|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
And I still think this idea that there will be PC groups ready and willing to follow you around as guards is unrealistic and is not going to happen without in-game motivations to make it happen.
I'd add to what Urman said above.
If you rephrase it slightly, I think it will be extremely common. That is, I think there will be plenty of PCs in your group ready and willing to follow you around as guards. Given that your group is either your Company, Settlement, or Nation.
I'm actually in favor of game mechanics that allow Bandits to ply their trade without trashing their Reputation, but it's not like the alternative would be unplayable. I always felt like the choice of whether to knock over a fat merchant and steal his stuff was one of those meaningful choices that PFO was all about. I have to admit I'd be inclined to take the Rep hit every once in a while if the payoff was large enough. In fact, I expect there will be a number of opportunistic bandits (lower-case "b") who don't actually build their characters to optimize Banditry, and who just occasionally take the Rep hit to reap a huge reward.
That said, "dealing with a crappy reputation" doesn't necessarily equate to being "gimped" as a Bandit. You might be "gimped" in other ways that none of us really understands yet, but it probably won't make you ineffective as a dedicated Bandit.
Being a highwayman is hard freakin' work. That's why there's not a lot of them. Always on the run, hunted by those who seek rewards, dealing with a crappy reputation; this is the life you choose.
Members of NPC Settlements will be able to train and use exotic character abilities linked to maximizing banditry operations.
Drakhan Valane wrote:
It's been suggested multiple times in the past. I believe they're not going to do it until GW hosts the forums themselves. I'll leave it to someone else *coughNihimoncough* to quote up something.
I probably wouldn't cough up anything more than what you've already said. It would only be interesting if they'd previously given some hints as to what kind of conditions would prompt the roll-out of the new forums, and I don't recall anything specific.
Oh, who am I kidding...
The concern for New Players borders on a specious argument...
Please note that I wasn't suggesting the game should "protect newbs". I merely referenced "newbs" in an example of the kinds of arguments I've heard folks make about why it's meaningful whenever they kill anyone.
... It is also an overblown issue in many other MMOs, bordering on a mythology created by players who do not agree with risks created by non consensual PvP.
Your insistence that this is the case is a clear indication that you don't understand the problem, as if another such indication were needed...
There are a lot of folks who want to play any PvP game like it's Halo, where the whole game is about killing everyone who's not on your team. There are also a lot of folks who want to play a game with lots and lots of meaningful PvP, but don't want to have to endure a lot of petty, random, meaningless PvP to get to it. Count me in that second group.
Sure. It's just that some folks seems to think "learning how to kill newbs" (or some other equally specious rationale) is a "benefit".
In Vanguard, the group window that showed the health bars of each character in your group also included a mini-compass that indicated the heading to that character as well as a distance. Less than 1,000, the distances were merely numbers, but over 1,000 and they showed "1 km", "72 km", etc. Seeing that measure so frequently was definitely immersion breaking for me, even though it probably wouldn't have if they'd been simply "1 k", "72 k", etc.
Some specific questions about the Land Rush.
1. Will it be "blind" in that we won't get to see which Settlements others have already chosen before making our own choice?
2. Will we be able to defer our choice in order to go later in the draw?
3. Will it be possible to "trade" a Settlement after the Land Rush?
4. Will it be possible to "lend a vote" to an ally? Obviously, this would mean we couldn't vote for our own Settlement.
Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
What you are missing is the point to the Reputation mechanic. It's not a measure of how likeable a chum you are, it's a measure of whether you are playing in the proper playstyles that Goblinworks wants you to play in.
I'm not sure where this is coming from, and would very much appreciate a link to a dev quote that says anything about Reputation being tied to "how well you play your role". On the other hand, I've seen several statements along these lines, that indicate Reputation really is more about how much other players enjoy playing with you.
