockquote><hr>


    didja MISS the line:
    It is not appropriate to page on another player who is interrupting your game play by interacting with the NPC spawn in any regard.
    ?

    Harassment is an entirely different matter ...(as noted in the rule above)
    Its NOT about "interacting with the NPC spawn "
    Harassment is "The PLAYERS actions and interactions"
    [​IMG]
    Whats the first condition stated in the rule to determine IF harassment ...
    For this to be the case you must recall to a completely different dungeon or hunting area and this player follows you and persists harassing you.


    [/ QUOTE ]
    No, I didn't miss the line... Did you miss the line where I stated guilds seek out other people doing champs, intentionally... somtimes including the use of ghost cams, to intentionally raid a spawn in progress... If that guild then leaves, the same guild may intentionally raid them again.

    Do I believe it is harassment? NO! I was merely pointing out that a better game mechanic is needed to handle this situation, that is entirely different then attacking the same monster as someone else.

    Considering your main point is to call raiding a champ spawn a "kill stealing" situation, I would like to present a situation in which may help define the difference.

    Player A is a Tamer/Treasure Hunter. Armed with a fel map, and a shovel, he locates the spot, digs, gets chest, picks the lock, and untraps it. He works down the spawn, and just as he was about to enjoy the spoils of his labor, Player B comes and tries to loot the chest.

    Now... in that situation, Player A feels entitled to the chest. but with your argument... it is not his chest, and has no claim over it... even though he did the work... does that make it NOT stealing?

    <blockquote><hr>


    (debauchery STILL doesn't apply ... even by your definition"unrestrained self-indulgent immoral behavior, or an instance of this" .. [​IMG] IF it does ... then your gotta take your marks TOO! [​IMG] there is no moral law for YOU to wave the banner of: "Kill stealing is allowed in Ultima Online" ... and your hardly showing any restraint ... in Indulging in further debate ...Motivated by ...??? oops! may I suggest "self interest"? [​IMG] I'm missing any established statement about "for the good of the game" ((too late to edit one in)) ... Nor some offer of compromise or turn taking ...(( again too late to edit one in)) )


    [/ QUOTE ]

    I would really beg to differ... If in fact I feel a "right" to a champ for the work of spawning him by means of defeating 4 levels of his minions, then I would then feel any intrusion on this to be fueled by greed, and a want for what is mine.

    to say that I do am self indulgent is, to me, beyond rediculous. Is it greedy for someone to go to work and expect a pay check? Would they feel tread upon if someone came in and claimed a portion of their pay after doing allthe work?

    Your argueing that kill stealing is legal. But again... this is not just kill stealing. This is invasion into somehting that has been work twords. And I feel NO shame in asking for a game mechanic to be introduced that reflects the nature of the game it's self.

    I enjoy the battle over spawns, because I feel entitled to keep what I worked for. You seem to think that because YOU don't feel I'm entitled, that YOUR opinions on champs spawns should supersede my own. That is not, nor ever will be the case.

    <blockquote><hr>


    Your entire premise:
    " The inherent right of "owning" the champ, come from working the spawn to gain access to the champion. For anyone to impinge the champion that they were not a part of summoning, is in fact is just plain debauchery. "

    therefore ...
    is shown to be false ... attend:

    Kill stealing is allowed in Ultima Online
    Thus : No Poaching
    No Poaching
    Thus: NO inherent right of "owning"

    Burma Shaved again [​IMG]

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Honestly your ****y, and smug. Do not get the disbelief that you have shown logic, or contrary in your post.

    Your entire premise: Your opinion is fact.
     
  32. Silly Seadog

    Stratics Veteran It's My Birthday

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2007
    Messages:
    686
    Likes Received:
    7
    <blockquote><hr>

    Would they feel tread upon if someone came in and claimed a portion of their pay after doing all the work?

    [/ QUOTE ]Arrrr, the government!!
     
  33. <blockquote><hr>

    Tsk! the KB has a topic NAMED kill stealing ... [​IMG] ...

