Search results

... because UOF PvP is geared towards the ego-driven, self-proclaimed elite and rewards marathon runners?

Instead, getting everyone into structured PvP, by way of instance events or an incentive that caters to all, is seen as unnecessary. Structured PvP is reserved for the PvP Elite, and anyone that disagrees is either too new, too young or simply too bad to PvP in UO. Such a toxic mindset.

And none of this has been about new players. Casual, solo and PvM players aren't necessarily new to UOF.

Nope. It doesn't need to be damage done. It does need to be based on a metric that doesn't give favor to groups vs individuals. There has not been another suggestion, outside of damage done, that accomplishes this.

Yet, if the PvP field was flooded with new players, including casual, solo, and PvM chars, the player cap wouldn't be an issue. There are no concerning exploits to a weighted lottery. The exploits that existed ("making 10000 accounts" and "hitting the same person over and over") are either...

What exploits still exist in a weighted lottery that has such a cap? And why wouldn't one have incentive to continue to PvP? Climbing the ladder to have a higher chance at a reward is plenty of incentive, and far more than exists right now. I am glad to hear that the real issue may be a...

Damage done gives each player credit for their time spent playing, and the measures suggested (target cap, weighted lottery) make exploitation both difficult and irrlevant. If not damage cap, fine, but it'll have to be something that gives the player credit for his time spent playing and not...

Factions had incentives for PvP, and this is referring to structured PvP. Not everyone likes to PK.

Perfect. And the post below outlines the damage cap accurately. (I might not have been clear.)

Oh. I thought it was still being discussed. The concern with damage done was exploitation, and a cap to damage done against one target, as well as the weighted lottery, essentially removes the impact of that exploitation completely. It would still reach out to casual and solo players, and...

Outstanding, thank you for the effort.

I think a lot of players would.

I really do think there are a lot of players out there with the same mentality. Maybe the PvM is just that good... not sure... but the desire to progress towards PvM goals outweighs dying to organized groups repeatedly. If there was an incentive, I feel that it would change, and structured PvP...

I admit that I took the notion of ''removing" gold literally, and misspoke as a result. My explanation (maintaining the value of gold by offering items worth spending it on) is the same as "removing gold from the server". I don't think gold is the preferred reward (it wasn't mine for this)...

... what?

You misunderstand. K A Z is saying that the staff won't give out gold as a reward because they're trying to "get rid of it". That's ridiculous. Gold sinks exist so gold has value, not because gold is bad. Giving it out as a reward to only a few players each week only helps the UOF economy...

... what? I've given numerous suggestions. And the answer is correct: things need to be balanced.

Ohhh. Another possibility to recovering from the loss of expl potion damage would to slightly increase the casting time of Heal.

They aren't in line with UOR because they don't splash. The majority of structured PvP was not this way because of that. Here are a few suggestions to fix the problem of damage: 1) create a wider damage range for damage spells, or 2) increase spell damage overall. (Fixing running would also...

I mean, I explained this numerous times with context. You can, of course, forget that, but it doesn't really do anything. Gold sinks exist to circulate gold: giving players a reason to spend their gold on things gives them a reason to earn gold, increasing the value of gold in the process. K...