you've always been able to loot anything uninsured.
the only thing that's changing is that now the player
doesnt have to have earned at least 10%XP to level
first . . which anyone coming out of a mission with
thier precious new item would have done anyway . .
unless you blizted it, inwhich case you cant really argue
you spent hours trying to attain it . .
OK, I've only played to lvl 54 or so, but at that level range, I almost always come out of a mission with more than 10% of my next level unsaved, unless I happened to level near the end of the mission.
How about raising the amount to 25% or so? Or maybe limiting the number of items lootable, say to 1?
I'm not much of a PvP player (advent, I'd be owned anyways) but this just gives me that much more of a reason to avoid PvP areas.
But do take note that more people are argueing against it than likeing it.....
this would be great if all professions had an equal chance of winning in pvp....perhaps we are jumping the gun on this one...balance the professions then allow looting....implement a way to know if the person you are going to fight is in a team with 5 other people lurking behind a rock that are 25 lvls higher than you....fix the stupid post 75 no lvl restriction in pvp nonsense....i mean really they put up an article about how they know that some professions have unintended weaknesses and how they don't have a purpose and yet they want to punish those professions MORE by implementing a way for the weak to get weaker and the strong get stronger?
first....balance
second......lvl restriction
third.....make sure it works
fouth......looting
Heh I love it when people say well dont go to pvp zones... *ALERT* more than half the world is pvp and now they are adding more... guess you didn't know that hmm? Ok maybe not half but all the high lvl zones are. Sure lets crowd 95% of the population into 45% of the world no numbers are not exact but then they really don't need to be. Don't tell people where they can and can't hunt and don't force your gameplay style on others and we will all enjoy the game much more.
Oh and before you say it is, this is not a pvp game go read the box it says you have the ability to fight other players and thats all it says. It only gets a passing mention on the entire box.
as grrrd as i might be this would create the oppurtunity(s?) to open up some sorta pirate guild. They could be nomadic wandering the plains between cities planning ambushes etc etc etc and all in good RPING fun. As long as it isnt abused it could be a lot of fun. I have had the thought of making a Pirate guild for a long time however without the looting it kinda made it a moot point. Whaddyall think?
/shout stop or we'll...Originally posted by Divillian
as grrrd as i might be this would create the oppurtunity(s?) to open up some sorta pirate guild. They could be nomadic wandering the plains between cities planning ambushes etc etc etc and all in good RPING fun. As long as it isnt abused it could be a lot of fun. I have had the thought of making a Pirate guild for a long time however without the looting it kinda made it a moot point. Whaddyall think?
/say uhh... they just flew by without saying a word again before we could say something.
the game mechanics don't support the idea unless your idea is "wandering between borg camp and ace camp" which is what everyone is complaining about... which puts your "roleplay" idea in the realm of "grief pk"
If I had my way... MA's would kick ass, and there would be no gas zones anywhere. There would also be 15% level restrictions on who you can attack at all levels. Did I mention, MA's would be something other than a free kill? Actually, if I had my way... I'd be doing bad things to Liv Tyler in my private yacht and have no time for this silly MB.=)
looting already exists, why do people bring this up? why has funcom listed this as a new feature when it already exists? you can currently loot any player that you kill for the items they have not saved.. and this trophy they talk about already exists too, its called a pinky...
so quit whining because its already there, funny you didnt know about it..
If you use buffs from others to equip your armor this may be a problem.
Before you leave the mission, put any really good items you got in the mission in a backpack, remove decus/nano coat, put backpack in back slot, then you won't have any problems. If you die, the backpack will still be on your person. No looting allowed, unless they have made changes to that as well.
Skara
I think looting items is cool. I'm all for this change. Anyone mind expounding on the difference between grief pk and non-grief pk? I always see people calling pk'ers griefers, but I never exactly understand what that's supposed to mean.
Speaking just for myself, a grief player is someone who doesn't care whether he is ruining another player's play experience. Whether by PvP, verbal abuse (not 'clanners suck' but more abusive and/or IC language), etc. Or, even worse, a player that gets his or her thrills by ruining another player's play experience.Originally posted by griemdaall
I think looting items is cool. I'm all for this change. Anyone mind expounding on the difference between grief pk and non-grief pk? I always see people calling pk'ers griefers, but I never exactly understand what that's supposed to mean.
PvP is a reality in the game and I don't claim otherwise. If I am killed in a 25% area in a seemingly random way (ran across the wrong guy at the wrong time), I live with it as part of the game (though I hope you will understand that if I am robbed of everything that I just spent 2 hours gathering I will be less inclined to spend another 2 hours playing the game). When I step out of a mission site to find a team camped there ganking anyone they see coming out solely in an effort to take as much hard-earned XP from them as they can, that's griefing.
But this change mostly comes down to risk vs. reward. A guy that sets out to PvP has saved (99.999% of the time) and risks nothing, if he loses the fight he is about to start then he will lose no items or XP. Funcom has said over and over again that they don't want to give rewards without risk, yet they are willing to make a change like this that will take the hard-earned rewards away from a player that has risked his XP for two hours in a mission and give it to a player that has been standing outside a mission site hitting tab, risking absolutely nothing.
Scorus
True, the attacker would be able to reap rewards with no risk if they were extremely patient and stuff, but to some extent to me it seems like being killed is avoidable enough.
I don't pvp much, I've killed one person, and been killed 4 times in 7 months. 3 of those 4 times were me trying different tactics to try to defeat the person who killed me. :) (I never did win. lol)
I don't do anything in particular to try to avoid being killed, other than maybe not taking missions that require me to go through 4 holes when there is trouble there. My characters are all omni. None of my characters have Yalmahas, so there is no flying outside of danger involved.
