Non-Consensual PvP for the new Legacy Shard

psycho

There will be places you can only go if you in PvP.

Its risk versus reward, its not like you can run around everywhere on a blue char and be immortal, oh maybe theres a group of 5 Ogres that teams up versus you, or  7 Ettins comes in run down the dungeon from first level to clean all,  beware of that Harpy shes a real resskiller, and oh be aware of that gargoyle might steal your silver vanq katana, oh that thrill and excitment, the gargoyles ettins and ogres!!!

Its not possible, there will be pvp and other players killing/stealing in risk versus reward.

Only way would be to avoid those places, but then youll risk losing out of the great rewards.

Seth

Back to the original post, my choice is:

Non-Consensual with no insurance (exactly like it was pre-Trammel)

This is assuming it is less dependent on items and skills.

Since it is going to get wiped each year, there is limited time to train and equip the same way as we did on Prodo shard. Starting on a clean shard without transfers will take years to train and equip from scratch assuming its the same type of equipment.

So I think for real PVP on legacy to work, it must be

1) less dependent on items,

2) have shortened training period.

If you need insurance, I think might as well play in current shard. We don't lose anything when killed, why another shard.

JohnKnighthawke

Cookie said:

JohnKnighthawke said:

Play Siege.  Also, UO survived the pre-Trammel era only due to a relative lack of competition.  That no longer is the case now.

Not true at all.

UO created it's true legacy at that point in time, which was crushed and turned soulless by becoming commercialised.

My statement was, and remains, accurate.  Inconvenient for you and inaccurate are not the same thing.  And the voice of your side being super-loud doesn't make it accurate either.

TastyTreats

Smoot said:

without full pvp, all the problems that pvp solves will still go on.   spawn camping.  unattended macroing.  multibox farming. 

i foresee 10-20 character multibox account groups (pvp toggle off) farming mobs for gold, filling the housing with castles within the week, then selling those castles and other items for cash.

Ok but why would anyone buy a castle that has a 1 year lifespan for cash?

Why would anyone waste time multiboxing farming gold that in 1 year will either be lost to the cataclysm or just added to an already outrageous economy on live shards.

If done right opt-in PvP can work and still appeal to old time vets. The one issue we would have is appealing to players from free shards with only a seasonal offering. I think they should also add a permanent shard alongside the seasonal one that has no VvV but instead Non Consensual PvP everywhere.

Seth

Jepeth said:

I truly think the Legacy shard concept has a ton of potential and I would offer accolades for what it can bring to the game. https://forum.uo.com/discussion/7382/thoughts-on-our-new-legacy#latest

Good stuff, I would congrats after a good legacy shard is created and rolled out after considering all user feedback. I would not open the bottle of champagne yet.

Cookie

"Basically UO was ahead of it's time, and the worldwide technology platform to make UO accesible to the masses only became available at the same time as Trammel. WoW was the real game to benefit by coincidence of timing of course, and rolling out a completely cohesive product at exactly the right time.

You can't always believe statistics, or the people who shout the loudest and play the victims all the time."

I'm from the UK, do you know what it was like playing UO in the early days in the UK?

It's not something I could admit to anyone I did. I'd had a couple of major sporting accidents that laid me up for a year, almost paralysed me, I got better in the end, but in the meantime, I got addicted to UO and it's been a huge and fun influence in my life. Although I probably admit, I've done very well in life, but god knows what I could have achieved without UO.  

Playing UO, in the early days, in the UK culture, was like having a mental illness. No-one could comprehend. Being a gamer wasn't a thing, it meant you were a serious loser and nerd, before people like me made those terms really cool and normalised them.

