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

POTW - Consensual PvP

Discussion in 'UHall' started by Guest, May 10, 2004.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    disclaimer - This poll does not represent the views of Stratics, EA, their paid and unpaid employees, President Bush or her highness, Lady Diana. In short, I just made it up 5 minutes after waking up this morning, as you can probably tell.
     
  2. LadyDianaUO

    LadyDianaUO Guest

    *dubs Wilki24, Sir Wilki24*

    My views are my own, even if they are better than yours...
     
  3. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I can't answer that until "exciting, compelling and worthwhile" is defined. I'm still leaning towards "no," however.
     
  4. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Consider "exciting, compelling and worthwhile" to mean just that. Something that you find exciting, compelling and worthwhile. No, I don't have anything specific in mind... it is more of a general "what if?" type question.
     
  5. A sloppy poll really, everyone has their own likings and dislikes. It's a meaningless poll sort of speak. Who care what I like and I don't care what you dislike either.

    That you stated already exsited in UO.. guild sparring to the death and guild wars.

    So I can't really vote on this, sorry.
     
  6. Blondebeard

    Blondebeard Guest

    No non-consentual PvP might, under a more capable team (see: MIT geniouses), be theoretically be made to be both compelling and worthwhile, but exciting? Never. So I voted no.
     
  7. Guest

    Guest Guest

    The only thing that could replace PKing for me would be a working, maintained, expanded factions based on actual feedback from players, and the removal of the item based PvP system. Short of that, no. So is that a yes or a no? I don't understand the question.
     
  8. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I do not now, nor have I ever thought that Non-consentual PVP was fun. Mostly because I was on the Non-consentual side of it. I enjoy PVM and all my characters are set up to do just that... PVM.

    I do not own a single artifact and my armor is not all 70's. I carry slayers and bandages. If there were a non-consentual PvP "switch" or something to that effect, I would find myself in Fel to shop at vendor houses or maybe do some of those fel t-maps I have... if there isn't, I will shop in Tram and let my Fel maps sit a little longer.

    No skin off my nose.

    What burns my bacon is the posts from the Pro-PvP sect that will not be happy unless UO is all PK all the time. Why is there no compromise?
     
  9. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    What burns my bacon is the posts from the Pro-PvP sect that will not be happy unless UO is all PK all the time. Why is there no compromise?

    <hr></blockquote>
    The flip side of the coin, however, is those who admittedly don't even visit Felucca, who still have issues with the way things are done there. Not in any way saying you do it, but both your and my examples get extremely old.
     
  10. "Yes"

    I get no satisfaction from being in a group that takes out an individual, and I've never been too keen on the irritation of going grayscale because someone else was bored and saw a guy in a robe.

    It's never a matter of proving anything over someone else, until after the corpse is down, and the group gathers to mock the ghost and chase it to catch it after the res.
     
  11. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I don't have a problem with Fel being Fel. I just don't go anymore...

    I don't go because of people ganking you as you browse a vendor house or as you step through a moongate. It has happened to me more often than I care to admit. That just isn't fun for me.

    I know there are people out there that have a great time doing that, and I don't have a problem with it. I am just not sure why people are so opposed to a switch.

    I can't imagine anyone who is a PvP'er turning it off... I can't imagine anyone who is a PvM'er turning it on. Would it not turn out the same as it is now with the added bonus of PvP's being able to fight in all facets?
     
  12. NorCal

    NorCal Guest

    I agree with both Dosa and Fuddrucker on this one.
    <blockquote><hr>

    What burns my bacon is the posts from the Pro-PvP sect that will not be happy unless UO is all PK all the time. Why is there no compromise?

    <hr></blockquote>
    I agree with that, but I also agree with Fuddrucker.
    <blockquote><hr>

    The flip side of the coin, however, is those who admittedly don't even visit Felucca, who still have issues with the way things are done there. Not in any way saying you do it, but both your and my examples get extremely old.

    <hr></blockquote>
    Both of you are right. Why does it have to be one or the other. Also what is so bad about the way it is now? By the way I had to vote no.
     