Stephen Cheney wrote:
Also, while actions that lose Reputation are related to actions that reduce alignment, they're not locked to one another. It should be possible to go all the way Chaotic Evil while still maintaining a high Reputation. You'd have to be fun to game with (so other players give you a Reputation salute more often than a rebuke) and try to focus most of your PvP attention on low-Rep targets. Challenging people to "stand and deliver" and pay a toll* rather than jumping them without warning is probably a good way to maintain that (so if you do kill them, they're less likely to feel it was unfair), and there may be others. If you gathered enough players doing that, you could put together a highly functional CE settlement as well.
And just because I stumbled upon it while researching this post, I'd like to point out something else:
Blood on the Tracks wrote:
At the end of the day, if you're killing other players that are uninterested in PvP for no benefit, we want to make the costs significant enough to convince you to do something else, as that's the kind of thing that drives players away. However, if they know they have something valuable and fighting or fleeing from you is the price of profit, suddenly it's worthwhile for everyone. And those opportunities should be worth risking the consequences.
Yes, PFO is a PvP game. There will be lots of PvP, and being "uninterested" in it won't stop it from happening to you, nor should it. But there is a very specific (if small) subset of PvP that is really annoying and I'm really glad that Goblinworks has identified minimizing that type of PvP as an important design goal.
It may only be a 2% reduction in overall PvP, but it might well be more like an 80% reduction in the number of players who quit because they don't care to be slaughtered in meaningless, random PvP over and over by everyone they meet. And yes, those numbers are completely made up, but that gives you a sense of the scale of my imagining of the problem, which might explain why such a minor detail is so important to me personally.
Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
Remember folks: maps are not final. Don't get too caught up in the specifics just yet. ;)
I got the impression that Lee was telling us that the Land Rush map is 100% correct, and that the larger map is the one that's likely to change.
Lee, can you verify whether you expect there to be changes in the Land Rush Map between now and the Land Rush?
So do we have a clear understanding of how the landrush will work?
The last blog mentioned an upcoming post that would go into the details of the Land Rush. I've been anxiously awaiting that :)
Time is the Fire in which We Burn discussed the physics of 4x time with respect to traveling across hexes. However, that was when hexes were expected to be about 1.5 km across, before they were subdivided. Stephen Cheney recently verified the actual hex sizes:
We checked with Mike this morning and they're essentially 2km for every three hexes in a line (flat side to flat side). That means it's around 680m flat to flat and 780m point to point.
Since it took 15 minutes to travel 1.5 km, I think it's a safe assumption to think it will take 20 minutes to travel 2.0 km. Once that's modified by the 4x time rate, it should take about 5 minutes to cross three hexes. I think that's obviously not using Fast Travel, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's also not using any Sprint or other movement-enhancing effects.
Taylor Hainlen wrote:
Thanks very much for the info Taylor :)
Will we be able to build POIs in hexes that don't immediately border our Settlement Hex? If so, must we control POIs in the intervening hexes, and how is there a hard limit on how far that chain can extend?
Can the roads that extend from our Settlement to our POIs join up with the roads of friendly neighbors, creating a new trade route?
I think it's more based on human nature. I'm thinking of some story I heard/read about the evolution of the tradition of waving in the Old West. For whatever reason, the folks who were more likely to shoot you when you got close were also unlikely to give you a friendly wave first.
... I would still be playing Darkfall if you guys had liked it more and stayed.
I think the reason I harp on what will likely end up being only a very minor reduction in overall PvP is that I think it's going to be a significant reduction in the kind of PvP that would make me want to play something else.
In Darkfall, I didn't get upset when someone killed me while I was in the dark red PvP V area harvesting for xp. I didn't get upset when someone killed me while I was sneaking around their town trying to open up the map. What got me was the general, overall feeling that whenever I encountered anyone (where we were both obviously aware of each other), there was no reason for them not to kill me. There was no meaningful decision they had to make other than "can I win?"
