What's new

Mounted PvP discussions

#21
Here is my suggestion. When you enter combat, your horse is stored similarly to entering dungeons. That’s unless you are using a taming mount like a nightmare.
This is essentially the same mechanic as many traditional MMOs in line with WoW and the like, right? You get into battle, your mount disappears and you gotta' resummon it or something?
 
#22
@Choppa X

I get where you are coming from, offscreening has always been an issue in UO, and we know that mounts amplify that.

I am okay with someone being able to flee & escape combat if that is their choice. Offscreening and fleeing are two different things in my book.

I think what you suggest would turn away a lot of potential players, and end up being a turn off to an even greater number once they saw it in practice.

No mounts in dungeons and mounts allowed overland is about as fair a trade off as can be imagined.
 
#25
Having mounts vanish when you are under a combat timer is bad.
When you are under a combat timer and on foot, other players can run by and away faster than you can aggress against them.
When players are under a combat timer and on foot, many other players can advance on their location rapidly, overwhelming them.

I would like to see the number of trapped pouches reduced back to 10 or less, without inscription.
 
#26
Having mounts vanish when you are under a combat timer is bad.
When you are under a combat timer and on foot, other players can run by and away faster than you can aggress against them.
When players are under a combat timer and on foot, many other players can advance on their location rapidly, overwhelming them.

I would like to see the number of trapped pouches reduced back to 10 or less, without inscription.
Yeah I guess. Can just leave it how it is and just pvp in dungeons if you want non-mounted pvp.
 
#28
Even though, I've always been intrigued by having mounts in games, especially once flying mounts were introduced into 3d worlds, I have always preferred un-mounted combat.

My concern is addressing the balancing of game mechanics involving mounts. No game I know of has done this properly yet.
mount = increased movement speed
When altering movement speeds, it is important to keep in mind how this will affect other mechanics of the game.

Side Note: (Remember when overclocking your cpu was popular- "speedhack" for some of you)

Some may suggest no mounts at all.
Some may suggest no mounts, only in dungeons.
Some may suggest that it should require taming to ride a mount. Although, in my opinion, this would drastically give taming an advantage that by far exceeds other character types.

I personally feel that the best solution to having mounts in a game like this is to create a set of fair conditions in which one may ride a mount but will have to sacrifice in other areas of gameplay. (maybe a separate skill for managing riding/mount fatigue.. *shrugs*)
I'm not sure of the best solution to this struggle but there are hundreds of countermeasures that we can test while we are still in beta.
 
#29
What if mounted players dealt 25% (or whatever %) less damage in PvP?

I'm not saying it's a good idea, but it's an idea worth discussing, if only to rule it out.
 
#30
What if mounted players dealt 25% (or whatever %) less damage in PvP?

I'm not saying it's a good idea, but it's an idea worth discussing, if only to rule it out.
I imagine speed would still trump damage dealt. I mean, 5-6 flamestrikes is already overkill; I'd bet it would still get the job done despite the 25% damage loss. And it doesn't really address para spamming as the end-all, be-all to tank maging cross-country wizarding.
 
#31
I imagine speed would still trump damage dealt. I mean, 5-6 flamestrikes is already overkill; I'd bet it would still get the job done despite the 25% damage loss. And it doesn't really address para spamming as the end-all, be-all to tank maging cross-country wizarding.
Well, it would kind of counter para-spam (to some extent), if a target "plays possum" and waits for his attackers to dismount to "finish the job" to activate a trapped pouch and run away. Obviously, strategies would adapt around that, but it sounded like a decent compromise. In the end, nothing will ever address para-spam (assuming the implied scenario where a target is outnumbered 6 to 1), other than taking Paralyze out of the game entirely, maybe except adding a cooldown on how often a target can be paralyzed, similar to the cooldown on Disarm or maybe making a Paralyzed target immune to spell damage...

