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

Poll! Justice and Warfare-complete (version 2)

Discussion in 'UHall' started by Trebr Drab, May 11, 2010.

?

Do you like?

  1. Yes, I really really really like.

    8 vote(s)
    22.2%
  2. Yes, I like.

    1 vote(s)
    2.8%
  3. I have some reservations.

    8 vote(s)
    22.2%
  4. No, I don't like.

    19 vote(s)
    52.8%
  1. Trebr Drab

    Trebr Drab Guest

    Ok, some elaboration. This is designed with a "classic based" shard in mind, but can easily be modified for the current shards, I think. But the current differences in abilities through items and certain post AoS skills makes warfare difficult).
    Sorry for the length, but it's needed. Not really as complicated as it seems.

    First, the Justice System:
    This is any attacks or thefts outside of the war system.
    -PvP as it was, attackers go gray and killing gives a count.
    -3 kills per 10 days before you go red. (This is to allow players to kill jerks at events and otherwise ruining things for players without actually attacking them. Moving set up tables and chairs at events, spamming to interupt, etc.)
    -Reds lose 25% stats on death.
    -Thieves, go gray with noticed theft attempts.
    -Looting another player's corpse (other than guild mates) go gray as a theft.
    -Stealing from player's houses is a theft for each successful attempt.
    -3 thefts per 10 days before going perma-gray, but only to the victims and their guild and alliance members.
    -Perma-gray thieves lose 5% stats at death to the hands of those they are gray to.
    -Counts for either reds or perma-grays wear off at a rate of 1 per 5 days.

    Guilds, guild houses, and War Chests:
    -Guilds can form alliances with other guilds.
    -Guild houses are separate from player houses. They are owned by the guild, controlled by the current guild master (by vote).
    One house per guild.
    -Guild houses must be "open", but can have locked doors (which can be picked by thieves).
    -Once a guild has a house, they can build a War Chest. These are semi-custom art, with statues or other items on top. Think UO's version of the Arc Of The Covenant (you know, Indiana Jones) here. Very expensive to make. Made by players inside the guild house. Can only be moved by the guild leader (like creating a trash barrel).

    War Chests:
    -Act as Guild Vault, with ranks for settings
    -Several levels for access, so guild members can take limited numbers of potions, regs, supplies (like WoW has)
    -Links trade between guilds, acting like a player trade gump but consistent. Guilds A and B arrange a trade through their War Chests, acts like a trade gump but long term, lasting until trade is complete. Each guild must travel with the trade goods to the others, drop the goods into the other War Chest, and once both sides see they each have what was agreed on, they each hit the "accept" button to finish the trade. At any time either can hit the cancel button, and any delivered good will return automatically.
    This could be done automatically, without the need to deliver goods. But I'm thinking for the future here, caravans can be set up in the future to do the deliveries, trade routes established, etc.
    -A guild can send gold to an allied guild at any time. (This is important for warfare.)
    ------In the future
    ------Gold can be lent to another guild at a fixed interest rate and fixed payments, an adjustable contract.
    ------Player built cities can build city structures financed through the War Chest.
    ------City structures can include Trade Centers that act as delivery points for caravans, linked to roads for establishing automatic caravan routes.
    ------City structures can include all sorts of guardens and statuary, roads, bridges, etc. (Maybe, UO's map may make this impractical.

    War rules through the War Chest/Military Orders
    -Any guild can form a Military Order.
    -A military Order allows for warfare.
    -Any member of the guild can join the Military Order.
    -A character can opt out of the Military Order at any time as long as they are not currently in combat. They cannot rejoin for 1 week.
    -A guild can disband their Military Order at any time that they are not in a war.
    -Any character in a Military Order can attack, kill, or steal from any other member of another Military Order without a criminal flag. If a Military Order character is killed, they are removed from the Military order and cannot rejoin for 1 week.
    -If a guild establishes a Military Order, those members who enlist in it will gain bonuses to all resource gathering, including gold from MOBs (x.5 ? ). The bonus resources go directly to the Guilds War Chest.
    -The guild master can set a payment per resources gathered, through a points system for resources, which can be redeemed by the players from the War Chest. In other words, a Military Order miner sends 100 ore to the War Chest, gaines 100 points, and can later collect from the War Chest gold equal to what the master has set as value for Ore Points (might have been .1 gold, so he could collect 10 gold, which is above his regular personal ore gathering.)
    Example: Miner that has joined the guild's Military Order mines 200 ore. He keeps his 200 ore. He also has automatically sent 100 ore (x.5) directly to the guilds War Chest. The guild master has set a value on points for ore at .1 per. The miner has earned 100 points in Ore Points, so he can turn those points in at the War Chest for 10 gold in payment for his labors.
    -The guild master does not have to set a payment for resources, and each resource can be set separately.
    -If the gold in the War Chest runs out, the extra points are kept for future redemption.
    -The War Chest can Owe Debt!