    Answer

    Kill stealing is<font color=red> allowed</font color=red> in Ultima Online.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    In the context of that EA article, "Kill stealing" wasn't the correct term for me to use, then. The kind of behavior I am referring to has been hard-coded out of most of Ultima Online and it's not the topic of that article. The behavior I am referring to was determined to be anti-social enough to be completely excluded from Trammel (like PKing was), and the same loot instancing system exists in Felucca.

    It's where you fight a significant monster until it's most of the way dead, and then someone else walks up and finishes it for you, and then they for some reason get to take most or all of the loot. I don't know what name they gave it before they removed it from the game, but I will guess it was not "kill stealing". In Ultima Online today, the person who walked up and got the kill shot like that would get no loot of their own on the monster.

    A Felucca champ spawn functions as one long extended kill, with the quirk that all of the loot is supplied at the end of the very last kill (the death of the champ).

    Point of explaining this was: it's an anti-social enough behavior to have been eliminated from Trammel, and because of how "bad" it is, it creates a situation where in Felucca champ spawns, the original spawn workers feel justified in fighting back against raiders who come to take this champ away from them and kill it on their own. Raiders of blue and red notoriety both show up to take the champ away and the notoriety does not come into play effectively in this situation. In any other loot situation, this direct means of loot stealing would not be available, but because it is, it's obvious to the spawn workers that they have the right to use all available means to prevent "their" champ from being stolen. In Felucca, that means is expected to include fighting.

    This situation exists above and beyond the existing notoriety system, as it's unhandled by both that and the instanced loot system they have in place.
     
  34. <blockquote><hr>

    when my spawns buddy (red) gets attacked by raider(blue) I attack them(count).

    When I dont help my spawn buddy(red) from raider (blue) new raider(red) kills me.

    I will be red.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Exactly.
     
  35. <blockquote><hr>

    PlayerSkillFTW wrote: One fix for the "Notoriety" system is to turn off counts in Champ Spawn areas, and to turn Friendly Fire back on in Fel. So if a blue casts a EQ, that EQ will also hit any other blue in the region and damage them. That would also effectively eliminate Wither Cannon Choke Points.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    I am thinking that a version of Friendly Fire which is still overridden by the unable-to-hurt-guildies code would be ideal (and might be the default behavior anyway, if I understand the order in which these things were applied).

    I think that with this modification, PlayerSkillFTW's suggestion could work extremely well and be more straightforward and easier to implement than my first one.

    One characteristic of this is that groups of people who are not guilded together (or guild allianced together) would not be able to work Felucca champ spawns properly. In the current gameplay, virtually everyone who does champ spawns together is in the same guild/alliance anyway. For 99.9% of Felucca situations today, this is a non-issue.

    Something which would help this would be to have the friendly-fire in champ spawn regions not affect party members. This would help out small groups of non-guilded people but due to the current party size limitations would not cover a hoard of nonguilded people. IMO it's not critical to put such a thing into place, and an inability to do it shouldn't be considered a show stopper, it's just nice.

    With this in place, it would become an expectation that if you are part of a large group of people who is working a champ spawn, you should either be guilded together or you should expect to not have proper availability of your area effect spells and fields. Maybe in the past you had big groups of strangers working a champ spawn together in Fel, but it does not happen now. 99.9% of players who do this in Felucca are guilded together now and all of this is a non-issue for them anyway.

    None of this would have worked properly a few months ago, when the champ was not teleporting itself back into the spawn area once removed. But now that the champ boss is tied solidly to the spawn area, it would work fine.

    Murderers being able to choose to continue to accumulate counts within the champ spawn regions is not that important; if it seems not worth the effort, I'd say skip it.

    If these changes were to be made, an anmesty for reds should be offered when it's initially put into place. This is so that spawn workers can correct their existing chars' notoriety and begin utilizing the new, corrected system without the delay caused by having to create all-new blue chars to do it. Yes the skills can be stoned over but scrolling the new chars out (skill and stat) would be a hardship.

    Two points not talked about so far:

    <ul> [*]Harrowers do not have a champ spawn region associated with them right now. [/list]

    The same notoriety fixes would need to apply to Harrower spawns, but due to the infrequency in which Harrowers spawn, Harrower areas should not be under this effect constantly.