  13. Liquid_Ape

    Liquid_Ape Guest

    There is NO non-consensual PvP. You go to Fel, you give your consent.
     
  14. Blondebeard

    Blondebeard Guest

    What burns my bacon is people who want to impose the switch. They call it PvP anywhere when they really mean trammel in felucca. Non-consentual PvP only for those who consent to it *laughs*
     
  15. PizzaDude

    PizzaDude Guest

    I can't answer either - it's to vague.

    But I like PK's in UO. If they were removed altogether, I don't know how enthusiastic i could be... about PvP.
     
  16. Balazar

    Balazar Seasoned Veteran
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    Messages:
    383
    Likes Received:
    0
    <blockquote><hr>

    I know there are people out there that have a great time doing that (pk-ing other players), and I don't have a problem with it. I am just not sure why people are so opposed to a switch.


    <hr></blockquote>
    The reason is because a pk switch will, for all pratical purposes, end grief-based pking.
     
  17. Blondebeard

    Blondebeard Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    The reason is because a pk switch will, for all pratical purposes, end grief-based pking.

    <hr></blockquote>

    Trammel did that. Pking in felucca is just an accepted risk. The reason is because felucca is considered the land where you non-consentually PvP and there are elements trying to make it consentual everywhere but Seige and Mugen.
     
  18. Justy

    Justy Guest

    I'm afraid that is not true in the least. I go to Fel for the double resources or the champ spawns, not because I consent to PvP. So, no I am not consenting a red to come and upset my apple-cart. Ganking is simple banditry, without being able to permenantly kill the bandit in self-defense. Good versus evil in the classic sense does not exist in Fel because there is no permenant death.

    I would PvP if it were dueling, and not ganking or griefing. An aggressive PvPer could issue a challenge to another character. The "victim" could then choose to defend his honor or refuse. This acceptance or refusal could then influence the all but forgotten viture system. You accept the challenge and gain in honor. You refuse and lose honor but gain in humility. You could be labelled a "coward" for refusing a duel but it will allow to leave with your skin intact.
     
  19. Balazar

    Balazar Seasoned Veteran
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    Messages:
    383
    Likes Received:
    0
    <blockquote><hr>

    There is NO non-consensual PvP. You go to Fel, you give your consent.


    <hr></blockquote>
    That works for now, but the Devs have hinted that they would like to "reunite" Fel and Tram. If that is the case, then we will need to look at how to deal with thieves, pks, blue pks, blockers, monster lurers, looters, scammers, and other grief-based play styles.

    As long as Tram and Fel have different rules, the Moongates are (and should be) the pk/thief switch. But if we go to one single set of rules, then you need to address consentual vs. non-consentual play styles.
     
  20. Balazar

    Balazar Seasoned Veteran
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    Messages:
    383
    Likes Received:
    0
    <blockquote><hr>

    Trammel did that. Pking in felucca is just an accepted risk. The reason is because felucca is considered the land where you non-consentually PvP and there are elements trying to make it consentual everywhere but Seige and Mugen.

    <hr></blockquote>

    I completely agree with you, Blondebeard. However, the Devs are hinting that they wish to reunite the two facets into one single system. If that is true, then we will have to address consensual vs non-consentual play styles.
     
  21. Guest

    Guest Guest

    the switch to consentual pvp is already there. its called a moongate. is this some made up poll for flamecatching ?
     
  22. Guest

    Guest Guest

    could you show me the quote where the devs said they want to reunite trammel and felucca please.
     
  23. LadyDianaUO

    LadyDianaUO Guest

    He's saying that the devs want to re-unite Trammel and Felucca, under one ruleset.

    They have said this in numerous HoC chat sessions.
     
  24. Merlock

    Merlock Guest

    If they remove player killing from the game, I quit.

    Non-consentual PvP (Felucca &amp; Siege) made Ultima Online what it was back in the day, and if they take that away, they have completely taken away everything I play for.
     
  25. Blondebeard

    Blondebeard Guest

    Justy: What's the use of double resource etc. if there's no danger? You accept the risks for the greater reward. Saying you accept the double reward but dont consent the non-con PvP is pretty silly.

