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

RPG Superstar 2015

Allowing PvP but not griefers...


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 73 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Wouldn't simple solution be to base who can PvP on relative levels. PC's of about the same level can bash each other, but not lower level PC's. Perhaps justify in terms of low level PC's just not being worth while and high level PC's are too dangerous. That means the world can be always ON for PvP, but you will only ever face off against those of similar power. Also would stop the Warcraft 'baiting' where a PC of roughly your level and you go PvP and then their Uber-level friend decloaks and one-shots you.

What you think?

S.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If the game is skill based, and not level based, this will be difficult to implement.

For example....

Player A makes a Human Character that invests all of their 1000 points into Combat Skills.

Player B makes a Gnome Character who invest all of their 1000 points into talk to hamsters.

Both characters are the same level, in that they have both earned or gained over time 1000 skill points. Unfortunately there is nothing the Human warrior can do with his meager combat skills to defend against the Hamster hordes the Gnome will send to interrupt the Warrior's rest cycle every time he tries to make use of his bed roll.

With a skill based system there will be huge differences between the combat ability of combat focused characters, and crafting focused characters. Which will make it difficult to create a feature that only allows people to attack or combat other characters of equal power.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
JMecha wrote:

If the game is skill based, and not level based, this will be difficult to implement.

For example....

Player A makes a Human Character that invests all of their 1000 points into Combat Skills.

Player B makes a Gnome Character who invest all of their 1000 points into talk to hamsters.

Both characters are the same level, in that they have both earned or gained over time 1000 skill points. Unfortunately there is nothing the Human warrior can do with his meager combat skills to defend against the Hamster hordes the Gnome will send to interrupt the Warrior's rest cycle every time he tries to make use of his bed roll.

Very good point, perhaps a measure of combat prowess can develop to determine who can attack who? Then we could visualize the idea that heavily armed warriors are not really going to attack nuns.

I love the idea of a skill based system however...

Goblin Squad Member

From what has been talked about in many of the other threads here, I am under the impression that heavily armored warriors slaying nuns and orphans will be a feature. Which in turn means that if you are planning on building a temple full of nuns and orphans, it would be in your best interests to build such in a player ran city or town in which there are plenty of heavily armored warriors looking to defend you and the rest of the village, as well as some talented crafters to keep said warriors equipped with the arms and armor they need to defend the nuns and orphans.

From what little glimpses at design ideas we have been given I think the goal for PO is to create a game in which if you choose to play a evil bastard who slays nuns, you totally can. Though if you want to play a noble defender of the nuns, then you can do that as well. Hells and Silver Bells.....from the sounds of things you can even play the nun if you want, or the one who forges the sword of nun slaying, or the armor smith that makes the only suit of armor that can defend against the nun slayer.

I think our best bet for finding a means to stop griefers will be to organize as a community before launch so that when the game goes live, we the community here at Paizo Forums will already have large organized masses looking to build and create our own safe haven communities within the game.

Some griefers < The awesome sauce we as a community of gamers can create

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
JMecha wrote:
From what has been talked about in many of the other threads here, I am under the impression that heavily armored warriors slaying nuns and orphans will be a feature. Which in turn means that if you are planning on building a temple full of nuns and orphans, it would be in your best interests to build such in a player ran city or town in which there are plenty of heavily armored warriors looking to defend you and the rest of the village, as well as some talented crafters to keep said warriors equipped with the arms and armor they need to defend the nuns and orphans.

Sounds good on one level but I can see it'll force players to go combat gods. Oh well the best we can hope for is that it works out, the worst, well, Warhammer Online anyone?


Something else to consider regarding your idea Stefan, is that it's already been pointed out that restricting PvP by 'level' doesn't work, because the griefers will find ways around it (such as, for example, ganging up on a higher level PC) while it harms the people genuinely interested in PvP as part of a roleplaying experience.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You would be surpised I think.....I know I am every time someone decides they rather be the Widget maker then the adventurer.

Chances are there will be folks who totally go the combat monster route be that arcane caster, full plate warrior, barbarian, red mantis, etc...

Other folks will seriously be die hard about being the best crafters ever.

The most powerful folks though will likely be the ones that invest in Leadership Skills, which I imagine would be the skill tree that provides small bonuses to your community. Think of them a Community bards....

X amount of ranks in Leadership allows crafters in your community to produce goods 1% faster.