Times, viewpoints, and technology were very different in those days. Competition was a good thing, unlike today, where it's become frowned upon, and the concept of winners and losers is not the done thing, because it suggests everyone is not equal. The truth is, everyone is not equal, nature is cruel, UO at it's finest acknowledged this. UO captured the very real struggle that was life.

keven2002

Bilbo said:

Well said @ Lady_Storm
We already have a Non-Con Shard and they refuse to play it so why would we make another Non-Con shard just to appease a select few. If you want PvP then join VvV and kill all the other VvV people, stop asking for more SHEEP

I could say the same thing about we already have 25 Consensual shards and all but a few are dead so why should they make another shard similar rules? 

Seth said:

Back to the original post, my choice is:

Non-Consensual with no insurance (exactly like it was pre-Trammel)

This is assuming it is less dependent on items and skills.

Since it is going to get wiped each year, there is limited time to train and equip the same way as we did on Prodo shard. Starting on a clean shard without transfers will take years to train and equip from scratch assuming its the same type of equipment.

So I think for real PVP on legacy to work, it must be

1) less dependent on items,

2) have shortened training period.

If you need insurance, I think might as well play in current shard. We don't lose anything when killed, why another shard.

This 100%.

Btw with over 300 views, only 24 people have voted and it's still over 50% in favor of doing non consensual PvP and no insurance.

Bilbo

@Smoot do you think anybody is going to be stupid enough to buy a house when it will be wiped, you really need to use your brain.

As far as non-con PvP with no insurance goes if you think it is so great then please do us all a favor and delete all your prodo shards chars and only play on SP.

keven2002

Bilbo said:

As far as non-con PvP with no insurance goes if you think it is so great then please do us all a favor and delete all your prodo shards chars and only play on SP.

I think you are missing the main point that the gear now-a-days pretty much is the difference between fighting top level content and low level content. If we were to do away with all legendary armor and go back to the basic NPC/Crafted/GM Armor where it's all replaceable then there is no need for insurance.

Nobody wants to lose an item it took them a month to finally get. If all the weapon & armor is readily available for anyone to get then what is your issue with removing insurance?

Pawain

keven2002 said:

I think you are missing the main point that the gear now-a-days pretty much is the difference between fighting top level content and low level content. If we were to do away with all legendary armor and go back to the basic NPC/Crafted/GM Armor where it's all replaceable then there is no need for insurance.

Nobody wants to lose an item it took them a month to finally get. If all the weapon & armor is readily available for anyone to get then what is your issue with removing insurance?

That would be fun for about a week.

Smoot

TastyTreats said:

Smoot said:

without full pvp, all the problems that pvp solves will still go on.   spawn camping.  unattended macroing.  multibox farming. 

i foresee 10-20 character multibox account groups (pvp toggle off) farming mobs for gold, filling the housing with castles within the week, then selling those castles and other items for cash.

Ok but why would anyone buy a castle that has a 1 year lifespan for cash?

Why would anyone waste time multiboxing farming gold that in 1 year will either be lost to the cataclysm or just added to an already outrageous economy on live shards.

If done right opt-in PvP can work and still appeal to old time vets. The one issue we would have is appealing to players from free shards with only a seasonal offering. I think they should also add a permanent shard alongside the seasonal one that has no VvV but instead Non Consensual PvP everywhere.

i didnt get the impression the whole shard would be wiped once a year.

if thats true, i dont know why anyone would bother playing there in the first place

they way i understood it, was that after a year of playing on the new shard, the player had the option to transfer to a production shard (but wasnt required to)

Pawain

i didnt get the impression the whole shard would be wiped once a year.
if thats true, i dont know why anyone would bother playing there in the first place

they way i understood it, was that after a year of playing on the new shard, the player had the option to transfer to a production shard (but wasnt required to)

Q: What happens with the Shattering?  Why should I spend any time on a shard that is going to ultimately reset all of my progress?

Ultima Online: New Legacy is about forging your new Britannian Legacy!  While things like the economy and the game world will be reset during the Shattering, players will have an entire year to forge that legacy!  In-game items and events will serve as mementos to that legacy that will be experienced by generations to come.  This is your chance to write your character’s place into Britannia’s history!