    ------Warfare
    ------Any guild can declare war on any other guild
    ------A war declaration has a cost in gold, to declare war a guild must put up any sum of gold that they have in their own War Chest (there should be a minimum). This gold is put into escroll and cannot be removed until the war is concluded.
    ------The declared upon guild's War Chest also puts in an equal amount into escroll. If they do not have it in their War Chest, the Chest is in debt for the remainder.
    ------A War Chest in debt has no gold left available to use, and any new gold added goes towards this debt first. The guild can sell other resources or donate gold towards this debt. Or an allied guild can send them gold to be applied first towards this debt. No harvesting point redemptions are available at this point until the debt is payed.
    ------A war declaration does not go into affect for 3 days, to allow for allies to join in or not.
    ------Allied guilds get a gump to either join the war or not, if they do not join in the 3 day time frame they are not in.
    ------At the end of the 3 days, the war is set. A count of all Military Order members is made. To win a war, either of two things must happen. The declaring guild or the declared on guild must kill an equal number of the other's Military Order, or the alliance of either side must kill an equal number of the alliance total of Military Order numbers.
    ------If a Military Order character is killed, they are removed from the Military order and cannot rejoin for 1 week. (Same as outside of warfare, above.)
    ------Note here that a guild can attack the Military Order of another guild before declaring war, then declare, and thus reduce the numbers they must defeat to win the war. This is known as a "preemptive strike". Make your alliances well.

    ------Winning a war-
    ------The victor between the declarer and the declared take the gold that was put up. The declared upon guild may still be in debt if they lose the war. In this case, as their debt is repaid, it is paid to the victor guild. (This is known as "installments", heh)
    ------A guild can make monetary rewards to their allies by sending them gold, as above. An option at any time.
    ------A guild in war can Sue For Peace, at any time. This is an offer if less than the escroll amounts, and the other guild gets a gump to accept or deny. The offer can be rescinded at any time. If the guild sues for peace at the full amount of the escroll amount, it's automatic, the war is over, the other side wins and collects.
    ------A victor gets a Victory Banner to place in their Guild House or anywhere else. It can be traded. The defeated guild might pay handsomely for it to reduce their embarrassment. An alliance migth set up a headquarters and display all their Victory Banners there.
    ------The Victory Banner states the primary guilds (the declarer and the declared upon), whether it was a "defeat" or a "Suit for peace", and the date.
    ------Victory Banners should be stealable!
     
  2. Trebr Drab

    Trebr Drab Guest

    Adding the following items I forgot:
    -A character can opt out of the Military Order at any time as long as they are not currently in combat. They cannot rejoin for 1 week.
    -A guild can disband their Military Order at any time that they are not in a war.
     
  3. Aurelius

    Aurelius Babbling Loonie
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2004
    Messages:
    2,756
    Likes Received:
    689
    Need a lot more time to ponder this, but one question struck me pretty quickly - if "The War Chest can Owe Debt!" what's to stop the GM of the debtor guild simply deleting the guild? Or make a guild with a token GM, run it into debt, delete the token GM character...

    How exactly does this 'debt' work?
     
  4. Trebr Drab

    Trebr Drab Guest

    Well, the guild stays in existence. If a GM quits, the other members can elect a new master. There may not be any members left in it, in which case it's defeated and gone. There probably should be a way for someone new to take over an old guild that's completely lacking members, but they'd have that debt to settle. Otherwise, the debt will forever remain unpaid.

    Yeah, players could cycle through new guilds all the time, leaving old guilds behind with unsettled debts. That's a problem I didn't think of. Not sure if it becomes a problem or not. Maybe old guilds with no members just need to go away. Especially after a very long time. The only concern I have is the name, really. Don't want them recycling the same name after failing so much.
     
  5. Trebr Drab

    Trebr Drab Guest

    Perhaps a guild in debt cannot be warred, to prevent total economic collapse through repeated/constant warfare?

    Overall, there could be a problem with a group of guilds deciding to decimate a single guild this way. Hrmmm. It's not a problem if that one guild deserves getting decimated, heh. But it would be for a guild that's not a bunch of jerks. But if there was a restriction of one war at a time, guilds could set up a second fake guild to declare on them and use that to get the benefits of resource harvesting without the problems of being warred. That's against the concept, "worldly" and realistic.

    But they could do that too if guilds can't declare on one in debt.

    None of that works. So, long story short, if your not prepared to enter the world of brutal warfare and conquest, don't form a Military Order. At least, not an official one.
     
  6. Trebr Drab

    Trebr Drab Guest

    I think, after some time and discussion, I'll do another poll on this so people can vote now, and change their vote later. After maybe some decisions are made.

    Maybe in a couple of weeks, depending on how this goes.
     
  7. the 4th man

    the 4th man Lore Master
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,088
    Likes Received:
    45
    Another classic ga-ga post. Ya know, fel. failed for a reason. You guys keep bringing it up like a kid close to christmas time. Then, you want to do all these changes to the "classic" shard that once existed and no longer does.


    Just what in the name of sam hill do you guys want?? If you're tired of items, throw them away. Sick of insurance, don't use it. If, by some freak chance of
    nature, the devs create this, don't come posting here about what's wrong with it.