    Ideas on this?

    One way to deal would be to change Harrowers so that they spawn where the existing champ spawn bosses do now, but this would represent a huge change to how Harrowers are dealt with by the playerbase.

    Noting that Harrowers do not move out of the dungeons once spawned, another way would be to have that entire dungeon plus areas around the entrances to this dungeon temporarily become under champ spawn rules when a Harrower pops there, and then remain so until 15 - 30 minutes after the last form has died.

    If without changing the spawn locations for Harrowers, one system was applied to all Harrower pops, the entire dungeon and not just that dungeon level would need to work like this. I don't see a way around it. Even for Covetous, where you can recall into the areas in between the dungeon levels, one should still be ABLE to gallop through the other levels and fight in them and have the notoriety system not screw things up.

    There's a whole bunch of ways to deal with this actually, but many of them don't preserve much of the way Harrowers work now. For example, Harrowers could have their own area where they spawn, a bit like peerless bosses do now, and this area would only be "open" once a harrower is popped.

    In any case, Harrowers would need to be handled with the same notoriety system adjustments, and that's not as straightforward to make work well.

    Second point is:

    <ul> [*]It's possible that, especially in the dungeons that have champ spawn regions, you would have people wandering into the champ spawn region (or perhaps being led in) to do things they consider unrelated to champ spawns. Those people would be vulnerable to being PKd without being able to count their killers. [/list]

    If murder counts were to actually be turned off in champ spawn areas, this possibility should be handled. What's the best way to do it? A text warning before the player enters Fel T2a that warns about the champ spawn regions, plus at the entrances to the affected dungeon levels? An unmistakeable pop up window that stops the player and warns him, like when someone walks through a gate to Felucca, except that it can be turned off forever by checking a box on the window before clicking okay? I don't feel that having the champ spawn notoriety changes kick in once the spawn is actually popped covers it well, but maybe someone sees a way for that to work.
     
  36. 5% Luck

    5% Luck Guest

    With what your saying Id think we may see the new yew gate to be a champ region. With all the spawn that wont be possible but all the same these "spawners" that are currently red will still need a FFA PVP area. Since they are red from the current system they feel, I might as well do my FFA PVP at the Gate. That would be eliminated in any system that didn't produce reds. But for the smaller percentage of players that are true murderers all would be blue and forced to flag or join faction or spawn to get any FFA PvP. Free for all PvP is a staple of this game and needs to work right as well. This leaves us with no option for freely attacking as large a populous as reds are now. This should be applied to a single region or NEW LANDS FOR FEL with no notoriety rules where upon entering your simply orange with kill counts that stand out as much as a red name does now.

    Where does this leave true reds? Door step camping with little else to do. For most reds that would be unacceptable and knowing their ingenuity would find other means of mercilessly pounding on the rest of the community. So that wont work. In the long run we would lose players.

    The idea of gate camping has been around since the abyss shard was online. The 1st truly FFA PvP that the game knew. Yes wonton murder has always been a part of the game but, true free form PvP was 1st introduced with the pilot shard for factions on such a scale. The deal is factions are dead and will remain that way no matter what any one does. I wont try to restore a failed feature that for most of us is known as a week(s) spent not being able to be resed/healed/pet resed on and on by another player.

    We need an option that allows for FFA PvP and a system that doesn't persecute those attempting to protect them selves from "evil" guild warfare and greed. This should allow a player to remain functional on all facets and not deter them from progress through limiting their characters skill/stat limits.(inflation) Leaving the room for true FFA PvP is the real niche we are all looking for. Limiting the notoriety aspect of champ regions as things are will not allow for that.
     
  37. Felluca: Where Virtue was traded by Greed...
    Trammel: where Challenge was traded by SightSeeing...

    Pick your Game... keep your Code.
     
  38. Gildar

    Gildar Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2004
    Messages:
    2,354
    Likes Received:
    4
    <blockquote><hr>

    What you are describing could be defined as "Poaching". Where person B would be in the wrong for attacking person A's monster.