    LadyDianaUO:
    And me and a number of board members will simply raise a stink about it constantly and endlessly in the hopes that they forget the silly idea. :p
     
  26. Justy I think you've missed th point, going to Fel IS consenting to pvp. You state why you go to fel, double resources and champ spawns (essentially power scrolls), the reason those things exist in fel, is because of the non-con pvp. We are the risk you must take if you want to get those rewards, if PKs leave fel, so should champ spawns and double resources.


    I'm not bashing you or anyone that prefers the trammel way of life. Thats your choice, just as it is my choice to play in fel and have my non-con way of life.

    For the record as a few people have said in this post. If you think about it we do have a switch trammel/fel, by going to fel you CONSENT to the knowledge that it is a non-con pvp area, and you take that risk.

    Al Roker Napa Valley
     
  27. Radium

    Radium Guest

    No I wouldn't be happy with any sort of non consensual pvp.We allready have 3 facets devoted to that!
     
  28. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    I am just not sure why people are so opposed to a switch.

    I can't imagine anyone who is a PvP'er turning it off... I can't imagine anyone who is a PvM'er turning it on.

    <hr></blockquote>
    But what about those who choose to PvP until they realize they've bitten off more than they can chew? The same people who will be crippled by the house-hiding and guardzone changes? What do they do?


    NorCal:
    <blockquote><hr>

    Both of you are right. Why does it have to be one or the other. Also what is so bad about the way it is now?

    <hr></blockquote>
    Like I said at the end of my last post:
    "but both your and my examples get extremely old."


    Balazar:
    <blockquote><hr>

    The reason is because a pk switch will, for all pratical purposes, end grief-based pking.

    <hr></blockquote>
    No, the reason is because a PvP switch would, for all intents and purposes, increase the amount of griefing in Felucca. Currently these people can be kept in check through the more conventional method of just killing them until they stop, if that were removed, you're left with a playerbase that has proven itself very immature (uo in general, not any facet specifically) that has absolutely no way to defend itself, aside from running to mommy (paging a GM).
     
  29. NorCal

    NorCal Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    That works for now, but the Devs have hinted that they would like to "reunite" Fel and Tram. If that is the case, then we will need to look at how to deal with thieves, pks, blue pks, blockers, monster lurers, looters, scammers, and other grief-based play styles.

    <hr></blockquote>
    That is my biggest fear about "reuniting" Fel and Tram because it will make all of UO Trammel rules. I wouldn't want to play UO like that. By "dealing" it sounds like you mean remove. PKs, noto PKs, thieves and looters all have a place in UO and they have since the beginning. If they are removed from the game then it won't be the UO I love anymore.

    As far as scammers and monster lurers they are more of a problem in Trammel than Fel. I don't see many people getting scammed at the WBB in Fel and there isn't a problem with monster luring in Fel spawns. If someone wants to kill you in Fel they can they don't have to lure.
     
  30. Rand Al Thor

    Rand Al Thor Guest

    This is already in place. Its called Felucca. If you don't want to PvP, then you don't go to Felucca. Pretty simple, why do we need anything else?
     
  31. Guest

    Guest Guest

    If pk'ing is taken away from UO, I instantly shut down my guildstone and 5 accounts. I can pretty much assure you that the 70+ ppl/accounts that are also on my guildstone would also quit.
     
  32. I am a little surprised at this poll.

    How about this for a poll:

    "Would you be happy if there were no tamers in game if herding was made to be exciting, compelling and worthwhile"?

    How can it be ok to suggest that a class of players be kicked out of UO as long as another remotely related class is spruced up?

    *shakes head*

    So I supposed it is ok to force tamers to be herders?/php-bin/shared/images/icons/crazy.gif

    Think!
     