    Becareful what you wish for, you might just get it.


    later
     
  8. Derium of ls

    Derium of ls Slightly Crazed
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Messages:
    1,431
    Likes Received:
    21

    trust me, I tried for a long time PvPing in just a green kilt like i use to. i always died... it's because other people use items. you are FORCED to because that's what people do. if it was that simple, I'd be happy.
     
  9. Trebr Drab

    Trebr Drab Guest

    I'm guessing that you're the one person so far who voted "don't like"....could be wrong.
     
  10. Violence

    Violence Lore Keeper
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 27, 2008
    Messages:
    875
    Likes Received:
    0
    Re: Poll! Justice and Warfare

    And as well that he didn't like it... That's what I voted too, I'm not a big fan of 25% Stats Loss per death for my red characters.

    This reeks of more Trammel rage to me, an effort to bring more Fel to Trammel where it's all under restrain and control. Just my opinion(and vote).
     
  11. Trebr Drab

    Trebr Drab Guest

    Not getting much response at all here. And I need input. I know it's not in a final state, it's not done, and needs something more.

    Is it because people are tentative, and afraid that a few guilds will dominate the war picture?
    Or do people just not want anything like this?
    Is it too "worldly" and not game like enough?

    To continue I need some activity here or I'll let it go.
     
  12. Gowron

    Gowron Guest

    I have several issues with this.
    One, placing this in conjunction with a "Classic Shard" destroys the "Classic Shard" concept and replaces it with "Custom Shard", and that is going to open up a whole can of worms that I doubt anyone really desires to deal with.

    Also, how do you determine the winner of a war? During the days of no Trammel, wars were fought for varying purposes, and which guild killed the most was, from my experience, rarely the deciding factor. If we were fighting in an area over something as trivial as a treasure map, victory was determined by who was still remaining...sometimes the guild that scored more kills would leave. If we had a turd move into the area, and we declared war to "encourage" him to move elsewhere, victory was achieved when he moved...sometimes he and his guild would have more kills, but once again tired of the fight.

    The idea of a military order within a guild would just be too bulky to manage and leaves alot of opportunities for exploitation.
     
  13. Splup

    Splup Guest

    You would get more votes if there was option "Couldnt be arsed to read more then first couple paragraphs"

    I read till statloss part but don't want to vote on idea by reading so little... With the tempo of nowdays permanent statloss is just plain crap idea. Back in the days when there was statloss, PvP was much slower, no dismounts, specials came as random, no SSI or SDI etc. etc. etc.
     
  14. Coldren

    Coldren Sage
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    115
    [Note: I deleted my original post and was going to reframe it, but time did not give me that luxury. So if someone had noticed it before, I apologize for removing it.]

    I can safely say I like these ideas. It seems like an excellent, community building activity with a good reward and thought out structure. There are, of course, issues that would have to be worked out. As an aside note, I firmly believe classic shard was mentioned just because such a system gets more harry when items from AoS are included - This and nothing more.

    The one issue I see is motivation. Fighting for the sake of fighting, war for the sake of war, rarely works out in the long run. Because of this, I ask bluntly:

    What are you fighting for?

    A system like this is a good reward mechanic, but it needs conflict to drive it beyond the fact that it simply exists. Player/Guild cities and structures are well and good, but they too will eventually serve a finite purpose.

    There also seems to be little need or desire to promote cooperation among other guilds/alliances - This system appears to award victory at all costs, serving chiefly the victors, with little thought given to how to reward participation in a system especially if they are perpetually on the losing side. Especially since the system would strongly favor one large guild mowing down all competition, until such time as they are so big that no one would accept the challenge, and they'd have to disband. In this kind of closed loop system, it will eventually be self-terminating.

    To address this issue, I'd suggest strongly looking at the layered reward methodology of DAoC.

    There were three realms, and everyone in those realms fought for their own. They got relics which benefited crafters, PvP'ers, and PvE'ers, access to an exclusive dungeon based on keeps held which also benefited everyone as it was an RvR dungeon where only controlling members could enter and exit freely (The controlling side would often rush in to DF and clear out any apposing realm members on their respective sides, only to have it shift control again, and then they would be driven out), and DF as well as controlling the relics was a source of pride. Not only that, but unless you did it late at night with no opponents, it was a raid-level event to get people to cooperate and capture a relic. It was the highest level of community building - Everyone worked to get these things as closely with others as possible.

    Guilds and alliances they made also had a point system for ranking, as well as the ability to control keeps, upgrade them, giving access to a host of useful merchants and more points rewarded the longer it held control. I think I'm forgetting much, but there were other benefits to guilds, so this middle tier encouraged cooperation and teamwork, even if you were in separate guilds.

    The lowest tier rewarded individuals. Realm points were given for every kill, and these points were used to rank up and claim new abilities and items as well as contribute to the guild's tally. Solo players could conceivably do this very well, but it was much easier with a good group of people. Even if you were killed, so long as you or someone in your group killed someone else, you were personally rewarded.

