A Possible Solution to The Problem of PvP

[Winstonian]

its not easy.

noone has enough time to monitor it

... but it doesn't need to be monitored. It would function like anything else in UOF right now: if players obtain proof of a player exploiting the system, they'll forward said proof to a moderator for appropriate action.

 

[Winstonian]

Why does there seem to be such a fear to improve this game? There aren't many games out there like this one, and this server is the best of what's left. Why not make it great?

This suggestion isn't even one that changes the way things are. I've made those suggestion threads, and have (rightfully) been blasted for it. I get it: the "Real" PvPers want the mechanics to stay the way they are. This doesn't change the mechanics... it only gives the majority of players a reason to want to participate in consensual PvP. There's really minimal downside to that, while the upside could potentially grow this server.

"Real" PvPers: PvP doesn't solely belong to you, at least it shouldn't. If there's a way to improve PvP and make it appealing to the masses, you (of all players) should be on board, as it gives you more bodies to loot.

 

[Sparhawk]

Why does there seem to be such a fear to improve this game? There aren't many games out there like this one, and this server is the best of what's left. Why not make it great?

This suggestion isn't even one that changes the way things are. I've made those suggestion threads, and have (rightfully) been blasted for it. I get it: the "Real" PvPers want the mechanics to stay the way they are. This doesn't change the mechanics... it only gives the majority of players a reason to want to participate in consensual PvP. There's really minimal downside to that, while the upside could potentially grow this server.

"Real" PvPers: PvP doesn't solely belong to you, at least it shouldn't. If there's a way to improve PvP and make it appealing to the masses, you (of all players) should be on board, as it gives you more bodies to loot.

It’s a little rich to say there’s a fear of improving the game, when clearly there is and has been ongoing development ..well, forever. If you look at UOF in comparison to the few other remaining free shards, with active populations, it’s evident our devs are doing something right. Working from a point of sustainability, absolutely each potential change should be reviewed carefully. That being said, a few of my own observations over playing here the last few years that might be relevant to your discussion:

1) pvm and pvp are intrinsically linked. The pvm scene here is better than any other shard hands down, and this most deffinately keeps the lights on so to speak. Ask Shane about the correlation between pvm/pvpers and who makes up the bulk of donators if you doubt.
2) players who don’t want to pvp, won’t pvp, regardless of the pixel incentives.
3) keeping the higher end pixel rewards as pvm end game content promotes activity for both sides of pvp/pvm. I’m sure there are many reasons, maybe lost relic tears are the sweetest, idk. I think a valid concern would be in providing these rewards for pvping, you start interfering with the overall balance. Deffinately reducing risk to pvm’ers cultivates boredom and that’s not a good thing.
4)it’s been said many times banning is the absolute last resort. Removing players from the player base, on a game this old is of course counter productive, and providing new ways of potential bannable exploitive actions would just add more conflict for staff to resolve.


There may well be ways to incentivise casual players transition to pvp, but imo pvm pixel rewards isn’t the likely path. Additionally as there’s still ongoing work being done on the militias system, it might just be a case of letting that be developed. I for one would like to see the end result of the collective uo loving developers militia baby, as right from the onset they’ve been clear that attracting more players to pvp was a large part of the goal in revamp.

TLDR: fast changes bad. Slow controlled changes good. Throwing pixels at pvpers wasteful

 

[Winstonian]

It’s a little rich to say there’s a fear of improving the game, when clearly there is and has been ongoing development ..well, forever. If you look at UOF in comparison to the few other remaining free shards, with active populations, it’s evident our devs are doing something right. Working from a point of sustainability, absolutely each potential change should be reviewed carefully. That being said, a few of my own observations over playing here the last few years that might be relevant to your discussion:

1) pvm and pvp are intrinsically linked. The pvm scene here is better than any other shard hands down, and this most deffinately keeps the lights on so to speak. Ask Shane about the correlation between pvm/pvpers and who makes up the bulk of donators if you doubt.
2) players who don’t want to pvp, won’t pvp, regardless of the pixel incentives.
3) keeping the higher end pixel rewards as pvm end game content promotes activity for both sides of pvp/pvm. I’m sure there are many reasons, maybe lost relic tears are the sweetest, idk. I think a valid concern would be in providing these rewards for pvping, you start interfering with the overall balance. Deffinately reducing risk to pvm’ers cultivates boredom and that’s not a good thing.
4)it’s been said many times banning is the absolute last resort. Removing players from the player base, on a game this old is of course counter productive, and providing new ways of potential bannable exploitive actions would just add more conflict for staff to resolve.