  33. Balazar

    Balazar Seasoned Veteran
    Stratics Veteran Stratics Legend

    Joined:
    May 9, 2004
    Messages:
    383
    Likes Received:
    0
    <blockquote><hr>

    That is my biggest fear about "reuniting" Fel and Tram because it will make all of UO Trammel rules. I wouldn't want to play UO like that. By "dealing" it sounds like you mean remove. PKs, noto PKs, thieves and looters all have a place in UO and they have since the beginning. If they are removed from the game then it won't be the UO I love anymore.


    <hr></blockquote>
    I can appreciate your views. But, if (and it's a big if) the Devs really intend to "reunite" the two rule sets into one, then it's more likely that the united rule set be more Trammel-like and less Felucca-like.

    <blockquote><hr>

    As far as scammers and monster lurers they are more of a problem in Trammel than Fel. I don't see many people getting scammed at the WBB in Fel


    <hr></blockquote>
    OSI's official policy is to ban monster lurers and scammers that pratice their "skills" in Trammel. The fact they don't do a good job policing and banning the Trammel griefers doesn't detract from the fact that scammers and lurers are not allowed in Trammel (scamming is still ok in Fel though).

    <blockquote><hr>

    ...and there isn't a problem with monster luring in Fel spawns. If someone wants to kill you in Fel they can they don't have to lure.

    <hr></blockquote>

    In the "good old days", where Trammel didn't exist, monster luring was a tried-and-true tactics of blue pks. Many players (especially newbies) were victims of such ploy. Other favored blue pk tactics were blocking and well-timed walls of stone. Oh them good old days... it was griefer heaven.
     
  34. AuToPsY

    AuToPsY Guest

    PKing IS Exciting, Compelling &amp; Worthwhile

    You cant duel all the time. It gets repetitive. Guild Wars get old (but this is because its the same enemy over &amp; over), Factions get old (same reason as Guild Wars),

    Hanse's PvP?
    THAT was fun.
     
  35. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Non Consensual PvP shaped UO.

    It is one of the factors that differentiated it from EverQuest. Non Con PvP adds a challenge to the game that no monster can ever be coded to match. No puzzle or quest can match the player skill from Antis looking for ways to beat Pk's and Pk's looking for ways around them.

    Currently, there is one facet were Non Consensual PvP is allowed. This is no different from any of the other games out now (See Daoc, FFXI) The only pvp allowed is in a controlled PVP zone. True Non Consensual PvP does not exist anymore. Noone has any reason to enter Felucca if they don't want to PvP.

    If they want doubled resources, players need to respect the risks associated with them.

    If they want powerscrolls, players have the choice of farming gold in safety and buying them, or taking the risk of competing for them.

    There is no need to eliminate the defining point of UO. Doing so can only hurt the game.
     
  36. PizzaDude

    PizzaDude Guest

    WTF!

    Your sig! That blue dude in the middle is the black belt from the First Final Fantasy on the First Nintendo!!!

    Have Bahamut Transform that little fella into the Ninja, and he'd be the best PK this game ever seen!

    Oh, the fond memories...
     
  37. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I do not think there would be excitement without PKs, though pvp seems to have lost some of its heart - I dont think it could be replaced by ending PKs though. People who know the game want the game to be more similar to T2A or before - people who like to pvp also like reds, one way or the other - they are the challenge, both to keep and to destroy. And with the new publish, reds will be able to go into Fel towns like on Siege. Should be interesting.
     
  38. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I still do everything in Felluca. although since facet recall there are few shops left. PvP and Pking can be a lot of fun. Sadly there is a current crop of PK'rs out there that seem to get their kicks out of killing for killing sake. I dunno but killing miners over and over is not PvP.

    In previous versions of UO, you had to make a carefull decision if you were gonna attack someone. Could you afford another count. As a miner or lumberjack you could feel rather secure, a red might kill you once. But if you had no valuables on you, he wouldn't mess with you again.

    Also 50% of success/failure in PvP is based on youir connection and the leetness of your computer gear. Skills and Arti's are only a small part of the experience.

    Just my 0.0002 cents
     
  39. Ghosty

    Ghosty Guest

    I voted no.

    Mind you, I do not PvP, in fact I completly stink at it. It's not that I don't find it fun, it's just that I tend to lose a lot. ;-)

    No one likes getting ganked, especially by opportunistic PKs who purposely look for those victims they're sure they can take out quickly and cleanly. This isn't villiany, it's griefing.