    It was a complex, layered system with rewards merely for participating at some level, even if you were not victorious at the highest levels. Granted it revolved around PvP, but until they made leveling ridiculously easy, it was practically required to group with others to gain at any decent rate, which made you learn and play with your realm mates. Reputation among them mattered, and if you were black-listed, you might as well delete the character. Once crafters made the best gear, they were a highly-sought commodity, and everyone knew the name of your best crafter on your realm, as it was an expensive, drawn out process (Shout out to Scenwulf, Albion/Percival *Chest pump*).

    The way UO is now, I don't think such a system could be put in place that anyone would like it. It would require a radical rethinking of the game to make your system worthwhile for the majority of players.

    Again, just my opinion. Even though I think your ideas are solid, I don't see them having a place in modern UO.

    A custom shard though.. That's a whole different ball of wax. If UO had a DF equivalent, with more factions (City, rather then realm) and all the new content ended up there... Now that would be a sight to see.
     
  15. Trebr Drab

    Trebr Drab Guest

    Thanks for the reply, Coldren.
    My thinking is similar, but different. UO is much more of a sandbox world, and that's why I think it fits. That's also why I don't like the DAoC way as much as I could.

    What I've laid out so far is the first step. I don't think UO can give us the entire package at the start. But the rest follows a natural line of reasoning.

    So with what I've said, guilds that form a Military Order can get extra harvesting resources added directly to their War Chest.
    In stage 2, they should be able to build, using massive resources from their War Chest (i.e. at great cost), special production centers in the form of City owned lumber mills, forges, tanning tables, etc. And from these they also get extra production of lumber, ingots, leather, etc., which also go directly to their War Chest.

    You asked what we would fight for? For half of those extra resources and production.
    Why not all? Because the guild who owns them need incentive to continue.

    So in effect, one guild is conquering another, but the conquered is still in the game. They can rebel by declaring war, and defeating, their conqueror.
    But remember that it cost gold to declare war. And you lose that gold in defeat. So a guild in that position would need to choose their timing wisely.

    UO's map is not laid out well for another thing, and that's land conquest outside of this sort of thing. At least that's what I think.

    Now lets think about this a little. What happens.
    A guild conquers 2 others. They get half their extra resources and production. They are wealthy because of this and can easily afford another war. Meanwhile the 2 conquered guilds are really in a position due to the strength of their conqueror. But then the conqueror declares war on yet another guild/alliance. Win or lose, they have lost some people off the Military lists, and they cannot rejoin for a week. This means they are weaker, and is a perfect opening for the 2 conquered guilds to declare war and maybe earn their freedom.

    It's unlikely in this that one guild would ever dominate a shard. Unless they are really huge, even then though...

    Politics, again, become a top item.

    It's important to not that non military players are not affected by this personally. Nor are guilds that never form a Military Order. They can build these production centers, but get no benefits from them other than maybe some status, and prep for the day they do form a Military Order if they have a mind.

    What's left is a problem. How do you force a guild to fight an attacker? I suggest a running daily cost for being in war.

    Lot's of details need worked out, but I don't see a problem with that.
    There's also room to grow this to bigger heights, if UO wanted to.
    Player built cities with all the trimmings, trade routes and caravans and shipping lanes, farming?. And what about those relics and artifacts captured in games like Ages of Empires that help a city/civilization in some way?
     
  16. Gowron

    Gowron Guest

    Seems the poll numbers aren't showing there's a lot of support for this idea. I still have yet to see where I should change my mind. I still see this as not a good thing.
     
  17. Trebr Drab

    Trebr Drab Guest

    You're evidently right.

    But I'm having a hard time understanding why this is the case.

    This brings PvPers and non-PvPers together. It brings hardcore and casual gamers together. It makes one world that makes sense. It doesn't change anyone's play style, except for hardcore PKers and thieves, and it takes nothing away from UO outside of that while adding an entire social, economic, and political set of layers.

    Of course I do suggest that we lose the AoS items and extra skills that unbalanced the game so badly.
    I do suggest that we punish PKers who'd drive players away, just as they did before, just as they did in every game that allowed their play style. But that's, realistically, the only way you can include them at all.
     
  18. Coldren

    Coldren Sage
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    115
    Just thinking out loud (in text?) here...

    Unfortunately, it WOULD change people's playstyle. Look at it from a higher perspective.

    How it affects PvP-ers:

    There are now more players on the field, so to speak. This can be a good and bad thing. Good in that it's, you know, more people. It has the POTENTIAL to be bad because it's almost certain that some of these things will happen:

    A) They may find out how bad they are, or how poor they work in a team, get beaten to often, and leave. Just because some people do not chose to PvP doesn't mean they aren't good at it. Nothing worse from the perspecitve of a "wolf" than to be beaten by "sheep", or worse, to lose to a herd of them bonded together.

    B) More players, means more complaints. Think of all the complaints from PvE'ers about the Ricardo books - That was a quick recall in and read. Now imagine if those same people had an attachment to PvP. Balance issues, items, tactics, bugs, hacking - Can you imagine? For PvP, a constantly changing battlefield can be a nightmare, especially in an AoS UO where not only is the skill template important, but so is the millions of gold spent on Powerscrolls, stat scrolls, and equipment. The more things change, the more likely they are to get frustrated.

