Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Here's what I'm hearing from the Devs


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 98 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as a favorite.

That they intend the game to allow murder and robbery (What Ryan said on the crafting thread implied that there will be full or partial looting of corpses. On other threads, he has indicated support for non-consensual PvP.)

I will have to pay Goblinworks to perform a second job in fantasy life-simulator.

When I'm paying for entertainment, I want to play a game. Not watch a virtual economy to know what price I need to set to sell a chunk of iron for. I don't want to explore an uncharted area and be more worried about asshats running around murdering other players for yuks. That isn't realistic, it's just virtual bullying.

Thanks for the announcement of a game, but if this game is going to have a basic familiarity with EVE Online, this fan has to say "No thanks and good luck!"


Quote:
I will have to pay Goblinworks to perform a second job

Can you elaborate on this statement? Because the game is using an F2P hybrid system where you can either play free and microtransact the special benefits you want you want or pay a subscription.

I haven't seen anything from them indicating Pathfinder Online will have a limited experience similar to the WoW free trial levels, but rather that it will be free to play with side content you can buy.


"Pale" wrote:
I will have to pay Goblinworks to perform a second job

Oh don't be so sour, chum. We can have plenty of fun on PFO together. All those female elves wearing plate bikinis and pirates and goons. It will be a gay* ol' time.

*Gay being used in its correct terminology.


If you read to the very end of my sentence you will notice that I said "in [a] fantasy-life simulator".

This has nothing to do with the cost of the game.

Goblin Squad Member

Pale wrote:

If you read to the very end of my sentence you will notice that I said "in [a] fantasy-life simulator".

This has nothing to do with the cost of the game.

I think it is important to remember that Adventurer would be on par with any job too.

I may decide to sit at home (in game) and work on getting my mixture of iron and carbon perfect to make the strongest steel I am able, and this to me would be a good time. You may decide to go delve into goblin pits in search of treasure or adventure because that is what you think is a good time.

The way I read what they are going to do is that they are going to allow us both to do as we wish...which works well because you can bring me any crafting stuffs you find, and I will trade you the products of my endeavors.

As for PvP...I like PvP for the sake of RP freedom. There is nothing worse than.../I slapped thee..../I dodged under your slap and follow it with a backhand spring and kick to the knee...etc...just shut up and do it for real. Likewise, the threat of "real" violence can be a protection from griefers. Unfortunately, I do not know how to reconcile those who would be irrational and illogical murderers for the sake of being so. But I would not have anyone remove my right to protect.

Goblin Squad Member

Pale wrote:

If you read to the very end of my sentence you will notice that I said "in [a] fantasy-life simulator".

This has nothing to do with the cost of the game.

The devs are also saying that a player should be able to choose his own level of security to some degree. I'm in and around these forums a great deal and I am not getting the feeling that this game is going to be a free for all, not at all.

There will be looting, and non consensual PvP. To what degree we do not know, but it won't be a royal rumble by any means. They have mentioned very harsh punishments for playerkilling. Free for all open pvp MMORPGs generally do not have these.

Wait and see. We know very little about this game.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm just concerned about other players being jerks. I work customer service, I deal with jerks all the time, if I play Pathfinder online I want to explore, go on adventures, and worry more about monsters and NPC's killing me than about other players. Last thing I need is to suffer in a game because I decide to get out of the house, socialize, and not spend all of my free time power leveling, collecting mad lewt and gacking n00bz because they suxxorz.

Taldor

What I find problematic is that the game sounds kind of... exhausting.

It just sounds like lots and lots of work, involving huge amounts of time socializing with other people in chat sessions, emails and whatnot to get things organized for the big grand events. I've played in boffer larps, such as Darkon and Dagorhir and the vision for PFO kind of reminds me of all the meetings, strategies and time invested. I can see how it would tap people's interest, but you have to have that fire in your belly to really become a "playa" in the game.

As with some of the GM threads, I think what would interest me the most would be a way to tap into my GMing skills over the last 30 years, bypassing the need to be a mover and a shaker, and just be able to direct some of the emergent narrative as if I was playing an RTS game (at least in metaphor). It would be great to have a fast track to having control of a bunch of bots and be able to use them to push a narrative on other players. However I can't see doing that if I have to grind and glad hand my way to the top to pull that off.


Coldman wrote:
Pale wrote:

If you read to the very end of my sentence you will notice that I said "in [a] fantasy-life simulator".

This has nothing to do with the cost of the game.

The devs are also saying that a player should be able to choose his own level of security to some degree. I'm in and around these forums a great deal and I am not getting the feeling that this game is going to be a free for all, not at all.