    [/ QUOTE ]It most certainly could be defined that way... but in Britannia, poaching is legal.
    It is not a crime in Britannia to kill a monster that somebody else was fighting.

    The notoriety system is working as intended.

    Yes, the person isn't being the nicest by trying to get powerscrolls that another has spent a significant amount of time attempting to earn. No, they aren't being so rude as to become a criminal.


    Change the situation slightly - person B attacks person A instead of person A "defending" their right to kill the spawn. Why shouldn't person B become a criminal and/or murderer?
    How do you prove through game logic that person B isn't the one who deserves to be fighting the spawn instead of person A in any non-extreme situation?
    How do you prevent against the jerk person A who goes "sure, you can help out! *waits for person B to attack something before killing him the instant person B becomes a 'criminal' to him*"?


    I'm all for changing champion spawns to make it harder to earn powerscrolls by simply joining in the fight at the end... but the notoriety system is not the problem in this situation.
     
  39. Even if all changes... the winners will still be the same.

    speedhacking, script pvpers...

    so why discuss this before addressing the real issue?
     
  40. <blockquote><hr>

    With what your saying Id think we may see the new yew gate to be a champ region. With all the spawn that wont be possible but all the same these "spawners" that are currently red will still need a FFA PVP area. Since they are red from the current system they feel, I might as well do my FFA PVP at the Gate. That would be eliminated in any system that didn't produce reds.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    A system that artificially produces reds and forces them to stay that way due to nothing more than notoriety mechanics clashing with the workings of Felucca champ spawns isn't right, though. Assuming that the existing system was to be preserved in the first place, it would be a reasonable expectation of reds to require them to actually PK innocents. Even if it was made easier to be red by allowing them to opt-in to take counts in champ spawn zones, it's at least at that point a choice for them, and it's not artificial for the chars who don't do that.

    When I think about my own characters, I'd say for sure that it should be harder to become red than it is now! I have two reds and one of them has never, ever PK'd anyone outside of the spawn environment, not a single time. I did not deliberately take him red either, it was just one of those things.

    He logs in, does spawn work, goes to the bank, and then goes home and logs out. That char doesn't deserve to be red from either a punishment or a prestige standpoint (if one could think of it that way). It's silly.

    Oh and he's trying to idle off those counts atm... another piece of sillyness that doesn't belong in modern UO.

    <blockquote><hr>

    But for the smaller percentage of players that are true murderers all would be blue and forced to flag or join faction or spawn to get any FFA PvP. Free for all PvP is a staple of this game and needs to work right as well. This leaves us with no option for freely attacking as large a populous as reds are now. This should be applied to a single region or NEW LANDS FOR FEL with no notoriety rules where upon entering your simply orange with kill counts that stand out as much as a red name does now.

    Where does this leave true reds? Door step camping with little else to do. For most reds that would be unacceptable and knowing their ingenuity would find other means of mercilessly pounding on the rest of the community. So that wont work. In the long run we would lose players.

    The idea of gate camping has been around since the abyss shard was online. The 1st truly FFA PvP that the game knew. Yes wonton murder has always been a part of the game but, true free form PvP was 1st introduced with the pilot shard for factions on such a scale. The deal is factions are dead and will remain that way no matter what any one does. I wont try to restore a failed feature that for most of us is known as a week(s) spent not being able to be resed/healed/pet resed on and on by another player.

    We need an option that allows for FFA PvP and a system that doesn't persecute those attempting to protect them selves from "evil" guild warfare and greed. This should allow a player to remain functional on all facets and not deter them from progress through limiting their characters skill/stat limits.(inflation) Leaving the room for true FFA PvP is the real niche we are all looking for. Limiting the notoriety aspect of champ regions as things are will not allow for that.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    I am not sure I understood all of your points, but a few things come to mind:

    Players who wanted to deliberately keep red chars would be looking at one of two things, depending on which version of this thing (if any) went in. Should murder counts be turned off in champ spawn areas, players can still be red, they just have to do their killing of blues outside of spawn areas. In the current environment this is more consistent with the idea of what being a murderer was supposed to be anyway. But then, my original thing was that this turning off of murder counts in the champ spawn areas could be connected to the killer's choice of whether or not they prefer to take the counts. This allows the red players to continue in their "evil" ways within the champ spawn regions, if it's intended to be deliberately evil. It's the equivalent of being able to lock your karma at a low level.