Y amount of ranks in leadership will allow your community to build barracks that spawn NPC town guards.

In my head where I am imagining all of this, the most powerful folks in the game will be the characters that invest in abilities that will attract other characters to their community with bonuses and perks. The characters who lead the community of crafters, orphans, and nuns, as well as their militia will be the real threat, not the deep woods ganker.

The bandits in the woods may WOOT WOOT, KILL YOU DEAD LOOTS!

The folks running the small towns and cities though will be scary because they will have vast resources and follows they can aim at their neighbors in hopes of gaining more land, followers, resources, power, etc.....

Grief Gankers will likely be avoidable if you stick to safe havens and only travel out into the wilds with a Party of Adventurers, but there is nothing that can be done to stop a power hungry tyrant looking to destroy entire communities with the forces under his or her control.

Well nothing you can do unless, your own community manages to deny said tyrant their resources by destroying their power base first.


I like your ideas about a hypothetical Leadership skill that grants benefits to other players or communities. The barracks-that-spawns-NPC-guards idea sounds interesting as well.

Goblin Squad Member

Ansha wrote:
I like your ideas about a hypothetical Leadership skill that grants benefits to other players or communities. The barracks-that-spawns-NPC-guards idea sounds interesting as well.

Great minds and all of that....

What was your name back in your ALFA days?

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
JMecha wrote:


Well nothing you can do unless, your own community manages to deny said tyrant their resources by destroying their power base first.

Don't get me wrong I really like the idea of an organic world. I just don't see how causal players and hardcore players can coexist in the same world. If I play say twice a week for 1-2 hours and then log on one day to find my village raped and pillaged how much fun is that? I may have invested my minimal time in the village, perhaps like Skyrim, getting a house etc.

I guess tough could be the answer, that's digital life, and that I should have set-up in a city - then again in a city my digs might get robbed while I'm logged out.

My point being this style of game will suit those who can be on 24/7. Warcraft was bad enough for that with raiding and required gear, this sounds like a whole new level of time investment to get any fun/survivability out of the game.

Still all speculation at the moment,
S.

Goblin Squad Member

As a casual 1 to 2 hours a week player you could still totally contribute to your community regardless of your role.

If you adventure, whatever loots or gold or whatever you get from your couple hours a week will get spent in your community. Which will be 1 or 2 hours worth of adventurer earned gold or loots the community would not have gotten without you.

If you are a crafter, whatever widgets you made or sold during your couple hours would be a boon to your community.

If you are the town mayor or regional noble.....well you likely will need to be more then a casual player to achieve such.

I would also think that if during the course of the week in which you were not logged in playing any damage to your community would likely have been repaired by the hardcore community players, and or you may need to spend your 2 hours looking for a new community to call home because your village has been Burninated.

Regardless though your 2 hours would make a difference to whatever community you spent your two hours a week helping or hurting, or at least I would like to imagine Goblinworks would design the game so your two hours would make an impact, even if a small one.

Goblinworks Founder

JMecha wrote:

You would be surpised I think.....I know I am every time someone decides they rather be the Widget maker then the adventurer.

Chances are there will be folks who totally go the combat monster route be that arcane caster, full plate warrior, barbarian, red mantis, etc...

I am hoping that this would be nigh on impossible to do with things like spell failure in armor, or maybe a spell system where you need to equip spells (like Skyrim). And that even the best combat monster would be no match for five guards with mancatchers and nets.

JMecha wrote:


Other folks will seriously be die hard about being the best crafters ever.

The most powerful folks though will likely be the ones that invest in Leadership Skills, which I imagine would be the skill tree that provides small bonuses to your community. Think of them a Community bards....

X amount of ranks in Leadership allows crafters in your community to produce goods 1% faster.

Y amount of ranks in leadership will allow your community to build barracks that spawn NPC town guards.

In my head where I am imagining all of this, the most powerful folks in the game will be the characters that invest in abilities that will attract other characters to their community with bonuses and perks. The characters who lead the community of crafters, orphans, and nuns, as well as their militia will be the real threat, not the deep woods ganker.

The bandits in the woods may WOOT WOOT, KILL YOU DEAD LOOTS!

The folks running the small towns and cities though will be scary because they will have vast resources and follows they can aim at their neighbors in hopes of gaining more land, followers, resources, power, etc.....