There may well be ways to incentivise casual players transition to pvp, but imo pvm pixel rewards isn’t the likely path. Additionally as there’s still ongoing work being done on the militias system, it might just be a case of letting that be developed. I for one would like to see the end result of the collective uo loving developers militia baby, as right from the onset they’ve been clear that attracting more players to pvp was a large part of the goal in revamp.

TLDR: fast changes bad. Slow controlled changes good. Throwing pixels at pvpers wasteful

Good response. Appreciate it.

My comments towards improving the game were directed solely at PvP. I've said countless times that the PvM on this server is incredible... it's, without question, what keeps this shard going. That being said, it doesn't mean that significant changes for PvP should be ignored simply because PvM is this good.

Of course players that "don't want to PvP, wont PvP". In my opinion, that doesn't apply to the majority of non-PvPers here. Instead, it's players "don't PvP because... well... what's the point?" PvP on UOF is incredibly stale. Not only is there a lack of viable build diversity, but the current mechanics favor the few "hardcore PvPers" over the larger UOF population. It's why structured UOF PvP consists of large groups and little else, which is definitely not the way UO used to be, or was intended to be.

Overall balance? Balance of what? There's absolutely no balancing issues by providing a few more drops on a daily/weekly basis, especially if it generates far more interest in the shard.

As for banning: whatever. I've been told that permanently banning players is the current standard. Then again, the argument of "we don't want the cheaters to leave, but we're hesitant to implement changes that bring new players to the shard" seems completely backwards.

Without an incentive to PvP, most players simply won't do it. This shard revolves around items of pixel value... what better way to bring the masses to PvP then to have those same items of pixel value as rewards for doing so.

 

[Winstonian]

See, a player like me has absolutely no incentive to PvP on UOF, but that doesn't mean I'm not a PvPer.

I spent all of my OSI years PvPing. I'd go into the wild and kill enough monsters to buy enough regs... to PvP. (Order/Chaos was incredible back then.) In each game I play, I spend my time focusing almost exclusively on PvP.

Just... not here. Because what's the point? I have no interest in joining a gank squad, so I'm pretty much doomed to fail. Sure, that's my preference, but I don't believe that UO PvP should be that way.

With an idea like this, I'd spend my time fighting whoever, wherever, knowing that each point of damage dealt means something. A lot of players would feel the same way. UOF PvP would shift from the few big groups and little else to a ton of lone wolf types, running around and fighting whoever they came across. They'd die, sure, but they'd have a reason to even put themselves out there. The PvP scene would have such an infusion of health, and the criticisms to this idea pale in comparison to the clear advantages.

 

[Swayze]

It’s a little rich to say there’s a fear of improving the game, when clearly there is and has been ongoing development ..well, forever. If you look at UOF in comparison to the few other remaining free shards, with active populations, it’s evident our devs are doing something right. Working from a point of sustainability, absolutely each potential change should be reviewed carefully. That being said, a few of my own observations over playing here the last few years that might be relevant to your discussion:

1) pvm and pvp are intrinsically linked. The pvm scene here is better than any other shard hands down, and this most deffinately keeps the lights on so to speak. Ask Shane about the correlation between pvm/pvpers and who makes up the bulk of donators if you doubt.
2) players who don’t want to pvp, won’t pvp, regardless of the pixel incentives.
3) keeping the higher end pixel rewards as pvm end game content promotes activity for both sides of pvp/pvm. I’m sure there are many reasons, maybe lost relic tears are the sweetest, idk. I think a valid concern would be in providing these rewards for pvping, you start interfering with the overall balance. Deffinately reducing risk to pvm’ers cultivates boredom and that’s not a good thing.
4)it’s been said many times banning is the absolute last resort. Removing players from the player base, on a game this old is of course counter productive, and providing new ways of potential bannable exploitive actions would just add more conflict for staff to resolve.


There may well be ways to incentivise casual players transition to pvp, but imo pvm pixel rewards isn’t the likely path. Additionally as there’s still ongoing work being done on the militias system, it might just be a case of letting that be developed. I for one would like to see the end result of the collective uo loving developers militia baby, as right from the onset they’ve been clear that attracting more players to pvp was a large part of the goal in revamp.

TLDR: fast changes bad. Slow controlled changes good. Throwing pixels at pvpers wasteful

Figured I would quote this just to say this was a really quality post and hit the nail on the head.