    C) It's been some time since PvP'ers really experienced any sort of REAL loss unless they were stupid or set themselves up for it intentionally. As I said, this system is great for the victors, but for the losers to constantly lose vast amounts of their time and resources in the the form of the war chest, it can be a short trip to /ragequit, or to a lopsided battlefield with only two very large divisions remaining and no diversity or room for anyone else, because they literally beat their competition into the poor house. (Incidentally, war declarations need to take into consideration size of the armies for each warring guild - Another big problem.)

    How this will affect PvE'ers:

    This one I think would be a little more obvious.

    A) There is a contingent in the PvE community who seems to think they are entitled to everything in the game, given to them on their terms, through their chosen, non-confrontational playsytle. Again, I point to Ricardo, but you can also look at Powerscroll issues as another example. You're now developing an entire system with a not-so-small component of it based on PvP, an element of UO they outright reject, again, except on their terms. They will take it as a personal affront, and unfortunately, even if this type is not the majority of the PvE community, PvE'ers are a majority of the community. Their needs and cries will be answered first and foremost.

    B) Most PvE'ers don't like to lose stuff. Any stuff. For any reason. Ever. Some would even argue that a game is supposed to be "relaxing" to them at all times, a never ending cathartic cycle of gather and spend, without any conflict, direction or meaning beyond what they give it. This is fine - It's their game, they can play it however they want. And given the current item-centric UO, this is sometimes understandable. Hence, they will not participate in any system where they stand to lose something, anything, based on another system the likely don't like in the first place.

    C) If my previous post were given consideration, and meaning of a larger scope was given, or even more, unique items were part of the plan.. They'd almost certainly view it as PvP'ers trying to force their play style on them, because there is no other reason these items should be there unless non-PvP'ers can get them, etc..


    I don't think it would bring them all together as much as we would both hope it would. Each side is too set in it's ways, for far to long, with way too much invested.

    Again, while I like the idea, I don't see this happening in any prod UO server, but a classic or custom shard where this was implemented at launch would have a chance.
     
  19. Trebr Drab

    Trebr Drab Guest

    Once again, thanks for a very worthwhile comment. Overall, I wanted discussion just like this. I said at the start, this idea is not complete, and I need help to work out the kinks.

    Well, yes. But is UO's play style now a good idea? Are people selectively ignoring what the Devs have said? Remember the things about convincing EA not to shut it down?


    But this system allows them to always be "in the game". They can opt out easily, or try to build to better capability, or even both at once.

    Again, they can opt out, even on a temporary basis, and back in.
    As far as complaints, more players complaining is a better thing than less players. Agreed? People will always complain. But if the game is good overall, I don't think they will leave. The question becomes, how happy are they and do they have the social bonds to stay. This gives them exactly that.

    Wait. I was afraid I left this impression, but by the time I realized this the thread seemed dead, so I didn't bother saying anything.
    A guild would not lose half it's resources in the War Chest. They'd lose half of what they make after being conquered. This leaves them with what they already have (minus the gold cost of the war that was put up, and maybe minus the daily cost? And they can sue for peace at any time at the cost of losing anyways, so avoid the daily cost if there is one.)
    The battlefield doesn't have to remain lopsided. They can seek allies if they don't already have them. It can become very political.

    Thanks for mentioning this.



    They don't have to join warfare. They can have a guild, they can have a War Chest as a guild vault. They just don't get the extra resources. They can have the special guild forges and atc., they just don;t get the extra resources. You tell me, who ends up with more resources, the guilds that join warfare or those that don't? That depends entirely on who can win at warfare. So non waring guilds end up somewhere in the middle.
    Again, complaints will always happen anyways. Should they just shut'er down now?

    Yeah, as above as far as participation.
    AS far as items, AoS is right up there with "wide open PvP" as far as "failed at it's core".

    I don't agree. I think this is exactly what UO needs to save it. I respect your opinion, it's well stated. Thank you. I hope I'm making some headway by answering.
    I would take it as a "custom shard" or for the game as a whole. I think this custom shard would end up being the primary shards, once people actually played it and saw the benefits of having a thriving game full of people who can choose their own style while playing along side of those who don't.

    And it's high time UO stops dividing their player base. That's the real cause of the personal conflicts, outside of a few die-hards that you'll always have trying to make any game all about themselves.
     
  20. Coldren

    Coldren Sage
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    115
    My pleasure. I enjoy conversations like this as well.

    You will not hear me claim that UO couldn't use a new mechanic such as this. What I do see as an issue is fitting this particular mechanic into an existing model. It's really a core model - a central point of contention that should be a pillar of gameplay, not an appendage added and adapted to. You'll find this will be a recurring statement from me, I'm sure. Well, that and I believe it's smaller in scope than it should be, i.e, need a bigger reason for this system other than simply making it an available option.


    They can already opt in/out of PvP now with Felluca. Perhaps your system would encourage opting in and out to try different things, but so far, if the only reward is guild oriented, and doesn't reward individual contributions, I don't see a lot of the item-centric, conflict-avoiding people participating in it.. Just like Factions now.