Grief Gankers will likely be avoidable if you stick to safe havens and only travel out into the wilds with a Party of Adventurers, but there is nothing that can be done to stop a power hungry tyrant looking to destroy entire communities with the forces under his or her control.

Well nothing you can do unless, your own community manages to deny said tyrant their resources by destroying their power base first.

I really love the idea of mixing RTS elements with a sandbox MMO.

Not just with spawning NPC guards at barracks, but also with resource gathering. Player communities should be able to sink a mineshaft at a gold, iron or granite site, build a mining camp with the help of carpenters and masons which then spawns NPC's to help gather the resources.

The Tyrants with large armies might be able to cause some grief, but how long can they last? Laying siege is a very costly endeavor, they should need money to pay retainers, food to feed the troops, resources such as lumber, steel and leather to ensure the army is sustainable. Then there is the added problem of having these supply lines disrupted by neighboring cities or guerrilla forces. Being set in the River Kingdoms is perfect for this as it should hinder massive army movements by funneling them to bridges in order to cross rivers.

Trebuchets, Ballista's and Catapults should have to move at a realistic pace as well which would give enough warning to players to either attack the siege weapons before they arrive, or knock out bridges so they don't ever make it to the gates. They would also be restricted to traveling on roads and could easily be ambushed in woodlands, valleys, bridges and other choke points.

Your average solo or small gank group of griefers would eventually be left with nothing but rags and piece of wood for weapons and armor in a full loot system. Just as long as the combat and itemization doesn't favor the combat monsters with epic loots.

Goblin Squad Member

JMecha said wrote:
Chances are there will be folks who totally go the combat monster route be that arcane caster, full plate warrior, barbarian, red mantis, etc...

What I meant to say is that there will be folks that go the combat monster route be that they are an arcane blaster, or a full pate warrior, or a raging barbarian, or a red mantis, etc...

I was in visioning there being various ways to be a combat superstar be arcane, heavy armor, fast daggers, duelist, etc.....

Not talking about some super duper Mary Sue that shoots lighting from his finger tips of his left hand while hiding in the shadows and raging in his full plate, laying of hands with his right hand, and whistling a bardic inspiration to his animal companion.

Such a Mary Sue would be lame as hell.

Goblinworks Founder

JMecha wrote:
JMecha said wrote:
Chances are there will be folks who totally go the combat monster route be that arcane caster, full plate warrior, barbarian, red mantis, etc...

What I meant to say is that there will be folks that go the combat monster route be that they are an arcane blaster, or a full pate warrior, or a raging barbarian, or a red mantis, etc...

I was in visioning there being various ways to be a combat superstar be arcane, heavy armor, fast daggers, duelist, etc.....

Not talking about some super duper Mary Sue that shoots lighting from his finger tips of his left hand while hiding in the shadows and raging in his full plate, laying of hands with his right hand, and whistling a bardic inspiration to his animal companion.

Such a Mary Sue would be lame as hell.

Cool so no darkfall online then :P

Goblin Squad Member

I can totally see a huge guild like Goon Squad utterly taking over and preventing anyone from doing anything unless they join or pay protection money.

Goblin Squad Member

Natan Linggod 972 wrote:
I can totally see a huge guild like Goon Squad utterly taking over and preventing anyone from doing anything unless they join or pay protection money.

Being a noobtastic optimist I like to believe that the initial majority of the Pathfinder Online players will be made up of this community of RPers and that we as a community will be able to hit the in game ground running to set up not only the power structures in game to stop the likes of goons, but also establish a server wide community standards that fosters RP and quality "sportsmanship," helping new players get into the game, as well as making griefers, gankers, and asshattery unwelcome.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
JMecha wrote:


Being a noobtastic optimist I like to believe that the initial majority of the Pathfinder Online players will be made up of this community of RPers and that we as a community will be able to hit the in game ground running to set up not only the power structures in game to stop the likes of goons, but also establish a server wide community standards that fosters RP and quality "sportsmanship," helping new players get into the game, as well as making griefers, gankers, and asshattery unwelcome.

Being an MMO/internet veteran and therefore utterly pessimistic about the nature of humans, I can't.

Goblinworks Founder

Natan Linggod 972 wrote:


Being an MMO/internet veteran and therefore utterly pessimistic about the nature of humans, I can't.

I feel sorry for you.