Why can't killing another person or killing a red and stating them be enough incentive? Or killing PVMers who just completed a RDA/mini boss/champ for PVM loot?

 

[AreYouKidden]

Because a world is based on economy, economy requires gold. People do PvP for those reasons, but aren't spending the majority of the time PvP'n because you don't get the feeling you are achieving something like you are in PvM, because mainly you aren't achieving anything.

I don't think the rewards need to be the same as you get in PvM - I think they could be entirely different, geared towards PvP'rs, but there still needs to be some sort of achievement/reward to make PvP not feel like it's just a resource drain.

 

[Winstonian]

Figured I would quote this just to say this was a really quality post and hit the nail on the head.

Why can't killing another person or killing a red and stating them be enough incentive? Or killing PVMers who just completed a RDA/mini boss/champ for PVM loot?

... because, in the current state of UOF PvP, some will simply spend their time getting ganked and not getting those kills. UOF PvP is based around group pre-casting and explosion potions. It leaves solo players with little to no hope nor interest.

Don't take my word for it, though... just look at the current state of UOF PvP. You can deny that there's an issue, but everything about the server disagrees. UOF PvM is at an elite level, while UOF PvP is only enjoyable to a select few.

If that doesn't concern players that want this shard to grow, it should.

 

[Winstonian]

Let's start here: can anyone make an honest, legitimate argument that this wouldn't increase structured PvP on UOF?

 

[drasked]

Don't take my word for it, though... just look at the current state of UOF PvP.

Field pvp has been pretty booming and is currently spiking (in terms of # of groups seen fighting at the same time)

Getting a 1v1 is easy, just flag around brit or look for duels.

Just... not here. Because what's the point? I have no interest in joining a gank squad, so I'm pretty much doomed to fail. Sure, that's my preference, but I don't believe that UO PvP should be that way.

I honestly dont get how your suggestion does anything at all to fix this problem, your suggestion would make things even worse for you. Put in good rewards and ppl show you the true meaning of gank squad.

Let's start here: can anyone make an honest, legitimate argument that this wouldn't increase structured PvP on UOF?

It doesn't promote killing people, the ultimate way to get score would be to intentionally not kill your enemy so you can dump more dmg on them and farm them for score. It just doesn't make sense on a basic level.

It would also be super easy to exploit a system like this, even if you can't see it.

I think its hard to disupute that incentivizing pvp through cool rewards in a good way would help a lot. But your "damage done" suggestion is just simply the worst way you could do it imo.

 

[Swayze]

I am all for improving PVP and the server in general. The 2 biggest hurdles in any suggestion is: 1. Prevent exploiting and 2. Defining rewards that doesn't break the economy. They go hand-in-hand as well.

The solution to #1 of "ban exploiters" is simply not a solution at all. Banning is absolute last resort. Why would we ban anyone unless they are extremely toxic to the community or are cheating in a 20 year old game with an already limited player base.

 

[Winstonian]

I am all for improving PVP and the server in general. The 2 biggest hurdles in any suggestion is: 1. Prevent exploiting and 2. Defining rewards that doesn't break the economy. They go hand-in-hand as well.

The solution to #1 of "ban exploiters" is simply not a solution at all. Banning is absolute last resort. Why would we ban anyone unless they are extremely toxic to the community or are cheating in a 20 year old game with an already limited player base.

I'll never understand relaxed rules for cheaters. I don't cheat, so I guess I'm biased, but I think it's ridiculous that players who would intentionally break the rules for some sort of in-game gain aren't wanted as far away from a game like this as possible.

Is it your impression that the suggested rewards would break the economy? That, over a one week period, giving 5 players a 50% chance each of obtaining an idol or relic would destroy the economy here? (Not to mention it would greatly increase PvP, which benefits the shard considerably.)

 

[Winstonian]

I honestly dont get how your suggestion does anything at all to fix this problem, your suggestion would make things even worse for you. Put in good rewards and ppl show you the true meaning of gank squad.

Because it provides the solo player an incentive - and quality rewards - for simply participating in PvP. If the reward condition is kills or survival, the big groups would still remain the most powerful (and only active) players. If it's by damage done, solo players will still have a great chance at finishing at or near the top, and the benefit of being in a group (for this purpose) is diminished significantly.

It doesn't promote killing people, the ultimate way to get score would be to intentionally not kill your enemy so you can dump more dmg on them and farm them for score. It just doesn't make sense on a basic level.

Then, as mentioned above, the structure would be modified to consider this. For example: establish a daily damage cap against one player. It wouldn't be difficult to modify this suggestion to find something that works.