    The spawn areas potentially being used as a pre-determined, free-for-all dueling area for blues-on-blues strikes me as a reasonable use of the area. Reds won't care either way, they will fight the same in or out of the zone.

    The yew gate doens't is a different setup in that it's not just a border, it's a guard zone border. For practical purposes, the taking of counts vs. not does not have the same weight as guard zone.

    I do suspect one might see fewer reds around after a change like this had been in place for a while, but that would happen because the char population would more accurately reflect the players' intentions.
     
  41. 5% Luck

    5% Luck Guest

    <blockquote><hr>


    The yew gate doens't is a different setup in that it's not just a border, it's a guard zone border. For practical purposes, the taking of counts vs. not does not have the same weight as guard zone.

    I do suspect one might see fewer reds around after a change like this had been in place for a while, but that would happen because the char population would more accurately reflect the players' intentions.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    What good is a guard zone if everyone is blue?
     
  42. <blockquote><hr>

    <blockquote><hr>

    What you are describing could be defined as "Poaching". Where person B would be in the wrong for attacking person A's monster.

    [/ QUOTE ]It most certainly could be defined that way... but in Britannia, poaching is legal.
    It is not a crime in Britannia to kill a monster that somebody else was fighting.

    The notoriety system is working as intended.

    Yes, the person isn't being the nicest by trying to get powerscrolls that another has spent a significant amount of time attempting to earn. No, they aren't being so rude as to become a criminal.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    The behavior being done by people who raid a spawn was already determined to be worse than criminal or, even, murdering. It was considered so anti-social that it was removed in its entirety from Trammel with no possible way for other players to defeat it, and the very same loot handling system exists in Fel.

    In Felucca, you cannot have a player sneak in a kill shot and by that means alone steal all of the loot from your effort. When you try to double click a fresh monster corpse in Fel that you do not have loot rights to, it will not allow you to open it. Very few behaviors were determined to be so 'bad' that they were disallowed in BOTH FEL AND TRAM, and that's one of them.

    That player has to either kill you and then take the loot off of your body, or arrange some means to prevent you from looting and wait for your loot to become available. In all cases of him doing this, HE flags on YOU. All of his means of stealing your loot REQUIRES him to flag on you and you will not take murder counts for defending yourself in these circumstances.

    Felucca champ spawns are different from normal PVM in that there is a group of monsters to kill, and only after the last-spawning monster has been killed does the loot become available. They more closely resemble Peerless than they do regular PVM.

    This complicates the loot-stealing issue because it is intended as group combat and it is intended to be raidable at any stage of the spawn.

    The raiders all pour onto the screen at once and they will be both reds and blues. If a group of all blue spawners stands around and remains obedient to the notoriety system rules for blues, and attempts to defend against only those players who flag on them individually, they will lose their spawn every single time.

    The dynamics of Felucca champ spawns do not allow spawn workers the luxury of waiting around to see who flags on them, or of selectively killing the reds among the raiders. Conversely, if the raiding blues are selectively attacking the spawning reds as a first step, the spawning blues do not have the luxury of standing aside and watching their red guildmates die - those spawning blues are next in-line to be killed and have their champ stolen, and they know it.

    Expecting people to limit their champ spawn defenses in ways that obey the existing notoriety system would be nonsensical in the context of being raided at a champ spawn. A champ spawn is true group combat and outside of pre-declared guild war, the notoriety system doesn't handle it properly.

    The notoriety system combined with loot instancing handles this correctly on the single-monster scale, but it doesn't account for this identical issue when it is applied to Felucca champ spawns. And the end result of all of these dynamics working together is that spawning players go red by an artificial means. They are responding defensively to a situation which, on a smaller scale, does not make them red, but in the context of Felucca champ spawns it does.