Q: Will I be able to transfer to/off of the Ultima Online: New Legacy shard?

Players will not be able to transfer to the Ultima Online: New Legacy shard.  At the conclusion of the Shattering characters will be able to transfer off the Ultima Online: New Legacy shard keeping all their skill, stat, and legacy progress they earned to shards with available character slots.  Non-shard bound items and items earned via the Legacy System can also be transferred off.

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

It is a very popular way to play in other online games. UO is just a few years behind.

Norry

Yeah, lots to read, didnt read them all. People keep asking about seige, but a retro shard isnt the same.

Limited skill gain

Limited character slots

8x gold cost

So on so forth

Many people want a classic shard that we began on. Partly for the true sandbox feel, and partly for memories, the commraderie.

Things werent as complex then(except tinkering), and the sense of danger was real.

Bilbo

A classic UO Pre-Tram with rampant killing will not bring in any new players to main UO, this will be a total waste of time and energy.

Seth

The legacy shard is not meant to be a persistent server to play on and replace our persistent characters on prodo shard, which is why its wiped each year. 

Even while I keep my production shard account to play, I also played pure PVP in other games where we die often but also kill just as much, or maybe more or less depending on how good you are. 

Seth

keven2002 said:

Btw with over 300 views, only 24 people have voted and it's still over 50% in favor of doing non consensual PvP and no insurance.

I think most players are indifferent, taking a wait-and-see attitude.

I keep reminding myself that it is wiped every year - very different concept for a MMO. Does anyone know of any other MMO having such server?

It feels like Test Center to me, which is also "wiped" as and when required. The reason why I proposed what I did with PVP games like Counterstrike etc and having Test Center concept for equipping and training, is because this server is wiped every year.

Just get me into the game, equip up, run to my team and start the war. (not train, grind for equipment like production shard)

Pawain

Seth said:

I keep reminding myself that it is wiped every year - very different concept for a MMO. Does anyone know of any other MMO having such server?

Yes people have said it at least 5 times. Many online games have seasons.  They are for usually 3 months and that season ends. Server is gone toons go to your toon collection to play the regular game.  Diablo III has been doing it for years. Most players play Seasons and not the regular game.

UO did not come up with this idea first. They are years behind.  I think a year is too long.

Many have very quick character building and equipment gathering so you have fun advancing in difficulty and finding better items to replace what you have.

TimSt

New Legacy will also have PvM. Without insurance your armour and weapons can be taken by a mob. Plus there is this scenario: Get killed deep in a dungeon, walk outside to find a healer, you are without any armour or weapons after you get rezed.  If you don't have an undertaker's staff you will need to go back into the dungeon armourless and weaponless to find your corpse. Only to get killed along the way.

Cookie

TimSt said:

New Legacy will also have PvM. Without insurance your armour and weapons can be taken by a mob. Plus there is this scenario: Get killed deep in a dungeon, walk outside to find a healer, you are without any armour or weapons after you get rezed.  If you don't have an undertaker's staff you will need to go back into the dungeon armourless and weaponless to find your corpse. Only to get killed along the way.

It was all part of needing other players.

It was not all meant to be solo'ed.

The main difference 20 years has made to social attitudes, and reflected in UO, is life used to be about teamwork, competition, self improvement and learning real talents - now it's all mememe, having everything given to people for no effort or deservedness and getting by with no real lifeskills. That's why they are called millennials, but of course it's not just them, it's the entire society teaching them to be like that, from their schooling, social media, ground-roots gaming upwards. Interestingly enough, parents see it, and don't agree, but they are swamped by societies red tape and regulations put in place by those who don't have a clue.

Monopoly or Chess don't stand a chance in todays world.

Max_Blackoak

I find it interesting that the majority of players in this poll voted for non-consensual PvP.
Seems like the very vocal group of players who are against non-consensual PvP are truly a minority, a vocal one but still a minority.
I really hope the devs take this into account.