It's been my experience that there just aren't that many people out there killing people, is that not what everyone sees? The problem is there is no incentive for conflict. The attacker gets no reward for his risk (except maybe a title) while the defender is trying to prevent himself from losing xp and knows he has nothing to gain by actually besting the attacker. The way I read this change, the winner will be the one looting, not necessarily the attacker. Thus, there could be actual reward for a defender to stand and fight, whereas before the defender got absolutely nothing when they won (no xp loss for the attacker) now they will have a chance to not only best the person who attacked them, but then possibly to loot an item from them.
I personally would probably kick it up even one more notch and just have it so that the winner gets to loot one item from the loser, be that from inventory or worn items, saved or not. That way the defender would have even more incentive to try to win, as they might be able to take away the very QL 150 Nova Flow or whatever that started the battle in the first place. :)
I see this looting change as an incentive for conflict, nothing more. It will be a reason for me to attack a clanner that I see when I'm running around at Holes, and a reason for him to attack me. This seems like a good thing to me. :)
OTOH, I think several of the suggestions for attacker loss in this thread as being a bit selfish. If the attacker is going to lose something that the defender can't lose (items from equipped slots, as suggested in one post) then that just unbalances things the other way. That's why I think the items that should be lootable should be from equipped or inventory for both people. Then the risk/reward is truly equal for attacker and defender.
I don't think my idea would work well if it's true that anyone above level 75 can attack anyone, but if there were a tighter restriction range that would be fine. Both incentive to fight as well as incentive to be able to defend. Sounds fun.
Hope any of this made sense. This is not a flame.
PvP and the story:
What do YOU want, have a story-line event with a million mobs, or have an events where REAL clanners go against REAL Omni. PvP should be allowed. Looting things should be allowed. I remember when I used to play UO, I'd make sure to run from the morders. There was one warp gate where the PKers always camped from. It was avoidable, and hey! I lost most of my armor. What did this mean? It meant that I had a set back. In AO, there are no item set backs. You get a car you keep a car. I can understand, the Yalm is special, NO DROP. But I think a few RANDOM items should be able to be looted. If I manage to be lvl 150, and kill a lvl 200 guy with his ql 200 everything, I don't think he should lose everything he has to me, nor should I be able to choose his best items. Maybe a random few items. One day some smart people will stuff their inventories with maps and they will have a low chance of losing anything else. Have you ever realized once you get an item in AO it is there forever until replaced with something better! When you lose xp its not a step back, when you lose a few items, its not a set back either.
-- Falling never killed anyone, its always the landing.
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
RK-1
|OT|
Telgi-61 Solitus Enforcer
Gauf-31 Nanomage Doctor
Saruzi- -=128=- Opifex Nano-Technician.
Manstien-44 Solitus Soldier
I don't know if this would work, but to stop people getting PKed coming out of missions I think a clock should run. You have so many minutes of immmunity and if you are still in the zone after time runs out then you are killable.
I am not a PvPer and I don't wish to be one at this time. But I can see both sides and I think killing those outside of their mission is wrong. Everything else I am fine with.
They must eliminate the non-risk to attackers. Obviously, the person who attacks another person has recently saved. Nobody goes out hunting other players without saving. This is not necessarily so for the hunted.
What must happen is that IF the attacked wins the battle, the attacker loses an equivalent amount of experience equal to what the intended victim would have lost.
This always puts some risk in the hands of the attacker. If the victim has no unsaved experience then fine. But maybe he has 1.2 million unsaved experience. Do you want to risk that much experience by attacking him? He sure as heck is risking it by being in a PvP zone.
Are you going to try to gank him as soon as he zones? Maybe he's got 5 other characters twice his level zoning out right behind him.
This sounds like a fair and elegant solution to the no-risk to the gankers issue. I can't think of much that makes more sense.
So, now I suppose to bring a fixer to do solo mission with me?Originally posted by Intra
for me this is maybe going to make higher lvl fixers more desirable in teams. you're in mission you know that if you go outside your gonna get ganked and looted.... fixer evacs team to grid, no one dies, all xp saved, all loot saved, life is good, ganker sits and cries... they went in but didnt come out boohoo
You were right. I grab a mission to 2ho last night. God know how empty that zone is. Funcom, go ahead make more zone pvp.Originally posted by Serena
Heh I love it when people say well dont go to pvp zones... *ALERT* more than half the world is pvp and now they are adding more... guess you didn't know that hmm? Ok maybe not half but all the high lvl zones are. Sure lets crowd 95% of the population into 45% of the world no numbers are not exact but then they really don't need to be.
Last edited by Leumas; Mar 9th, 2002 at 03:19:31.
Very sad and very true.Originally posted by Angeleye
Intra: I would get a doc instead - they can both heal you *and* send you off to the grid
What really bugs me is this...
What stops someone from teaming in a 25% zone. WAiting untli someone on the team goes "BOOYAA!! I found xxx uber item of uberity". Then having that player leave the team, use a clan/omni form. Special attacking the second player to death and looting that new item before the rest of the team finds out.
He's got to reamin omni/clan for a tiem period? who cares. just leave your computer running and do it from the other side when the time is up.
"If it hurts, it means your still alive." - Bayman
NuggetKiller - The best looking atrox on RK1
hahaha that's a good one! wonder why nobody ever thought of that? wow that uber metaplast sleeve sure was worth my 400 token board!Originally posted by ryu1313
What really bugs me is this...
What stops someone from teaming in a 25% zone. WAiting untli someone on the team goes "BOOYAA!! I found xxx uber item of uberity". Then having that player leave the team, use a clan/omni form. Special attacking the second player to death and looting that new item before the rest of the team finds out.
He's got to reamin omni/clan for a tiem period? who cares. just leave your computer running and do it from the other side when the time is up.
Posting Permissions