There will be looting, and non consensual PvP. To what degree we do not know, but it won't be a royal rumble by any means. They have mentioned very harsh punishments for playerkilling. Free for all open pvp MMORPGs generally do not have these.

Wait and see. We know very little about this game.

There is no in-game penalty to keep people from grief-killing. The only way to prevent it is to not allow it in the first place. I'm seeing the seeds of "that's life!" responses that I've seen in other games with non-consensual PvP. For the record, I love consensual PvP, Battlegrounds, PvP Zones and Arena fighting. I simply don't care for a PvP environment that caters to bullies (non-consensual PvP).

I am not interested in investing my time and money into a game that rewards Player Character Killing with "you get their stuff". Nor do I wish to pay money to run their game for them or feel pressured to be online to protect virtual things.

It's a game model that promotes game addiction. It's a game model that supports sociopathic behaviors, it's a game model I'm not willing to invest my time in.

It's fine if others are, more power to them and have fun with the game. It's a shame that there are certain elements already being championed by the developers that turn me off to the product.


Why am I reminded of dot hack sign at the moment with the playerkillers stuff?

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

havoc xiii wrote:
Why am I reminded of dot hack sign at the moment with the playerkillers stuff?

Because you're more familiar with that than the games people are complaining about, I suppose.

Silver Crusade

So "griefers" are only going to be present if there is non-consensual PvP? There are going to be people making the game hell for people with or without PvP.

We have no idea if any of these ideas are going to carry through to the end version of the game. There is a lot of people complaining about X or scared of Y. When, as far as we know, neither exist in anything but what may be floating around in the devs minds.

Seriously, everyone has made so many comments about how they hate PvP and how people are going to make life hell for them. I regularly play on in a PvP environment and its fine. Just seems to be a lot of shrinking violets around these forums complaining about "big old bad PvP".

Learn to play the game, gain some levels and experience, make some friends. Then kick the almighty Aroden out of any "griefer" who comes along and beats on you. Just don't come up with I hate X and so I might play because of it. I am not sure there is much of a care factor if you play or not.

It is an MMO, not a nanny state.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Chubbs - Don't twist what I say.

Quote:


I am not sure there is much of a care factor if you play or not.

Then don't post in the thread.

I'm offering a view for the developers to consider. Nothing more, nothing less.

And seriously, I'm sick of the comments about how non-consensual PvP is so awesome and great. It's a source of frustration in a game. It's amazing how most don't like frustration to be a part of their relaxation time, isn't it?

"Learn to play the game."

Thanks for assuming that anyone who doesn't take your position doesn't learn to play the game. Guess what? I don't want to bother getting revenge! I don't want that as part of my game play!

You do!

Great!

That's the game you're getting!


I'll be perma-ignoring this thread now.

*waves bye*

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Chubbs McGee wrote:
Seriously, everyone has made so many comments about how they hate PvP and how people are going to make life hell for them. I regularly play on in a PvP environment and its fine. Just seems to be a lot of shrinking violets around these forums complaining about "big old bad PvP".

And what PVP environment is that? How has it formed? What restrictions does it have?

Contribute something to the conversation other than "Man up, carebear."

Goblin Squad Member

Mok wrote:
What I find problematic is that the game sounds kind of... exhausting.

Welcome to the world of MMOs!

Even WoW is exhaustive when a run through the newest instance takes 4 hours of more or less constant concentration ("don't stand there", "he is raging, fire the timers", "why didn't you turn the mob around?", "your dps is too low, get a grip").

An MMO is a game that doesn't wait for you!

In this light what we hear so far is that PFO and EVE will have a lot of similarities BUT, small things matter A LOT for the overall feel of a game.

It might be that partial looting isn't that bad because the things you can loot do not matter much anyways - it might be that this feature never makes it in.

So in my almost 30 years of MUDs and MMOs I know that a lot of things that are said before the release of a game play out entirely different than anticipated by the crowd.

Goblin Squad Member

Pale wrote:
There is no in-game penalty to keep people from grief-killing.

This is not true, quite the opposite. Ryan mentioned that it should be hard and perilous for a player to do this.

Yes these forums are now attracting a horrible crowd as word gets around, so perhaps taking forum time off is not a bad thing. But writing a game off which has no more official word on it than a brief F.A.Q is a little daft.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Coldman wrote:
Yes these forums are now attracting a horrible crowd as word gets around,

Won't it be fun when those players can kill your character and take your stuff?

This is glib, but it's why I want to hear a clearer vision of how social engineering is going to rein in bad actors. Because once the tone is set, things get out of hand very quickly, and it's hard to undo that once it's done.