It would also be super easy to exploit a system like this, even if you can't see it.

When did I imply that I "can't see" the ease of exploiting this? I've addressed it numerous times: yes, players would try to exploit it. The system would be structured to attempt to limit these exploits (ex: gains in houses do not count), and players who observe exploitation could record and submit the video to moderators for action. (Like anything else here.)

I think its hard to disupute that incentivizing pvp through cool rewards in a good way would help a lot. But your "damage done" suggestion is just simply the worst way you could do it imo.

Good, then we at least agree that incentivizing PvP would help. Let's throw out some suggestions to make this work that do NOT benefit the large groups, but instead benefit all players.

 

[Winstonian]

Why can't killing another person or killing a red and stating them be enough incentive?

Then why even have militias or factions? Systems have always been created to provide a benefit for PvP... they just haven't been done in a way that appeals to all players.

How popular would PvM be on UOF if all monster drops were removed? Sure, you'd have a few players who would "feel awesome" farming dragons for hours for absolutely no reward, but, without PvM rewards, I guarantee this shard would be completely dead. Rewards are what encourage players to participate.

 

[Swayze]

...to improve PVP and give incentive.

I never once said we have relaxed rules for cheaters.

 

[Winstonian]

...to improve PVP and give incentive.

I never once said we have relaxed rules for cheaters.

Well, right, but that's my point. You asked why simply killing players wasn't good enough, but it's simply not for most players. I gain nothing by getting ganked and trash-talked in PvP. It's why the big, zerg guilds dominate and why others - who don't prefer that playstyle - simply won't waste their time. Provide an incentive and things change.

Then I guess we agree. I think cheaters should be permanently banned. I think exploiting a game mechanic for personal gain is cheating, and should be treated as such.

 

[Winstonian]

I'm not trying to be an issue in all of this. I'm honestly trying to improve this server so it continues to grow. The PvM is on an elite level, and the interest in PvP is nearly non-existent. Incentivizing PvP would change that. Players want idols, relics, powerscrolls, skillscrolls and bright clothes. Give players a chance at getting those rewards in a PvP system that caters to ALL playstyles and PvP will explode here.

 

[drasked]

If it's by damage done, solo players will still have a great chance at finishing at or near the top, and the benefit of being in a group (for this purpose) is diminished significantly.

This is absolutely false. Once people start taking it up a notch in terms of taking score seriously, a solo player stands even less of a chance. Militia is about group pvp so why would you want to diminish the aspect of grouping up?

Scoring by "damage done" is just simply the worst way you could do it, for everyone involved.

Sure there needs to be some balance that prevents 20-30 ppl from grouping up and holding ebolts for pixels. But you seem to suggest that 5 man groups are a problem while i see it as something to encourage.

 

[Winstonian]

This is absolutely false. Once people start taking it up a notch in terms of taking score seriously, a solo player stands even less of a chance. Militia is about group pvp so why would you want to diminish the aspect of grouping up?

Scoring by "damage done" is just simply the worst way you could do it, for everyone involved.

Sure there needs to be some balance that prevents 20-30 ppl from grouping up and holding ebolts for pixels. But you seem to suggest that 5 man groups are a problem while i see it as something to encourage.

You're honestly either saying the part in bold to win what you view is "forum PvP", or you're not fully understanding my suggestion here. Scoring by damage done would provide a significant incentive for ALL players to participate in structured PvP. Solo players would rank, groups would still rank, everyone would rank. It's one of the few options that benefits both solo and group play: solo players claim 100% of the damage they deal, while groups essentially divide their damage between all other members... the larger the group, the less damage claimed.

All playstyles should be encouraged. Right now, they simply aren't. Groups hold significant advantages in PvP over solo play. They still would, in terms of other militia benefits (kills,capturing, etc), but at least solo players would have an incentive to participate in PvP as well.

I'd love, for once on UOF, to actually develop a reasonable suggestion and create a solution over gross exaggerations and blind disregard. We've already agreed that incentivizing structured PvP would "help a lot". Make a suggestion that benefits all players in the same way that damage done does and I'm on board.

 

[Bromista]

Leave the goofy militia system, polish events/eventscore to be meaningful again, host battles nights, actually monitor them and fix issues (easier to do in short, controlled bursts)

Now you can have PvP on a level playing field. Restrict gear, don't restrict gear, do whatever. Modular and customizable PvP scenarios have great potential that has been overlooked for far too long IMO.