I think it would be really useful to compile a list of recommendations for inexperienced players. Things like:
... doing something misguided like trying to figure out the exact conditions under which an exploitable bug occurred (I assume that replicating a non-exploitable bug and reporting the exact conditions under which it happens is desired, which could be legitimately confusing to some people)
I would expect that figuring out the exact steps to reproduce an exploitable bug would be invaluable information for the developers. I would also hope that anyone who did find the exact steps to reproduce an item duplication bug would destroy the duplicated items and report their findings.
@Bringslite, I think you're absolutely right that folks shouldn't be encouraged to think they can play PFO soloing, or duoing with their wife or friend, the way they've been able to in other games. That's one of the reasons I really loved this quote from Lee, and referenced* it* so* many* times*.
I am having trouble classifying Darkfall in the murder simulator realm.
I'm sure we all have our own definitions of "murder simulator". My problem with Darkfall, as I've said before, is that there was no reason not to kill a stranger just to see if he dropped something. The fact that PFO will have meaningful Reputation, so the question of "is it worth it to me to kill this stranger" isn't always an obvious yes.
I went out into the danger zones (in DFUW) often, as did many of the Goblin Squad. I went alone a great majority of the time. I made it back to "bank" my goodies 80 - 90% of the time.
Just in case it's not clear by my saying "most of the people try to kill you most of the time", I'm really not talking about the rate of "outings without being killed". I'm talking about, if you see 10 non-allies while you're away from the safe zones, do 7 of them try to kill you?
And yeah, I've gotten for a very long time that there will be lots of PvP in PFO. Please don't let the way some folks like to talk about my motives lull you into thinking I don't want a PvP game.
Good answer. That is pretty much how I see a very difficult and possibly painful (for GW as well as the player base) problem. :)
If my answer is significantly out of line with Ryan's expectations, I'd like to know that sooner rather than later.
[Edit] And if my obsession with the fact that PFO will have less random/meaningless PvP than a game like Darkfall is fine, but Ryan would prefer that not be construed by new folks as an indication that there won't be any random/meaningless PvP, or that they will be free from unwanted PvP in PFO, so he would prefer not to highlight that, I'm fine with that, too.
What is random/meaningless killing and how can you tell?
I don't think you can "tell" if any particular instance of a killing is random/meaningless. I think the proof will be in the way the game feels over time. When you first begin leaving the protection of the starter towns, if "most" of the people you meet kill you "most" of the time, it's a pretty safe bet they're doing it randomly/meaninglessly.
n Darkfall they had no reason (with us) except probably the loot we had on us.
In Darkfall, there was no reason not to kill.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
I'm increasingly worried that the messages coming out of the community don't match what will actually happen in game, and the disconnect between what people hear, and what they experience, will cause blowback.
For me, anything that causes other players to ask themselves "is it worth it to me to kill this guy" is going to make PFO significantly different than a game like Darkfall, and your commitment to break the pattern of random and meaningless killing is the critical feature of PFO that I think will make it appealing to a larger audience. That makes me want to share that viewpoint.
Is that viewpoint itself wrong? Or is there a perception - perhaps heavily influenced by consistent mischaracterization - that my viewpoint is something other than what I described above?
You have to spend the "Millions for Defense" or prepare to be killed because you refused to pay the "One Copper in Tribute". I know that sounded like a witty comment when you first made it, but now that you see you might actually have to pay for that defense, you seem to be concerned and falling back on the "where is the game mechanic to help me?"
Do you seriously not get that "Millions for Defense, Not One Copper in Tribute" is a challenge directly to folks like you? I want you to come and try to take my stuff. I relish the opportunity to fight you for it. It's the same reason I keep advocating for game systems to protect you when you try to live the life of a Bandit. Hypocrite.
The part Nihimon seems to be struggling with is that he is attributing "indiscriminate" to an attack that is motivated based on the harvester's actions of mining high value resources.
No! It should be obvious to you and everyone else by now that you do not have an accurate sense of the things that motivate me. You're dead wrong in this case, and it's near-contemptible of you to suggest that given what I've already said in direct conversations with you.