Depending on what penalties death incurs will determine how much i dislike nonconsent pvp however i am heavily against having my corpse looted and everything i might have worked for or even some of it taken simply because i chose to walk outside of town where xxxSepriothxxx and his guild of bandits The Booty Looters are waiting to gank anyone not in a group of 20

Silver Crusade

A Man In Black wrote:
And what PVP environment is that? How has it formed? What restrictions does it have? Contribute something to the conversation other than "Man up, carebear."

Most of my experience (read as in the game I tend to play for any length of time) is with WoW. I primarily play on a PvP server (Blackrock) and a RPPvP server (Emerald Dream). It appears that a lot of people are familiar with WoW on these forums and probably do not need me to explain the division of servers.

You want me to contribute to the conversation? Since you focused on two sentences of my post, you may have missed the first one:

Quote:
So "griefers" are only going to be present if there is non-consensual PvP? There are going to be people making the game hell for people with or without PvP.

I have tried to make this point a couple of times. Lots of people are worrying about PvP, in a game that is yet to even exist, and seem blinded to the possibility that players can be a hassle without non-consensual PvP. Alright, it can be a great source of, well, grief, but if a player is determined to make life hell for you there are other ways.

My stance, as I have supported in another thread, is to keep the PvE and the PvP divided over two types of servers. However, that is what I am most familiar with and the most comfortable with as a gamer. It is the reason I choose the servers I place my characters on WoW. To me, this keeps everyone happy and allows people to enjoy the other of aspects of the game they do find interesting.

When I started out on WoW, I was ganked constantly. Instead of giving up, I took on the challenge of improving my own game when it came to PvP and if I failed to keep myself alive... so be it.. Today, I can enjoy every aspect of the game that a RP-PvP server has to offer (yes, I know that a PvE server allows you to choose to enter a PvP area). I am by no means brilliant at the game, but it has been a lot more fun trying to rise to the challenge of playing on PvP server and not simply giving up.

In saying that, if people do not like PvP, give them the choice from the beginning. Do not hamper their ability to enjoy the game world. If they want to wander off into the wilderness and enjoy PvE without the hassle of PvP, they're the subscriber. Keep them happy and let them play.

I like the idea of heading out into the wilderness and going up against other players. YMMV. I do not play in a PvP environment because I enjoy ganking players, I do it because it adds a lot more interest to the game. Going up against other players is a lot more interesting than grinding out the same mobs over and over and over...

Silver Crusade

Talonhawke wrote:
Depending on what penalties death incurs will determine how much i dislike nonconsent pvp however i am heavily against having my corpse looted and everything i might have worked for or even some of it taken simply because i chose to walk outside of town where xxxSepriothxxx and his guild of bandits The Booty Looters are waiting to gank anyone not in a group of 20

Corpse looting is a really bad idea.

Being ganked repeatedly by xxxSepriothxxx and The Booty Looters I can handle. Having my corpses looted is another thing entirely. Still, depending on how the game deals with it, then I would make a judgement on if I wanted to play or not.


Chubbs McGee wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Depending on what penalties death incurs will determine how much i dislike nonconsent pvp however i am heavily against having my corpse looted and everything i might have worked for or even some of it taken simply because i chose to walk outside of town where xxxSepriothxxx and his guild of bandits The Booty Looters are waiting to gank anyone not in a group of 20

Corpse looting is a really bad idea.

Being ganked repeatedly by xxxSepriothxxx and The Booty Looters I can handle. Having my corpses looted is another thing entirely. Still, depending on how the game deals with it, then I would make a judgement on if I wanted to play or not.

My point exactly i can handle death unless its over harsh i can't handle having to rebuild my gear everytime i get killed.


Chubbs McGee wrote:
My stance, as I have supported in another thread, is to keep the PvE and the PvP divided over two types of servers. However, that is what I am most familiar with and the most comfortable with as a gamer. It is the reason I choose the servers I place my characters on WoW. To me, this keeps everyone happy and allows people to enjoy the other of aspects of the game they do find interesting.