    Agreed.. Circumstantially. People will always complain. If they complain too much (And in this system, I'd bet money it would) it will be change substantially to accommodate the complaints. See Tram, AoS.

    And social bonds can easily be formed through PvE mechanics. The problem is, there is no PvE objective big enough or worthwhile enough for bonds to form. If you took everything in your idea (Guild vaults, city building, etc.) and stripped out the PvP, that would be far more palatable to most of the players.

    Don't you think it would be cool if there was a boss or objective so big that it'd take no less than 100 people to complete it? And it was worth it for everyone involved? Communities would start forming over night.


    Losing half or losing all, it doesn't really matter. Eventually, no matter how far they build it up, it can all come down. And again, it doesn't matter how much can be lost, it's the fact that ANYTHING can be lost that won't sit well with some players.

    And unless you have incentives to prevent it from being lopsided, it will be. I'd look at Eve as an example - As the bigger guilds dominate more and more, more people want to join. Why? They want to win.

    It's purely an issue of logistics. In very few games, especially non-class centric ones, numbers are what controls the fight. If the numbers are close, it's skill. Very rarely do small groups of talented players completely dominate overwhelming numbers. But more often than not, it's numbers.

    DAoC learned this the hard way, so they tried to provide incentive for players to create characters on underpopulated realms. It did help a little, but certainly didn't solve the problem. And they didn't learn from it either, as seen in WAR.



    Now let me ask you - We are both aware that PvP and warfare is probably not an aspect of UO that most current players enjoy. And for the sake of our discussion, let's limit it to the existing playerbase, as speculating how it would improve population would be relatively futile. If, as I suspect, most would use it just for this purpose - Why not just add those features and do away with warfare, which is a more complex system? How would the Dev's prioritize something like this when basing it on the current playerbase?

    I imagine like they've prioritized factions and other PvP elements.. Way, way down on the bottom. That last 5% of the speedhack fix must be a bugger.

    Obviously those that do join, but only those that win.

    Most players are independently wealthy (Or at least, have more liquid value than I'd ever achieve), so financing things won't be a problem. And if they can't lose the new structures and features of the city.. Why risk it?


    And i respect your opinion. We're not really disagreeing that the idea would be interesting and the premise is sound. What we disagree with is how it would be received by the majority of the community.

    If only we could find out, eh? :)

    It's really always been divided. You can't fault the devs for favoring the majority of "Me". Money is involved after all.
     
  21. Trebr Drab

    Trebr Drab Guest

    My replies in blue for ease.

    We disagree here as well, but it's a minor thing. It was what led to division that started the division, in my mind. And that's on the Devs. But they can't be faulted completely for the beginnings, I mean, who knew?

    But it's time to change all that, eh?
     
  22. Coldren

    Coldren Sage
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    115
    Just adding one quick point before I have to head out for the evening.

    PvP is *A* social mechanism, not *THE* only social mechanism.

    The reason it feels so bad after Tram was because once they stripped that away, they didn't fill the void with anything of equal value.

    There were no big raids on NPC cities or monsters. There were no cities to gather around and fund, repair, and maintain. There were was nothing to fill the void. Heck, closest thing to that is the collection for the zoo in Moonglow. And even then, there have been instances where server communities have formed to win that.. And in my perspective, it hardly seems worthwhile.

    Player controlled cities, with upkeep, taxes, politics, player territory control areas or dungeons for access, and rewards worth the investment would do wonders for this.. And it "Can" all be done without PvP.

    Not saying it "should", or that it wouldn't be better with a PvP influence, mind you. Just that it "Can".
     
  23. Trebr Drab

    Trebr Drab Guest

    Yes, it could be done without PvP. It wouldn't be as good overall. Whatever could be done for it without PvP could also be part of it with PvP and it would be better for it.
    But yes, you are right in that.
     
  24. Trebr Drab

    Trebr Drab Guest

    Ok Coldren, I've put some thought into where you seem to want to go. I'm taking the general principle of PvP from DAoC, and modifying it for UO and this idea.
    (Personal note: I don't like this as well because it goes away from the original ideals of UO, but I do think this would help make UO a great game again. And it may be much more acceptable than my idea, just as you've been saying.)

    Instead of allowing PvP in a more wide open sense like I had, lets look at it that way. Fight over something more specific, ala DAoC.

    We have these War Chests, lets keep that.
    We have Player guild houses owned by the guild. Lets keep that.
    We have beneficial bonuses to resource gathering and production, lets change that idea.

    Instead of bonuses for creating and joining a Military Order (which should stay as the PvP enabling switch?), lets allow bonuses for capturing something, ala DAoC.

    What these bonuses should be is a big question. I am completely against overwhelming bonuses, as that leads right back to the AoS and PSinFelucca types of problems. But they should none the less be very cool bonuses.

    What to capture? How about key places in Ilshenar, the Lost Lands, the Underworld, maybe even Fel.
    An example:
    One spot that comes to mind immediately is Terort Skitas, the Temple of Knowledge. In the uppermost level is that uninhabited library, and it has those 2 tomes in it. Capturing this place, and thus those tomes, could allow for the owning guild to make something special. If different places of capture and control offer varied gains to the guilds, this particular place would seem like a likely place to have one of the best bonuses.
    This place is almost made for this, if they block the means to teleport up there from outside. A warring guild would have to fight their way through that dungeon, and past any defenses set up by the owning guild, to even get to the library.