If you're going into an area with valuable resources, you should expect that others will want to secure those resources for themselves and might be willing to kill you for them.
If Brighthaven/TEO has a group harvesting nodes in a skymetal hex, those harvesters might be getting some good wealth. A competing settlement or company might enter into PvP legitimately, and the two groups might kill each other early and often. This is fine, working as intended.
I don't see that as the likely scenario Zandari was concerned about.
The first time my level 4 self gets murdered by a level 12 jerkwad in this game...
This sounds to me more like the concern of a "New Player trying to learn the game" being killed by a character at the "Heroic Adventurer" power level who gains nothing from it but the joy of tears and rage. To respond to that concern with "you will be killed early and often, get used to it" seems out of place to me. I would have expected something more along the lines of "the more risk you take, the more reward you'll receive, but if you deliberately play to minimize your risk, you should experience significantly less random player killing in PFO than you should expect in most other Open PvP games".
@Nihimon, both of these statements can certainly be true if: getting killed early and often will happen, and the people (players? characters?) who succeed long-term won't be those who killed others early and often and without discrimination.
This is the part I'm struggling with.
If Ryan intends to "repeatedly and powerfully shock the system" in order to "break this pattern", wouldn't you expect that pattern to, you know, be broken?
I would be happier if units of measurement had archaic names. It doesn't really matter what they represent as everything in the game is abstracted anyhow.
This. I wouldn't even mind if you simply renamed "meters" to "feet" or "yards" and "kilometers" to "miles" or "leagues". It wouldn't make the slightest difference to me that those distances didn't correspond to their real-world namesakes, and it doesn't matter to me in the slightest whether you decide to make a league equal to 1,000 feet, or a mile equal to 1,000 yards, or any other combination.
Stephen Cheney wrote:
These should hopefully make the choice of a location more interesting than just what resources are nearby and where your friends are.
We spent a couple of hours last night talking about it amongst ourselves, and I'm sure we'll spend many more hours talking about it with our allies and partners.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Interplayer conflict is at the heart of our game design. Getting killed by another player is going to happen early, and often.
Ryan, I'm a little confused about the message you're trying to send.
Can you help me try to reconcile these?
@Djoc, after reading your analysis and studying the map a bit more, I think I get what you're saying and I think you're probably right. Looking at it as one "cliff line" that runs from the northwest of the map southeast along the Hills and around the Hilly Forests in the south before turning northeast, and a second "cliff line" that surrounds each of the mountain areas, the maps and the X passes make much more sense. Thanks :)
I have to agree that this is about the same as it is in most other FFA PVP sandbox games out there. It is at least. when you break it down. It seems that there will be MANY ways to be a legit target. Something that we would do better to face and embrace, than to deny.
I agree that there will be many ways to be a legitimate target, that we will be "often at risk", and that we should embrace that. I disagree that we should expect PFO to be "about the same as it is in most FFA PVP sandbox games out there". You referenced the reason for this in your first sentence, and it's something Ryan has made abundantly clear time after time.
We are going to break this pattern and we are going to redefine those preconceptions. In order to do that we must repeatedly and powerfully shock the system. One of those shocks is a negative feedback loop that links random killing to gimping character development.
It should be clear that Lifedragn and I are talking about this kind of random killing. Obviously, if you're in a feud, or in enemy territory, or even just in someone else's territory, you're taking on significant risk. It should also be clear that occasionally being killed randomly is tolerable. It's when the game gets to the point that you'll be randomly killed "more often than not" that it becomes a problem.
For example, there are a number of Home hexes where certain monster types always spawn. Players will be going to these areas to get the achievements they need to develop their characters. If most of these areas turn into murder simulators a la Darkfall, where you should expect to be attacked by pretty much anyone you see because more often than not you will be, then I think there's a problem.
Dominance is one aspect of PFO. If that aspect comes to dominate Exploration, Adventure, and Development, then I think there's a problem.