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

My Views (PvP changes and the growth of UO:F)

Discussion in 'Suggestions & Ideas' started by Winstonian, Nov 23, 2019.

  1. Winstonian

    Winstonian Well-Known Member

    986
    400
    63
    Jan 14, 2014
    You guys can think that suggesting balancing and build diversity is 'crying'. Players will continue to see the bland state of PvP and choose not to play here.
     
  2. Winstonian

    Winstonian Well-Known Member

    986
    400
    63
    Jan 14, 2014
    This is absurd. EQMS would've just organized different spells to cast and would've remained exactly what they were. To pretend like they couldn't have adapted to this is nonsense.
     
  3. lollo

    lollo Well-Known Member

    6,354
    4,342
    113
    Oct 14, 2014
    RunYourDead / GoogleMyName / Superlollo / a wandering dealer
    Actually there were A LOT more people pvping when the system was "vanilla".

    The scarcity of pvp on UOF has jack shit to do with build diversity and more to do with people's fragile egos and crappy changes like militia
     
    K A Z and drasked like this.
  4. lollo

    lollo Well-Known Member

    6,354
    4,342
    113
    Oct 14, 2014
    RunYourDead / GoogleMyName / Superlollo / a wandering dealer
    where did I say they couldn't have adapted?????? The leaders got perma banned and that was it. Nothing to do with pvp changes
     
  5. Winstonian

    Winstonian Well-Known Member

    986
    400
    63
    Jan 14, 2014
    Yeah, my bad. I misunderstood your triple post.
     
  6. Winstonian

    Winstonian Well-Known Member

    986
    400
    63
    Jan 14, 2014
    Please explain what you mean about the vanilla system.
     
  7. K A Z

    K A Z Well-Known Member

    3,656
    6,487
    113
    Feb 26, 2013
    I disagree. Trammies get statlossed and made fun off "OMFG I STATLOSSED YOUR RED LAWL" --> they get discouraged --> they wont log back on their red for another 2 weeks..

    remove OVERLAND statloss, bring back IDOCS, let's have big FIGHTS and don't listen to Winstonian (he has no clue)
     
  8. Winstonian

    Winstonian Well-Known Member

    986
    400
    63
    Jan 14, 2014
    It's not just me: many new players come here, see how boring the PvP is and leave.

    Again, I don't really care. I have plenty of games to play. If they want this shard to grow, keeping a PvP system that very few actually enjoy - and that's nothing like it was before - isn't a good strategy.
     
  9. lollo

    lollo Well-Known Member

    6,354
    4,342
    113
    Oct 14, 2014
    RunYourDead / GoogleMyName / Superlollo / a wandering dealer
    I guess we can all agree on that.

    By "vanilla" I mean old school like it was in the beginning (UO:R style). Before they messed with spell damage and timings, before they removed factions, before they banned half the pvpers on the server etc.

    As I said, everyone was crying about EQMS and $, but at least people were playing. By banning the leaders of EQMS and basically blackmailing the leaders of $, staff lost a HUGE parte of the active population. Now champs are uncontested, everyone can make millions in no time because there are no PKs (no decent ones at least) and there is hardly and pvp.

    But hey, now we have 2908437493 different "rares" and hues dropping every week and the game looks nothing like it was supposed to.
     
    K A Z likes this.
  10. Winstonian

    Winstonian Well-Known Member

    986
    400
    63
    Jan 14, 2014
    Sounds absolutely true.

    It's my opinion that UO cannot thrive without an active PvP scene, not only from the 'hardcore' but from the casual players as well. The hardcore bring the quality, but the casual bring quantity. Both are needed for UO in 2019 to survive.

    I get it: the hardcore don't want to hear input from the casuals. "Who are you", "what guild are you with", "adapt or stfu" are all common responses. If the hardcore want more casuals to kill, they might want to consider listening to what the casuals have to say.
     
  11. Winstonian

    Winstonian Well-Known Member

    986
    400
    63
    Jan 14, 2014
    I know the hardcore will scoff, but I guarantee that three changes would significantly and drastically grow PvP (and, in turn, UO:F):

    1. consult a group of established PvPers about spell damage, timing, factions/militia,
    2. balance the available skills to remove the meta mage build and provide other equally competitive options,
    3. create a PvP incentive-based reward system that rewards all PvPers for damage done over a set period of time (likely one week, capped per target, cannot be gained in a house).

    Number 3 isn't anything groundbreaking: most modern games have something like this in place. Add attractive rewards to simply going out and throwing damage around. (Using damage done as the standard will give power to the solo players, as they can still earn towards rewards without having a numbers advantage.)

    I'd love to reasonably discuss this suggestion, as I'm certain that it would help things here.
     
  12. eric_azria

    eric_azria Well-Known Member

    1,192
    1,574
    113
    Dec 28, 2012
    What exactly are you discussing? How to bring up the same topics that have been pounded into non-existence for 7 years?

    Get a grip. These guys don’t care about pvp.
     
  13. Blackmartin

    Blackmartin Well-Known Member

    592
    359
    63
    Oct 11, 2015
    Blackmartin
    I’m super out of the loop but used to play with you, Cinderella, and a few others doing PvM stuff with EQMS. What happened to cause both guilds to get banned?

    (I wasn’t playing much when the system converted to militias)
     
  14. lollo

    lollo Well-Known Member

    6,354
    4,342
    113
    Oct 14, 2014
    RunYourDead / GoogleMyName / Superlollo / a wandering dealer

    to cut a long story short:

    EQMS was too dominant and some of the members were considered "toxic" (like who cares? it's the internet, fucking crybabies). Glutt and a few other "higher ups" were banned and the guild fell apart.

    $ started dominating and becoming toxic after staff got rid of EQMS for them, their alliance with POWER got them into griefing player at an event, shane got mad and told them to stop of they would all get banned. Bobby said fuck you and quit, and most of $ followed him to that other POS of a server.
     
  15. lollo

    lollo Well-Known Member

    6,354
    4,342
    113
    Oct 14, 2014
    RunYourDead / GoogleMyName / Superlollo / a wandering dealer
    TL;DR: you shouldn't ban/blackmail the most active guilds on your server, even if some of them were "toxic", whatever that means.
     
  16. Blackmartin

    Blackmartin Well-Known Member

    592
    359
    63
    Oct 11, 2015
    Blackmartin
    Yeah I’m not really sure how it can be considered toxic to gank players on a Felucia shard, no matter how many people are involved.

    Perhaps they should add a trammel area to host events / champ spawns only (no normal mobs).
     
  17. parsnip

    parsnip Well-Known Member

    1,542
    1,773
    113
    Jul 11, 2013
    I don't want to de-rail the actual PvP discussions as I think they are valuable... but I feel I must point out that the toxicity in that era went way beyond ganking players (two examples being IRL attacks and doxxing). Had it remained simply in-game PvP with some trash talking, we could have avoided a lot of the subsequent drama.
     

Share This Page