Seth

Pawain said:

Seth said:

I keep reminding myself that it is wiped every year - very different concept for a MMO. Does anyone know of any other MMO having such server?

Yes people have said it at least 5 times. Many online games have seasons.  They are for usually 3 months and that season ends. Server is gone toons go to your toon collection to play the regular game.  Diablo III has been doing it for years. Most players play Seasons and not the regular game.

UO did not come up with this idea first. They are years behind.  I think a year is too long.

Many have very quick character building and equipment gathering so you have fun advancing in difficulty and finding better items to replace what you have.

Oh I heard but did not play Diablo. We should use these successful examples as reference for the Legacy shard. I did not notice any mentions in any recent Legacy thread. There is no need to reinvent the wheels, just need to see what works and adapt to UO. 

Seth

Max_Blackoak said:

I find it interesting that the majority of players in this poll voted for non-consensual PvP.
Seems like the very vocal group of players who are against non-consensual PvP are truly a minority, a vocal one but still a minority.
I really hope the devs take this into account.

I think when we login to pvp servers, we already consented to pvp ... It will be sad if there is no other players around to pvp.

In persistent servers, we are not always in a pvp mode, but adventuring or hunting mode in pve.

keven2002

Cookie said:

TimSt said:

New Legacy will also have PvM. Without insurance your armour and weapons can be taken by a mob. Plus there is this scenario: Get killed deep in a dungeon, walk outside to find a healer, you are without any armour or weapons after you get rezed.  If you don't have an undertaker's staff you will need to go back into the dungeon armourless and weaponless to find your corpse. Only to get killed along the way.

It was all part of needing other players.

It was not all meant to be solo'ed.

The main difference 20 years has made to social attitudes, and reflected in UO, is life used to be about teamwork, competition, self improvement and learning real talents - now it's all mememe, having everything given to people for no effort or deservedness and getting by with no real lifeskills. That's why they are called millennials, but of course it's not just them, it's the entire society teaching them to be like that, from their schooling, social media, ground-roots gaming upwards. Interestingly enough, parents see it, and don't agree, but they are swamped by societies red tape and regulations put in place by those who don't have a clue.

Monopoly or Chess don't stand a chance in todays world.

Wow. Perfectly said and right on the money in my opinion.; couldn't agree more. Seems like many of the people that want to keep it consensual PvP and item insurance really just want a throwback shard for them to keep playing like they do now. IE stick to the solo approach (or their current home shard guild maybe) to amass a bank/house full of "stuff" (and whatever legacy only "stuff") to transfer over to their home shard to add to their already massive amount of "stuff"....  

Max_Blackoak said:

I find it interesting that the majority of players in this poll voted for non-consensual PvP.
Seems like the very vocal group of players who are against non-consensual PvP are truly a minority, a vocal one but still a minority.
I really hope the devs take this into account.

I also find it pretty interesting too that majority of people want non consensual / no insurance. I thought for sure it would be lopsided with everyone wanting to keep it consensual & item insurance based on what people have said... but I think it's really just been a handful of the same people being against the Non Con PvP & no insurance (but are just very vocal and active on the boards). I do hope @Kyronix & @Mesanna see this poll and realize there are more people that are in favor of Non Con PvP / no insurance (or something that more closely resembles that).

popps

Max_Blackoak said:

I find it interesting that the majority of players in this poll voted for non-consensual PvP.
Seems like the very vocal group of players who are against non-consensual PvP are truly a minority, a vocal one but still a minority.
I really hope the devs take this into account.

I find it a very reduced majority as numbers 1 and 2 basically need to be added up as both being 100% consensual...

Furthermore, the sample,at this one time, is a mere 27 votes which is hardly a representative sample of the active UO Forums users, let alone the entire Ultima Online population....

I would say it is more along the lines of half-half, which gives no real advantage to either but seems to indicate same wishes for both sides for these too much differying playing styles from one another....