OH MY GOD YOU WANT TO MAKE THE BEAUTIFUL PATHFINDER ONLINE INTO AN UGLY HORRIBLE BADWRONG WORLD OF WARCRAFT RIPOFF GOTOHELLYOUHORRIBLEMONSTER!! *Switches satire mode off*

Ahem, I actually support this stance. Sure, it's a system that another game uses, BUT IT'S A SYSTEM THAT WORKS!! There are players who wanna have the non-consensual PvP and there are those who don't. Instead of telling one side to suck it up, let both have what they want. It's not that hard to do, and it surely will make both sides like you more rather than leave one side liking you and the other hating you.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chubbs McGee wrote:
When I started out on WoW, I was ganked constantly. Instead of giving up, I took on the challenge of improving my own game when it came to PvP and if I failed to keep myself alive... so be it.. Today, I can enjoy every aspect of the game that a RP-PvP server has to offer (yes, I know that a PvE server allows you to choose to enter a PvP area). I am by no means brilliant at the game, but it has been a lot more fun trying to rise to the challenge of playing on PvP server and not simply giving up.

Understand that people who are talking about nonconsensual PVP are often talking about games with far, far broader rulesets than WOW. Ganking cost you a corpserun in WOW. Some of the people in this thread have played games where being ganked cost you everything you owned; one of the games called out as an inspiration for PFO allows people to take all of your gear if they kill you.

Understand also that there are lots of people who consider playing on Blackrock back in the pre-BG days (I don't know when you played WOW) to be "carebear". WOW still has absolutely one of the most forgiving PVP death penalties in the business, and led the path in doing so, but one of the refrains here is "PFO isn't WOW."

If PFO was as carebear as WOW PVP servers, I'd be fine and dandy.


Please, let's not have non-consensual PvP.
GRU


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In a way it comes down to how "sandbox" you want the game, to use the popular generic buzzword that surrounds these parts o' town.

In full unlimited anything goes sandbox, I can kill you, take your stuff, hide from the guards, and that's it. That's the end of The Story Of Your Stuff.

And if you build a cool house I can burn it down.

And if you make a farm I can cover it in salt.

And if you make a castle I can kick you out and claim it for my own.

And then I can build a large sign that says "THANKS FOR THE CASTLE, [your name would be here]!" on the top of this castle, bought from the money I took from you when I stole your castle, salted your farm, burned down your house, and mugged you.

This is what "unlimited freedom" means. I've seen some people here claiming there shouldn't be NPCs for god's sake. Heck that suits this hypothetical player even more - it removes the "hide from the guards" part of the equation! Much more efficient!

In fact, the game that this was initially compared to - by the CEO of the company in charge of the game no less - is EVE. Which is somewhat infamous for just how absurdly complex schemes to screw over other players can get.

...So, the path I'm hoping to see is "Whoh, ok, maybe not full 'sandbox,' whatever that means. Whoops!" But, you know. However the wind blows~

Silver Crusade

A Man In Black wrote:
...

The term 'carebear' really does not bother me aMiB. I do not play any MMO to prove something about myself or to purposefully bring misery to others. If Blackrock was once considered the 'carebear' of PvP servers, so what?

Yes, WoW is fairly forgiving when it comes to PvP. I think I made my stance pretty clear about corpse looting above.

I am not sure how you have gleamed from my past that I believe PFO is anything like WoW. I am pretty sure the game does not exist in its final form yet and only ideas or some plans have been for what it will be have been revealed.

What I did say if that I think the idea of dividing the servers into PvE and PvP (which is a WoW feature) seems to me (so in my opinion) a good way to calm peoples initial fears about PvP in this not yet completed game. Outside that one point, I am pretty sure PFO will not be WoW.

In saying that, I will still give PFO a shot even if it does turn out to have non-consensual PvP and corpse looting.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Chubbs McGee wrote:
I am not sure how you have gleamed from my past that I believe PFO is anything like WoW. I am pretty sure the game does not exist in its final form yet and only ideas or some plans have been for what it will be have been revealed.

The thing is, people are arguing, in strong terms, against the game resembling games which are not WOW, games which (by your own admission) you haven't played. The reason people are unhappy with PVP is PVP generally comes with lots of other baggage that WOW was a trendsetter in not including, and that pretty much only theme park games exclude. Even in EVE, getting "killed" can mean losing your ship, your cargo, and (if podded) your modules, and that can really suck, up to and including (in the most extreme case) six effing thousand dollars worth of in-game goods. Not 6000 make-believe units of currency. Enough to buy a used car, more than most people make in a month, about 3.5 ounces of pure real-life gold.

So that's why people are unhappy with PVP in the context of a sandbox game. Not because they just don't like dying.


A Man In Black wrote:
Chubbs McGee wrote:
I am not sure how you have gleamed from my past that I believe PFO is anything like WoW. I am pretty sure the game does not exist in its final form yet and only ideas or some plans have been for what it will be have been revealed.