    The question becomes how to do the warfare, what with players not being on 24/7 to defend their holdings. And what determines "capture" and ownership? I didn't play that far in DAoC, but maybe there's an idea there.

    This could be even better than DAoC's system. It is widely accepted by all but rampant iKillU types as the best so far. And this could be better yet.

    Again, and we seem to agree on this, the AoS items in PvP make it unbalancing, gives a big bonus to heavy powergamers. That has to go if UO wants anything resembling a vibrant PvP environment.

    Now, what to do with PKing, justice, etc.?

    Note: If THIS idea gains traction, after we settle on some more details, I'll do a new poll with specifics.
    Come on players, get involved and make UO a great game that draws a million subs.
     
  25. Trebr Drab

    Trebr Drab Guest

    Actually, this latest idea added on top of my original idea would be great, in my opinion. I would love to get feedback on that too.
     
  26. Chalce

    Chalce Guest

    I think we should have a wide open PvP shard with full loot. Better yet, I think we need to find a way to get carebears back into Felluca.

    And as far as AOS items, instead of getting rid of them, we need to expand them. That's the only thing to do.
     
  27. Coldren

    Coldren Sage
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    115
    Sorry, late to the party, but I'm here! I'm just going to jump around here rather than reply to specific things, verbatim.

    This is very good idea. I could think of quite a few ideas that would make excellent objectives for "Capture and Hold" gameplay.

    - Like DAoC, access to a dungeon. Maybe this dungeon drops more of the lower level power scrolls more frequently on less-than-champ level bosses. Maybe it drops more gold, artifiacts, better fame, higher Honor reward, loyalty points, that sort of thing. You can only enter as long as your guild/faction posses it, and once you die and can't get rezzed inside, that's it. You need to capture the objectives again. The trick to this is, it's not about capturing just one thing, it's about owning MULTIPLE things - Bigger reward for greater effort.

    - Territorial control for access to mines and veins of rare resources
    - Reduced crafting costs by x% (LCC - Lower Crafting Cost - New stat!)
    - Reduced item durability loss by x%
    - Increased HCI/DCI/SDI/LMC/LRC/Name-Any-Stat-Here by x%
    - Increased chance for a successful cast by x%
    - Increased chance for a successful craft/enhancement by x%
    - Increased chance for an exceptional craft by x%
    - x% chance to harvest double resources in Tram, triple in Fel
    - x% chance to harvest a resource one level higher
    - Ability to recall into and out of Fel dungeons
    - +x to STR/Stam/Int
    - Reduced housing decoration cost by x%
    - Increased chance to tame a greater dragon by x%

    I could go on and on. The point is, that these kinds of bonuses, so long as you hold whatever objective they are tied to, need to be useful. Once you lose them, they're gone and whoever took them has them now.

    [Random Thought]You could look at the flip side, and if things are more available and powerful with a system like this, you can start chipping away at the need for insurance by making it easier to obtain them based on a collaborative in-game system.[/Random Thought]

    The x's don't have to be very large to get people interested in them, especially if it helps them give them that little edge over someone else, or beyond what is normally possible (DCI above cap, or some such).

    The problem of when to allow capture (Or do the warefare, as you stated it) is one that is and always will be a problem. In DAoC, capture of anything can happen any time. Now sometimes "Alarm Clock" raids happend - This is when, on a random evening some late hour at night, when few people were on, a realm would gather it's forces and take just about anything. This might sound like a bad thing, but actually, this is what makes it most interesting. When a realm did this, the other two realms made it a point to beat the offending realm down every opportunity they got until some form of equilibrium was restored. You really can't, nor should you, place any restrictions on "When". If a guild or faction wants to capture something of value that they KNOW other people will want, they best know what they're getting in to.

    And more than that, it's good that these things change hands, and change hands often for two reasons I can think of - It can be a point of pride to hold something longer than others, and it will prevent holding something from going "stale". In the above examples, what happens when you hold something to long, such as increased resource gathering? Eventually, you get your fill, and then you don't care anymore or you take it for granted. Once it's gone, you feel the sting.

    Finally, again, PvP is a good way to do this, but it isn't the only way. There's nothing stopping a program from randomly spawning NPC's that can recapture a point. (Assuming to capture something, you must destroy or kill something, which is the best way to do it). The defenses are still needed, there's still a constant threat, and it can still be a system free of PvP if the players chose to do so.

    Best way is to have both, really. :)

    Factions is capture and hold now, but it's of limited value and appeal, especially to non-PvP'ers. It has to be worthwhile for everyone to make it a viable system.
     
  28. Trebr Drab

    Trebr Drab Guest

    Coldren, here's my problem with that. It's too important. That means Zergs will dominate it, and that in turn means that other players will be left out in the cold, or forced to join the Zergs. That's bad news for a massive multiplayer game.