As for 5-6 Flamestrikes, if we do the math, according to the Spells Summary post and assuming it is still accurate...

Deals ((30 to 45) * (Magery / 100) * (.75 + (.25 * (Eval Int / 100)))) damage to target player

...this means that at 100 Magery/Eval, a FS will deal 30 to 45 damage in PvP. Considering Magic Resist reduces spell damage taken from players by 12.5% to 25%, which would lower FS's damage to ~22 to ~40. If we reduce this further by 25% from being mounted, it drops to ~15 to ~29. This means that even 6 FS (at 15 dmg) would only deal 90 damage, not even killing a player at 100 hp.

Obviously, that's assuming all 6 FS would deal the lowest possible damage, which is mathematically unlikely, but in the end, it merely gives an incentive to dismount in PvP, before dealing damage, which would provide a better opportunity to a target to get away. Again, gank squads would obviously adjust their strategy if this idea was implemented, most likely by having 1 or 2 people stay mounted to make sure the target doesn't outrun them.
 

Kilgu

Apprentice
#32
The problem is that this is one single system (pvp) that needs to apply to 2 vastly different groups (solo/small and zergs). From a balance point it seems impossible to do with a single change (think Congress and why it had to be made up of the Senate and House of Reps). I think we should look for system similar to this where both groups can be equally represented but separately.

Also, bring back bolas. What's an orc without a bola????
 
#33
why not start with the basics.
differences in player speed is arguably the biggest deciding factor in PvP.
Old school this really wasnt an issue as people were usually bottle-necked somewhere along the way, to all be around the same speed.

as time moved on differences in player speed was dramaticly increased (upgrading from dial up internets, getting gaming rigs, macros/3rd party programs). this created a big lack of access to gameplay in UO; where there were people who could competitively participate in open pvp and those who could not.

mount speed in UO only amplified this effect.
this isnt rediscovering the wheel, this was already figured out by people who created the first private "old school UO" sandbox pvp shards. Im sure there are things those devs did wrong(most of the people in this thread probably have their own list), but I always thought it was generally accepted that restricting mounts from PvP was always considered one of the successful adaptations that private shards came up with.

its not only private shards that adapted this, but competitive pc games that came later also recognized this... not only did they actively put caps on speed limits but they also put caps on actions. to make pvp accessible to more players.
( ie if you can only cast 1 spell every 3 seconds, then it doesnt really matter if your rig and ping makes you twice as fast, because you cant cast 2x as many spells as a slower person because the spell limit is capped at 1 spell every 3 seconds).. note this is extreme for the purposes of this discussion just to illustrate the concept behind capping different aspects of game speed.


anyways I thought this was already an agreed on consensus among this shards community.

I would be interested to see if this is the case. Is there really a decent population on this shard that thinks mounted combat is better and would prefer penalty free mounted combat? maybe a poll can be made to see where the general forum consensus lies.
 

Kilgu

Apprentice
#34
The only issue I have with forum polls is that they only represent the forum members, not the general player population who rarely, if ever, visit the forums. But it should at least point us into the right direction for discussion.
I personally always hated mage pvp on a mount as it takes longer to cast 6th circle spells than it does to off screen, and teleport becomes less of an option to chase down Forrest Gump as the time to cast and teleport the limited amount of tiles is greater than the distance you'd cover just running. But with all that said I don't really care much which way this goes. I'll still play.
 
#36
Again, gank squads would obviously adjust their strategy if this idea was implemented, most likely by having 1 or 2 people stay mounted to make sure the target doesn't outrun them.
Historically they adjust these limitations by adding more pre-loaded flamestrikes lol. The 8-10 man e-bolt rails of UOF are still fresh in my mind. Also the mass FS dump of 90 damage doesn't take archery or halberds or fireballs etc from those same guys as finishers. Speed is always the most important aspect in a fight, it sets the tempo.