The thing is, people are arguing, in strong terms, against the game resembling games which are not WOW, games which (by your own admission) you haven't played. The reason people are unhappy with PVP is PVP generally comes with lots of other baggage that WOW was a trendsetter in not including, and that pretty much only theme park games exclude. Even in EVE, getting "killed" can mean losing your ship, your cargo, and (if podded) your modules, and that can really suck, up to and including (in the most extreme case) six effing thousand dollars worth of in-game goods.

So that's why people are unhappy with PVP in the context of a sandbox game. Not because they just don't like dying.

Yep think this hits the nail on the head. Kill me make me run back from town make me deal with a debuff. Do not take the stuff that I work to get in the few hours i have to play each day.

Silver Crusade

A Man In Black wrote:
So that's why people are unhappy with PVP in the context of a sandbox game. Not because they just don't like dying.

Thank you for belaboring a point that I have acknowledge once I got over my hissy fit. I can actually read what you have written above.

Silver Crusade

Talonhawke wrote:
Yep think this hits the nail on the head. Kill me make me run back from town make me deal with a debuff. Do not take the stuff that I work to get in the few hours i have to play each day.

I am seeing the other side of the "conversation" now. I can fully sympathise with anyone who loses hard earned gear in a PvP environment. It sounds like corpse-looting was a PITA in other games. Definitely not the best addition to any game.

Goblin Squad Member

Talonhawke wrote:
A Man In Black wrote:
Chubbs McGee wrote:
I am not sure how you have gleamed from my past that I believe PFO is anything like WoW. I am pretty sure the game does not exist in its final form yet and only ideas or some plans have been for what it will be have been revealed.

The thing is, people are arguing, in strong terms, against the game resembling games which are not WOW, games which (by your own admission) you haven't played. The reason people are unhappy with PVP is PVP generally comes with lots of other baggage that WOW was a trendsetter in not including, and that pretty much only theme park games exclude. Even in EVE, getting "killed" can mean losing your ship, your cargo, and (if podded) your modules, and that can really suck, up to and including (in the most extreme case) six effing thousand dollars worth of in-game goods.

So that's why people are unhappy with PVP in the context of a sandbox game. Not because they just don't like dying.

Yep think this hits the nail on the head. Kill me make me run back from town make me deal with a debuff. Do not take the stuff that I work to get in the few hours i have to play each day.

Personally, I'd be cool with a system where "corpse looting" means "kill another player and get copies of some of their gear without actually depriving them of their own equipment."

Silver Crusade

May be only being able to take stuff that is not bound to the character?

Goblin Squad Member

I know the OP isn't reading this but I understand where hes coming from.

From what I'm reading so far I'm actually being turned off the idea of playing PFO, instead of feeling an urge to google it every day to find a release date!.

I don't like PvP most of the time but occasionally I enjoy the adrenaline rush it gives me.

When I don't want to PvP I play a roleplaying or challenge game like Skyrim or Batman: arkham city.

When I want to PvP I Play an online FPS like Team Fortress, Quake III Arena, etc.

PvP has its place but it needs to be balanced and on a level playing field.

MMOs are far from balanced because of levels, time investment and achievements. I don't think there is a way to marry the two together equaly without restricting it to specific servers or areas (battlegrounds) but game designers will continue to try. in many PvP MMOs the choice is there to PvP or Not but from what I'm reading the choice may not be there at all which puts PFO squarely in the Play to PVP camp.

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Chubbs McGee wrote:
Talonhawke wrote:
Yep think this hits the nail on the head. Kill me make me run back from town make me deal with a debuff. Do not take the stuff that I work to get in the few hours i have to play each day.
I am seeing the other side of the "conversation" now. I can fully sympathise with anyone who loses hard earned gear in a PvP environment. It sounds like corpse-looting was a PITA in other games. Definitely not the best addition to any game.

In Lineage 2 it definitely was especially since it was effectively non-consensual. Prime gathering areas were quickly taken over by dark elf assassin squads (that particular race/class combo being very effective gankers in groups)

Note though given the popularity of Eve Online!, there are folks who go for this stuff.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ProfessorCirno wrote:

In a way it comes down to how "sandbox" you want the game, to use the popular generic buzzword that surrounds these parts o' town.

In full unlimited anything goes sandbox, I can kill you, take your stuff, hide from the guards, and that's it. That's the end of The Story Of Your Stuff.

And if you build a cool house I can burn it down.

And if you make a farm I can cover it in salt.

And if you make a castle I can kick you out and claim it for my own.

And then I can build a large sign that says "THANKS FOR THE CASTLE, [your name would be here]!" on the top of this castle, bought from the money I took from you when I stole your castle, salted your farm, burned down your house, and mugged you.