    Here's my thinking that led to the original idea.
    There's two primary parts of these games that players desire as a sign of success, power and wealth. There's a third that's not far behind, bragging rights.
    Power- If some players dominate it, the others are not happy at all. It doesn't matter if they "earned" it, nothing matters, when other players start to leave a game because they can't have an equal basis to play with.
    Wealth- This isn't as important in keeping players as long as it doesn't allow the purchase of power. And equally as long as all players feel they have an opportunity to get it to some degree or another. The possibility must be there for all, even if they never get where they want to be.
    Bragging rights- Only those who care about this care. Everybody else says "so what". They don't leave, as long as there's nothing more to it.

    What I'm trying to do with my original concept is a combination of making a system where these "rules" of mine are adhered to, to keep players, as well as create a system where the social aspects can evolve.
    That's why I've included a justice system as well as a basis for civilization, community. It's an entire package. It would work. For everybody, regardless of play style. It brings players of different play style together, instead of dividing them. It makes it "one world". It has meaning, yet doesn't have so much meaning that segments are left out.

    All my opinions, of course.
     
  29. Coldren

    Coldren Sage
    Stratics Veteran

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    Messages:
    741
    Likes Received:
    115
    More random thoughts:

    I understand what you're trying to accomplish. Really, I do. But in any, ANY, PvP-centric element, you can't get around numbers. Zergs will ALWAYS win, and unless you design something that renders numbers irrelevant, it will be a constant issue. DAoC is a prime example - The realm with the most players at the relic raid usually wins, unless they are badly mismanaged and uncoordinated.

    Power - Someone WILL always dominate. Just like now, where some guilds seem to have a monopoly on champ spawns in Fel. And it's not uncommon that people who can't be the best do tend to leave - This is also unavoidable in PvP-Centric mechanics.

    Wealth - If it can't purchase power, for the player or the faction there is no wealth. It's just currency. And players who want the power to continue to dominate will continue to protect it, and centralize the wealth.

    Bragging Rights - That's really all the current factions system provides. Does anyone care, even the factioneers?

    You have to put in controls from the get go. Make it so there is a ceiling to what one faction can obtain, and the more they obtain, the harder it gets to protect and keep. The top guilds/factions will always control the most powerful rewards, MOST of the time.

    That isn't to say it never changes hands - just that it takes a great deal of effort to do so.

    So honestly, with PvP as the focus, I don't see how you can achieve your ideal unless you put hard caps in place in the system. Maximum faction members, maximum guild size, etc...

    But then you have issue with players wanting to join a faction or guild, but can't.. Final Fantasy X showed that was a bad idea when it limited what server you could join based on population numbers. You had to buy tokens to be able to join it (When it first launched - not sure how it is now).
     
  30. Trebr Drab

    Trebr Drab Guest

    But that's the point. It should not be a PvP centric game. It should include PvP along side of trades/economy, exploration, and whatever else.

    I am rendering it irrelevant as much as possible, except to those who care. There's still a little link to everyone else, through their guild, if they choose to participate as a guild but not personally. It's a separation of PvPers yet with a link to non-PvPers who want to be some distant part of it.

    I do suspect that my idea needs more "need" in the warfare department to make non-PvPers a more important part of the overall guild picture, their success in war should be aided more by the non-PvP, civilian members. That's why somewhere up there I added something about wars costing on a per day basis, directly from the War Chest. But maybe non-PvPers should be able to gain extra resources too, added to the War Chest. Or maybe it would be better to find another way that the civilians can add to the war cause without having to directly participate.

    This is why my system makes it a non-issue. No power for it, just the fact of winning and the bragging rights. But it does more. If someone is constantly losing, they can join together with others to overcome the dominating forces. Allies. But it's still possible for one guild to organize and control the entire picture, either as a zerg or with allies. It just doesn't matter outside of that to everyone else as far as their personal game play goes.

    And again, this is why I've removed "power" from the picture. This is why I want this in and designed it for, a classic "based" shard. It just will never work when a few can dominate in any way, except for those few. As I said, that's bad news for any "massive multiplayer" game.
    Wealth should be about "rares", collections, show off art/lock downs, etc. Wealth should also be about the game of wealth, investing in things, building wealth, etc. Outside of power. This system can be used to enhance that greatly.

    Ya see, they can -to any degree they want- under my system.

    This will work for everyone and the game as a whole if given the chance.
    With the exception of those who just want to dominate everyone else in one form or another, and won't accept anything else.

    This is also a foundation. Ideas that add to it, things for guilds to use to build into cities, enhancements (outside of power) for those cities, politics, trade and caravans (for example, caravan routes could be a thing that wealth allows to be built).
     
  31. Trebr Drab

    Trebr Drab Guest

    And btw, Coldren, it may sound like I'm arguing with you, and it may sound like I'm doing it in anger if someone wants to picture it that way. I'm not angry at all. I am arguing with you though, heh. But I appreciate the argument so that we can both get our points out. It's more an "argument" like two lawyers presenting their cases.

    Edit:
    Screw it. This isn't going to happen, and I have better things to do than waste time on this crap any longer.