    That said, however, it would be a real shame to remove non-con PvP from UO. I insist that there must be a way for players to play independant villionous types without inviting grief-play. The fact that there is no permanant death ...

    ... hmm. You know, maybe, just maybe, permanant death *could* be an option for those who seek to live the life of red crime. Imagine being a red who *survives* ... the glory, the respect of your peers. Not to mention the questing blues out to get your head on a spike. Permanantly. Ahh, but the red might have advantages the blues don't have ...

    I'm babbling. For now, non-con PvP in Fel gets my vote to stay.
     
  40. Al Jihad

    Al Jihad Guest

    "bandit"'s as you put it, are what make it exciting. I mine in fel for the double resources -and- for the possible excitment of a fight. I wouldn't mine in trammel if it were tripple resources, I would wake up with key's imprinted on my face, and would then probably go stub my toe for something to do.

    Now that's my preferance. I mean, I enjoy crafting, I enjoy monster bashing, but I only enjoy it in moderation. I enjoy it even more if it gets broken by a spur of the moment fight.

    exp, ebolt, jog, exp, ebolt, jog, exp, ebolt, jog, mini heal, med, jog, med, exp, mb, loot is only interesting for about 10 minutes. You die, you res, you double click your body, and continue the tread mill.

    At least, when you get ganked, you need to go grab a couple supplies, maybe a few guildmates, and head back out.
     
  41. Rand Al Thor

    Rand Al Thor Guest

    I have to agree with you Fud,,,I think a switch of any type would only add grief to the game. I think a switch would destroy UO.... PvP is like the last link in UO. Players start out in Tram PvM'ing, then they graduate over to Felucca looking for something other than a mindless monster to fight. If EA would focus putting the checks and balances back in Felucca like they where ment to be, drop insurance and stop catering to the item based crowd and allow the casual gamer to be able to compete in Pvp. Bring back some good ole Risk Vs Reward... Felucca would over populate once again.
     
  42. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Close race I must say. Look like it's time to make all facets non con PvP /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif

    Sorry for making a thread with a mod poll, I just want to see if there also are 50 who would accept all facets with non con PvP
     
  43. TSD

    TSD Guest

    A biased and misleading Poll. When you click that moongate and hit Felucca, you've consented /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif
     
  44. TSD

    TSD Guest

    They couldn't do that. I'm afraid I'd singlehanded drive UOs subscriber base down by 10% in 2 days.
     
  45. Gareth420

    Gareth420 Guest

    Yes very close which means that pvp is not as important as some make it out to be. So there are a few vocal pvp types on these boards thats np. If they made it so there is a pvp switch both facets would be utilized and more people would come to UO to replace those who quit. Also there is siege for those players who wish for a total non-con enviorment. Only problem is on siege there are no sheep to slaughter hence noone wants to play there who is a random pk.
     
  46. Newman

    Newman Guest

    I voted yes simply for one reason: PvP is gankfest right now. Its really lame. I used to be in factions, I used to do chaos/order, I used to do guild wars. The problem is that none of these people that oppose you will come out when they dont have fellow guildmembers on to travel with. How often do you see a SINGLE faction member roaming the streets of Fel? Almost never, and if you do, you can almost guarantee that hes DAMN good.

    You rarely see lone reds anymore. Yes, I have seen some, and they are good honorable people, and when you fight back, they show respect and will res you and will generally not dry loot. Those are the honorable ones, the ones that go solo.

    Then you have the "moongate" PKs.... need I say more?

    I think this is an excellent spot to insert OSI's old Duel system for the virtues as someone mentioned above. THAT would be PvP... one on one (or even two on two) with consequences, but that you know that their buddy isnt going to jump out of a house and heal him, or block you, or offer that final Ebolt that knocks you to the dirt.

    Actual PvP with RULES? **GASP** Could it ever be possible?

    I doubt it... but one can only hope...
     