That being said, teleport becomes more important with mountless combat and manuevering, and a foot Zerg is seen by all names well before it's seen mounted. So many balancing issues come from mounts on freeshards, and they do very little for gameplay.
 
#37
So 'hamstring' is in.

Hamstring PvP Mechanic
  • When a player successfully Disarms another player, if the attacking player also has at least 80 Anatomy, they will also Hamstring the defending player
  • A player who is Hamstrung will have their stamina reduced to zero for 3 seconds (forcing them to "walk")
  • Players who are Hamstrung will not regenerate stamina and cannot use Refresh Potions or eat food to regain stamina
  • After 3 seconds have expired, the Hamstrung player's stamina returns to its previous value
  • As a reminder, players can only be disarmed (and therefore hamstrung) at most once every 30 seconds

Thoughts? Fuji & I tested briefly, but not in a proper combat situation, and it feels good to me.

A concern:

Arms Lore is now essential for all dex based templates. No other skill competes, and it does kill templates that require 2 'additional' skills - ie Poison & Taste ID.
3 seconds may be too long.

With that considered, some proposed changes:

1. Reduce duration to 2.5 seconds.
2. Tie it to a different toggle to [disarm (make it separate, on [stun)
3. Make anatomy the required skill, not arms lore. Arms lore continues to be required for disarm.
4. Swords, Wrestle, Macing & Fencing chars can hamstring, Archers cannot.

The concern with the above would be that would dexxers with 200 spare skill points plus the ability to hamstring be too powerful? If so, perhaps a compromise arrangement where you need 160 points between anatomy and arms lore, still allowing you some room for a compromise template with some non-GM skills.
 
Last edited:
#38
Making the skill requirement 1 skill isn't a good idea IMO. That would make it too easy to use it on a hybrid sub-GM template without sacrificing enough, or hell I could see some tanks drop resist for anat just for field.
 
#39
We could take a tip from AoS's determination of mana costs for special abilities here:
1) Player must have a total of 300-400 points between Anatomy, Arms Lore, Swords, Tactics, Fencing, Maces, Wrestling; and
2) Must have 80+ in Anatomy and the weapon skill attempting to hamstring.
 
#40
One thing you have to consider is that bolas/"daze hit" or anything that dismounts/nerfs your move speed you makes it damn near impossible for smaller groups to take on larger ones. Once you negate the level playing field when it comes to movement speed then you really push the balance of power way too far into the favor of zerg guilds, that's why I don't like it.

Marathon man PvP has been a complaint from people from the beginning of time, even on IPY where there were no mounts people would always complain about running. It's just hard to do anything about without screwing over small groups/guilds.
Exactly.

It is understandable that players can be frustrated by other players running from them. What is more frustrating, however, is being forced to engage in a fight that you don't want/a fight you can't win. In a sandbox game, especially one with non-consensual pvp, you can't force players to stand and fight. There are too many un-winnable fights. Zergs get too big, and pvp characters can have too big an advantage over pve characters.

If you are trying to kill someone that doesn't want to fight you, then you should have to run them down, and they should be able to escape.

Hamstring PvP Mechanic
  • When a player successfully Disarms another player, if the attacking player also has at least 80 Anatomy, they will also Hamstring the defending player
  • A player who is Hamstrung will have their stamina reduced to zero for 3 seconds (forcing them to "walk")
  • Players who are Hamstrung will not regenerate stamina and cannot use Refresh Potions or eat food to regain stamina
  • After 3 seconds have expired, the Hamstrung player's stamina returns to its previous value
  • As a reminder, players can only be disarmed (and therefore hamstrung) at most once every 30 seconds
I'm not a big fan of this idea for the reasons stated above, but we'll have to see how it works in the world. As I've seen some others say, it might be better if it were mount-only and 2 seconds instead of 3.

It might also be excessive to have the disarm and the hamstring guaranteed to go off at the same time. A dexer who can't run AND can't be missed with weapons is pretty much guaranteed dead.