    The easiest fix that I (and PlayerSkillFTW) can think of for it is to disable murder counts within the champ spawn region, because trying to micromanage the notoriety system to work properly within the champ spawn environment is too difficult to do well. In the absence of the notoriety system being able to do it well, turning off murder counts within the champ spawn zone most closely supports the intended actions of the players involved.

    I can't picture any Felucca spawn people agreeing with your position, which is basically that when another guild shows up to take the champ away from you and kill it themselves, it's not a nice thing to do but not criminal either, and the "right" thing to do is either walk away or share the champ with the raiders. People who do Felucca champ spawns feel that it's an aggressive act to raid a spawn, it violates their sense of fairness, and in every case they will fight to defend against it. The interaction of the loot-instancing system with the notoriety system in regard to smaller-scale Felucca PVM also supports the spawners' view.
     
  43. <blockquote><hr>

    <blockquote><hr>


    The yew gate doens't is a different setup in that it's not just a border, it's a guard zone border. For practical purposes, the taking of counts vs. not does not have the same weight as guard zone.

    I do suspect one might see fewer reds around after a change like this had been in place for a while, but that would happen because the char population would more accurately reflect the players' intentions.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    What good is a guard zone if everyone is blue?

    [/ QUOTE ]

    If you mean from the position of blues who make a point try to trick reds into getting guardwhacked, then sure, the guard zone no longer works the same for that. Tricks and utilization of bugs with guard zone to allow blues to get unwarrented kills shouldn't exist anyway, they are just that - - tricks and bugs (as opposed with PVP).
     
  44. utilitron

    utilitron Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    <blockquote><hr>

    What you are describing could be defined as "Poaching". Where person B would be in the wrong for attacking person A's monster.

    [/ QUOTE ]It most certainly could be defined that way... but in Britannia, poaching is legal.
    It is not a crime in Britannia to kill a monster that somebody else was fighting.

    The notoriety system is working as intended.

    Yes, the person isn't being the nicest by trying to get powerscrolls that another has spent a significant amount of time attempting to earn. No, they aren't being so rude as to become a criminal.


    [/ QUOTE ]

    I agree the system is working correctly, but I also agree with the OP that the situation at a spawn should be handled differently then in a regular dungeon situation.

    I don't think a global "criminal" flag needs to be esablished for person B, but a localized flag might work.

    <blockquote><hr>


    Change the situation slightly - person B attacks person A instead of person A "defending" their right to kill the spawn. Why shouldn't person B become a criminal and/or murderer?
    How do you prove through game logic that person B isn't the one who deserves to be fighting the spawn instead of person A in any non-extreme situation?
    How do you prevent against the jerk person A who goes "sure, you can help out! *waits for person B to attack something before killing him the instant person B becomes a 'criminal' to him*"?


    [/ QUOTE ]
    I am not sure if you read my original post in this thread where I covered how I feel the spawns should be covered, but I think this would solve both those problems.

    After a group becomes protected, they "pop" the spawn as it is so-called, establishing their spawn... and if the protector leaves the spawn area he recieves a message "do you really want to abandon this quest?" if yes, he can leave, if no, he needs to stay...

    <blockquote><hr>


    I'm all for changing champion spawns to make it harder to earn powerscrolls by simply joining in the fight at the end... but the notoriety system is not the problem in this situation.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    I agree, a new system for champs only may be in order.
     
  45. I took my intended-blue spawner to a harrower this weekend....

    Because he happened to have counts on him and was red at the time, he ended up doing necro choke point defense of "OUR HARROWER" and he picked up more counts, now he's up to 2/10! ARGGGGGGGGGG!

    We're talking about 400 hours of keeping him connected if I am to remove all of the counts! 16.5 DAYS, if I did nothing else in UO! And this is pretending that the 30 minutes for server down isn't there and acting as though I will be right there to reconnect the client at server up. In reality, its 17 days or longer.

    This char has never PKed a single person outside of fights related to spawns, where everybody involved knew that it was my guild vs. everybody else's guild. He's a nice guy! heh.

    -----------------------------

    Oh and for what it's worth, I wanted to add a poll to this thread but I can't figure out how to become a Stratics Plus member, all of the links for joining point to this thing: http://www.stratics.com/members/signup.html which gives you a 404.