  47. Guest

    Guest Guest

    What makes UO such a great game with so many varying points of view all of which are backed up by strong passion?

    Answer: Depth and choice.

    Inifying the rulset seems like a logical choice on the surface but peel away the candy coating and expose the underlying truths.

    Truth 1: unifying rulsets removes both depth and choice.
    Truth 2: lack of depth and choice make for easier boredom.
    Truth 3: Everyone knows the differences between Felucca and Trammel. We all know we can't act the same obnoxious way in Felucca we do in Trammel while we monster bash.
    Truth 4: There are already PvP switches built into UO. In fact several of them.
    Factions
    Order/Chaos
    Player guilds
    Felucca/Trammel
    You can turn anyone of those off and on as the need arises. Ending those abilities just to make new abilities that peel away the depth and chioces we have already is completely illogical.

    I could most likely list several more truths in the list above but if you are open minded enough to receive truth you know that a "switch" or complete removal of non-consentual PvP is a poor idea.

    The single most irritating aspect of non-consentual PvP is the loss of items. Items are way to hard to replace and as necessary as paying your monthly UO subscription to be decent or good at PvP. Insurance is a bandage on the truth there is a lack of appropriate items in the game.

    Until I gave this issue lots and lots of thought this past weekend I would not have said the following - Leave Felucca alone!
     
  48. Guest

    Guest Guest

    "WTF!

    Your sig! That blue dude in the middle is the black belt from the First Final Fantasy on the First Nintendo!!! "

    And my avatar is thief from the same ^^
     
  49. Guest

    Guest Guest

    <blockquote><hr>

    Yes very close which means that pvp is not as important as some make it out to be.

    <hr></blockquote>

    Hmm, 50% unhappy if no non con PvP, 50% happy with consent only PvP.
    If I remember right from one of my old polls, only 10% do not want to PvP at all.
    To me it look like PvP is very important in UO.

    <blockquote><hr>

    So there are a few vocal pvp types on these boards thats np.

    <hr></blockquote>

    Do vocal types get more than one vote?

    <blockquote><hr>

    If they made it so there is a pvp switch both facets would be utilized and more people would come to UO to replace those who quit.

    <hr></blockquote>

    You are dreaming, there is enough of consent PvP games out there. All are screaming for a perfect non con PvP game.

    <blockquote><hr>

    Also there is siege for those players who wish for a total non-con enviorment.

    <hr></blockquote>

    Siege is not total non con PvP, we all consent to it. Second we do have alot unwriten rules to control it. Alot PK guilds had tryed to own Siege only to be gone a month after they went red. An old DF PK once told me, players do not die easy here, also his guild left Siege again.

    <blockquote><hr>

    Only problem is on siege there are no sheep to slaughter hence noone wants to play there who is a random pk.

    <hr></blockquote>

    You do not know what you speak about, we do have alot more sheeps than wolves. Problem is, not many want to pay same fee for one char as they pay for 5 on regular shards and they hate to walk insted of recall. /php-bin/shared/images/icons/smile.gif
     
  50. AuctionMan

    AuctionMan Guest

    Hey, Im with the reds on this one... THis is how we do it!!!
    Leave PVP the way it is... CHANGE NOTHING IN THE FIGHTING SYSTEM!! Leave casting the same too!!!

    But....

    move double ore mining to tram, and malas, and ilsh. and make champions spawn in trammel.

    House Fighting changes comming up are great.

    the truth of the matter is this...

    If you dont do all the stuff i suggested, then make pvp consentual only, if players want non consentual pvp, then let em join a warring guild. there is already something set up for that. UO is giving to much power to the red, going into town now? PVP (red vs blue) is so unbalanced now, lets face it, yew gate on every shard is where the pvp is, what red cant pk in the gate area?

    MY VOTE??? A BIG FAT YES.
    i have to say that the changes they are comming up with are the best changes in UO in a long time. lets face it, AOS was a disaster, and these few changes i hear about: such as insurance, house hiding, and consentual pvp, in hand with casting caps and a few more things are the first signs of a true appoligy i have ever seen from UO. and i gladly accept it.