But again, 27 votes is really, to my viewing, too low a sample to consider this poll, at this one time, a reliable and indicative one, and this, in either direction....

It is a mere entertaining thing, to my opinion, but if the Developers wanted to take it as an indication to guide their Development for the NEW Legacy Shard, I personally think they would do a big mistake as it really cannot indicate anything at all, with such a small sample of voters.

That is at least how I see it.

keven2002

700+ views and only 27 votes... there should be way more votes but people aren't bothering; I'm not sure it came from a Dev it would get more of a response but at the end of the day we have over 700 views so people are looking at this thread but aren't taking the poll. 

You seem to suggest we would just assume those non voters are all in favor of consensual PvP and full insurance? Oh and those 2 different items are both the same thing... so those votes should be combined... that doesn't make any actual sense. Is that how you think a political election works too? lol.

Regardless of what you say @popps at this point 55.3% is still the majority of the votes (15 out of 27) even if you think #1 and #2 should be combined (which they shouldn't be bc they are in fact separate). Also if I'm using the same logic as you, then I could say the same exact thing that Non Con PvP is by far the preferred choice and the poll in this thread is bias for consensual PvP because those people that quit due to PvP being nerfed many years ago don't even check the forums. 

Tim

Opt in polls such as here have no real world meaning. Was the 27 people who bothered to "vote" just one person with 27 accounts? Did the majority of potential voters even know the poll was being done? A much more interesting number is what percentage of player have even signed up to see any of this.

By the way does anyone know if I check back here 7 times to see the new comments is counted as 7 "view" or just 1 person viewing?

Bilbo

Tim said:

Opt in polls such as here have no real world meaning. Was the 27 people who bothered to "vote" just one person with 27 accounts? Did the majority of potential voters even know the poll was being done? A much more interesting number is what percentage of player have even signed up to see any of this.

By the way does anyone know if I check back here 7 times to see the new comments is counted as 7 "view" or just 1 person viewing?

I just looked at it 3 times and the count went up by 3 so yes your 7 views counted as 7

Tim

Bilbo said:

Tim said:

Opt in polls such as here have no real world meaning. Was the 27 people who bothered to "vote" just one person with 27 accounts? Did the majority of potential voters even know the poll was being done? A much more interesting number is what percentage of player have even signed up to see any of this.

By the way does anyone know if I check back here 7 times to see the new comments is counted as 7 "view" or just 1 person viewing?

I just looked at it 3 times and the count went up by 3 so yes your 7 views counted as 7

As I thought just a big echo camber. Let's just hope the team is basing their decisions on better numbers and info than can be gathered here.

popps

keven2002 said:

700+ views and only 27 votes... there should be way more votes but people aren't bothering; I'm not sure it came from a Dev it would get more of a response but at the end of the day we have over 700 views so people are looking at this thread but aren't taking the poll. 

You seem to suggest we would just assume those non voters are all in favor of consensual PvP and full insurance? Oh and those 2 different items are both the same thing... so those votes should be combined... that doesn't make any actual sense. Is that how you think a political election works too? lol.

Regardless of what you say @ popps at this point 55.3% is still the majority of the votes (15 out of 27) even if you think #1 and #2 should be combined (which they shouldn't be bc they are in fact separate). Also if I'm using the same logic as you, then I could say the same exact thing that Non Con PvP is by far the preferred choice and the poll in this thread is bias for consensual PvP because those people that quit due to PvP being nerfed many years ago don't even check the forums. 

I am just saying that, given the very low number of votes, other then a curiosity thing whatever majority should not be taken into account by the Developers when deciding upon what type of direction they should take for the New Legacy Shard....

It simply cannot be representative of the Ultima Online players' base wills and wishes because being a too small a sample of them......

That's it.

Wess

I didn't vote. Add a "merge and fix server issues" as an option to vote and lets take a look