This is what "unlimited freedom" means. I've seen some people here claiming there shouldn't be NPCs for god's sake. Heck that suits this hypothetical player even more - it removes the "hide from the guards" part of the equation! Much more efficient!

In fact, the game that this was initially compared to - by the CEO of the company in charge of the game no less - is EVE. Which is somewhat infamous for just how absurdly complex schemes to screw over other players can get.

...So, the path I'm hoping to see is "Whoh, ok, maybe not full 'sandbox,' whatever that means. Whoops!" But, you know. However the wind blows~

I, for one, would love to see a fantasy version of EVE. The PVP aspects are one of the things that drives the game, and is by far the most dangerous. Players can exist in safe zones though and not experience the more dangerous aspects. You tend to end up focusing in an area of the game you most enjoy. Players establish micro-communities arround mutual defense. Eve is one of the few games out there that I have seen where the massively multiplayer aspects are fully utalized in this regard, and you cannot just replace everyone else in the game with a good bot.

This style is by far not for everyone. Different people get different things out of games. No game will be for everyone.

Goblinworks Founder

LazarX wrote:

In Lineage 2 it definitely was especially since it was effectively non-consensual. Prime gathering areas were quickly taken over by dark elf assassin squads (that particular race/class combo being very effective gankers in groups)

Note though given the popularity of Eve Online!, there are folks who go for this stuff.

It really depends on quite a few factors whether or not looting is going to work. I definitely don't know all the answers but the term risk vs reward needs to work both ways.

Risk vs reward for the average player out gathering resources or questing is the further away from civilization he ventures he will be getting much better rewards from his resource gathering or better loot from the monsters he fights. The risk being that there is more difficult encounters and the risk of player killers (and no guards to protect you).

Risk vs Reward for the player killer/looter. This is where we always seem to fall down. To quote South Park "How do you kill that which has no life?"
I do not have the answer to this. I have seen many companies try to implement ways to penalize the player killer but they are smart enough to exploit whatever system is in place for their own enjoyment.

Goblin Squad Member

I have played a killer in DAoC. I would hide in Darkness Falls and attack groups when they were distracted. This ment for me 1 vs 8, I got killed nearly as often than I killed, but I had my notoriety - people watched out when they read my characters name in the kill spam channel. They aknowledged my skill that even 1 vs 8 I could kill one or two of them and sometimes even get away (I played a non stealthing class!) before they could kill me.

Almost all players still cite DF as the best thing that happened to DAoC.

The griefer has none of this. He is not here for the thrill of the hunt but for the thrill of the kill alone and that means the easier the better. You can not punish the griever with anything short of a ban.

Now we arrive at the point where a working open PvP game is a game where you can easily prevent griefing while still allowing killing.

The solution so far has been semi-consensual PvP as in there are certain (large) PvP zones that have ample PvE content and are very rewarding to PvEers.

Goblin Squad Member

Chubbs McGee wrote:
May be only being able to take stuff that is not bound to the character?

Is there ever any stuff worth taking that isn't "bound"?

I never really liked the idea of binding items actually. Why shouldn't I be able to trade my sword of sharpness when I'm done with it?

Andoran Goblin Squad Member

deinol wrote:
Chubbs McGee wrote:
May be only being able to take stuff that is not bound to the character?

Is there ever any stuff worth taking that isn't "bound"?

I never really liked the idea of binding items actually. Why shouldn't I be able to trade my sword of sharpness when I'm done with it?

It's an artificial but apparently important mechanic to inflate the economy. If everything could be traded after it's used, crafters would stop making money after the first round of players.

The only other option is to have significant item decay, so after they wear out you need to go out and buy a new one.

Goblin Squad Member

deinol wrote:
Chubbs McGee wrote:
May be only being able to take stuff that is not bound to the character?

Is there ever any stuff worth taking that isn't "bound"?

I never really liked the idea of binding items actually. Why shouldn't I be able to trade my sword of sharpness when I'm done with it?

I also agree with the lack of binding, unfortunately the drawback of non-binding, is it leads to an inevitable crush of economy for all but the highest tiered tiered items.

Wave 1 of players goes, works and earns the expected level 5 gear, then upgrades to the level 10 gear.

Wave 2 of players buys wave 1's level 5 gear on the cheap. Half motivated earns a bit of it themselves, now there's 1.5x more level 5 gear then there are level 5 players, wave 3 comes in, gear is even cheaper everyone buys it. Etc... When the supply is 10x the demand, the value = non-existent as a result then crafting winds up in a system like WoW's (for those who haven't done crafting in WoW, basically crafting works like this, to make a set of armor, the materials will cost you say 30 gold, you might be able to sell the armor you make for 5-10 gold, Items that do not require max level of crafting will be sold for less then the value of the materials, because all anyone wants to craft is the top level gear (note this isn't a supply issue, In WoW this is because there are more people crafting purely to level crafting, then there are people who actually want the product. Being a pure crafter in WoW and expecting to not lose money afterwards, is entirely impossible without hemorrhaging a huge supply of money earned elsewhere first.

Basically an infinitely increasing supply, requires something to take the gear out of circulation, to prevent a mass pooling of everything that is outgrown, it needs to be destroyed somehow. Whether by binding and forcing players to destroy it themselves when they are done, or the mechanics could simply make armor itself wear out and have a point where repairing it is as costly as making it fresh. (or simply allow crafters to make money by repairing and accept the value of armor being low).

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Most of my MMO experience is with EVE, where some stuff is destroyed if your ship blows up. I made plenty of money primarily as a crafter. I made ammo. Ammo is always in demand in a war zone. I set up my buy (ore) and sell (ammo) orders to make money while I was offline. Then I could spend my online time having fun.

There are ways to have a functioning economy without binding gear.

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:
deinol wrote:
or the mechanics could simply make armor itself wear out and have a point where repairing it is as costly as...

You got it.

In past successful systems, armour and weapons would eventually deteriorate and de destroyed. Repairing an item would restore it to full durability, but increasingly diminish that capacity to the point that it would eventually break. Add in the effects of player corpses not being looted in both PvE and PvP scenarios as average unneeded gear is ignored or in too dangerous a position to try to retrieve.

Binding items ensures the failure of player driven economies. In Ultima Online they implemented insurance so that items could not be looted, lost and means to extend it's 'life'. Say farewell to crafting having a purpose.

Using an items continued longitivity as an arguement for binding doesn't work as a true sandbox player economy almost assumes an item sink.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
deinol wrote:

Most of my MMO experience is with EVE, where some stuff is destroyed if your ship blows up. I made plenty of money primarily as a crafter. I made ammo. Ammo is always in demand in a war zone. I set up my buy (ore) and sell (ammo) orders to make money while I was offline. Then I could spend my online time having fun.

There are ways to have a functioning economy without binding gear.

Eve handles it through item destruction. Ships are permanently lost, and the resources from looting the "corpse" do not equal the resources required to build what was lost. Basically, in order to have a functioning economy, you need to have a way of taking resources out of the system.

There are a couple of ways I can see doing this in a fantasy setting:
1. Outfitting NPCs: Have all this low level gear that is clogging up the ecconomy: make higher level characters have a demand for it. Presumably people will want to found castles, recruit armies, and do cool things like that. If my guiild can have a squadron of low level mook guards that defends our keep when no one is online, that is cool. If we can upgrade them by buying out low tier gear, it drains high level players of resources and creates demand for the low level economy even at high level play. Make it so that these characters have perma-death and give options for players to wage war on eachother, and suddenly you have a fairly sustainable ecconomy.

2. Infinite expansion crafting - Crafters can make swords, but you accept that the sword market will eventually become unproffitable. You instead design your ecconomy arround people expanding. new castles take resources. People will want to build their own keeps, and possibly more than one. Guilds will want to claim chunks of land and then defend them. Make sestemic threats that cause these keeps to require constant maintenance (goblin hordes attack). Make these structures significant drains on resources that the players work to get, and then keep adding zones where players can explore further out than the previous keep into frontier. Slowly, the center populated game world becomes safe, but you will always have people going out to the frontier to try to make a name for themselves. You can decrease resource rarity in the now overly safe zones (its been mined/looted out) to encourage expansion. Players will want to build safety/civilization in the wilderness to access their cool abilities (advanced crafting) there, get teleportation back to other areas (guild keep), ect. You can create a cyclical loop where people want to improve the country side. Now you have resource drain, but not necessarily in gear.

3. To go allong with number 2 - allow player destruction of other players stuff. If I build a castle, let annother player try to siege it. The resulting war should result in permanent resource loss. Hopefully it will be a greater loss on the aggressor, to discourage repeat offenses without significant build up. This has resulted in some really interesting emmerging behavior in EVE, where you have guilds banding together for mutual defense, while others are hell bent on destroying civilization as the game knows it. It creates an interesting dynamic. This kind of play appeals to many people, while others will absolutely hate it. More casual gamers beware.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

What Caineach describes is how I see the game. Now, I don't play EVE, but if PFO is going to be a sandbox game, this method is good.

I think the current perception is that you will spend 2 weeks making an awesome flaming axe to use, and you will get killed and lose it. In a game where dying and losing equipment happens easily, the equipment usually comes cheap and easy.

You can't compare a sandbox MMO loot to Diku/EQ/WoW style loot that is hard to obtain. The challenge is not gathering the materials to make the axe; the mats are easy to obtain. The challenge is spending 2 weeks discovering the way to MAKE the axe...and that cannot be looted off your character. So in a game like this, you die and lose everything. You respawn, you spend 5 minutes at the armory and re-outfit yourself with almost everything you just lost. You have another flaming axe, and you can keep making them as long as you keep enough materials in stock.

I have asked EVE players (and maybe one will confirm it here), but you can tell when a corporation is struggling to fight a war or has fallen on hard times: In the beginning they probably have tier 2 outfitted ships. As the war drags on and they drain their reserves, their ships slowly transition to tier 1, and the fleet makeup starts to favor smaller, cheaper ships in the field.


I don't know how hard it is to program into the game, but the option for each player to decide if they can be attacked outside of PvP areas can be an option, but those players are also unable to attack anyone else. This selection should be permanently made at character creation so someone can't run around in "safe" mode until they want to attack someone, or suddenly turn "safe" mode on if they find the jumped the wrong person.

Andoran Goblin Squad Member

deinol wrote:

Most of my MMO experience is with EVE, where some stuff is destroyed if your ship blows up. I made plenty of money primarily as a crafter. I made ammo. Ammo is always in demand in a war zone. I set up my buy (ore) and sell (ammo) orders to make money while I was offline. Then I could spend my online time having fun.

There are ways to have a functioning economy without binding gear.

Look the prices of meta 1 or 2 items against the mineral content that you can recover recycling them.

Or even for the meta 0 that are dropped by NPC.

A wear an tear system will be good if the data aren't localized on your PC (oops my uber armor is a bit worn, I should use cheat program X to repair it without spending gold) and it don't use excessive server resources (the reason why it is not implemented in EVE, from what I know).

One of the important point in EVE is that being killed by NPC destroy:
- as a minimum your ship, so a large investment
- some of your modules

When you are killed by players almost certainly you lose the leftover equipment.

This mean that there is always some demand for "crafted" items.

Caineah has given some good suggestion on how that can be implemented in Pathfinder.

At the start of the game we should have some NPC selling equipment, but as it progress and the server(s) population increase the NPC sellers should be phased out.

Goblin Squad Member

Mr. Swagger wrote:
...each player to decide if they can be attacked outside of PvP areas can be an option...

No, usually that doesn't work in sandboxes, this is a typical feature of the theme park MMO because if you press PvP in small, tightly controled areas you no longer have a sandbox game.

Cheliax Goblin Squad Member

Pale wrote:
Not watch a virtual economy to know what price I need to set to sell a chunk of iron for.

I would. I enjoy games where I can craft and create and trade and watch prices fluctuate.

I'm also a nerd's nerd.

Thank you Seattle and Good Night!


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Diego Rossi wrote:
deinol wrote:

Most of my MMO experience is with EVE, where some stuff is destroyed if your ship blows up. I made plenty of money primarily as a crafter. I made ammo. Ammo is always in demand in a war zone. I set up my buy (ore) and sell (ammo) orders to make money while I was offline. Then I could spend my online time having fun.

There are ways to have a functioning economy without binding gear.

Look the prices of meta 1 or 2 items against the mineral content that you can recover recycling them.

Or even for the meta 0 that are dropped by NPC.

A wear an tear system will be good if the data aren't localized on your PC (oops my uber armor is a bit worn, I should use cheat program X to repair it without spending gold) and it don't use excessive server resources (the reason why it is not implemented in EVE, from what I know).

One of the important point in EVE is that being killed by NPC destroy:
- as a minimum your ship, so a large investment
- some of your modules

When you are killed by players almost certainly you lose the leftover equipment.

This mean that there is always some demand for "crafted" items.

Caineah has given some good suggestion on how that can be implemented in Pathfinder.

At the start of the game we should have some NPC selling equipment, but as it progress and the server(s) population increase the NPC sellers should be phased out.

To be fair, the recycled costs of items in EVE vs their selling price is highly influenced by people being dumb. My friends tried to start a ship constructing buisness. After they got the first couple ships off the line, they realized that they couldn't compete with the market because the market was opperating at a loss. They started doing the math, then buying hulls and scrapping them for proffit.

1 to 50 of 98 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Paizo Licensed Products / Pathfinder Online / Here's what I'm hearing from the Devs All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.