Goblin Squad Member

For me or him?


JMecha wrote:
Ansha wrote:
I like your ideas about a hypothetical Leadership skill that grants benefits to other players or communities. The barracks-that-spawns-NPC-guards idea sounds interesting as well.

Great minds and all of that....

What was your name back in your ALFA days?

Ansha. I don't know that I was playing when you were (back in the late summer/early fall), but you can see a number of my posts in the library and TSM forums.


Stefan Hill wrote:

Wouldn't simple solution be to base who can PvP on relative levels. PC's of about the same level can bash each other, but not lower level PC's. Perhaps justify in terms of low level PC's just not being worth while and high level PC's are too dangerous. That means the world can be always ON for PvP, but you will only ever face off against those of similar power. Also would stop the Warcraft 'baiting' where a PC of roughly your level and you go PvP and then their Uber-level friend decloaks and one-shots you.

What you think?

S.

Do without levels. Make people start fragile, in terms of hit points, and stay fragile. That creates a risk factor, in that every time you go into a fight there's a chance your character can end up dead. And, if one of the effective ways to increase your fighting power is to recruit followers and train/equip them, and those followers leave when you die, also adds a risk factor. Your character may not stay dead, and they may still be individually powerful, but if you keep getting into fights you are going to suffer for it.


Elth wrote:
Natan Linggod 972 wrote:


Being an MMO/internet veteran and therefore utterly pessimistic about the nature of humans, I can't.
I feel sorry for you.

I am equally pessimistic, and I do NOT want your pity.

Goblinworks Founder

Icyshadow wrote:
Elth wrote:
Natan Linggod 972 wrote:


Being an MMO/internet veteran and therefore utterly pessimistic about the nature of humans, I can't.
I feel sorry for you.
I am equally pessimistic, and I do NOT want your pity.

Good luck never being satisfied then. :)


Elth wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
Elth wrote:
Natan Linggod 972 wrote:


Being an MMO/internet veteran and therefore utterly pessimistic about the nature of humans, I can't.
I feel sorry for you.
I am equally pessimistic, and I do NOT want your pity.
Good luck never being satisfied then. :)

Goading not once, but twice.

Classy.


No need to worry. It's clear Elth's levels in Performance (Trolling) are pretty low anyway :)

Anyway, I think the thread title is misleading. You cannot have PvP without griefers if you ask me.

Goblin Squad Member

Icyshadow wrote:

No need to worry. It's clear Elth's levels in Performance (Trolling) are pretty low anyway :)

Anyway, I think the thread title is misleading. You cannot have PvP without griefers if you ask me.

Agreed, eliminating, or heck even defining where the line between legitimate PKer and griefer is, is difficult to impossible. There are however major things that can effect the frequency of things. It could be as light as, you only have a 1 in 100 chance of running into a griefer in the red zone, or it could be as severe as, the second you leave your city walls you have an 80% chance of being whacked, depending on how everything is implemented.

I still think the best way to do it will be to make the cost for dying after PKing about 2-3x what can be gained from PKing, and give whatever tools possible to the kingdom of the players to give them a darn good chance to hunt down the PKer unless he did some incredible planning. Basically make actually being a succesful griefer the most difficult role to play successfully (which will make the handful of people that become skilled enough to pull it off possibly famous and popular in a way, but at the same time keep the actual numbers of people doing it very low.

Goblin Squad Member , Dedicated Voter 2013, Dedicated Voter 2014

I agree 100% with Onishi and I am already a bit tired of all the hysteria concerning PvP.

Many people seem to be unable to grasp the advantages of such a concept (if done well) as opposed to the same old same old of yet another multiplayer solitaire cozy themepark MMO.

Goblin Squad Member

Griefing does not require PvP, either.

Goblinworks Founder

Icyshadow wrote:

No need to worry. It's clear Elth's levels in Performance (Trolling) are pretty low anyway :)

Anyway, I think the thread title is misleading. You cannot have PvP without griefers if you ask me.

It's actually my Diplomacy skill that is lacking.

The natural ones I am rolling on some of these threads lately only adds to the diplomacy fail.
I'm like that Half Orc Bard with 9 charisma that always wants to work on his persuasion skill at those really important moments.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Bluenose wrote:
Make people start fragile, in terms of hit points, and stay fragile. That creates a risk factor, in that every time you go into a fight there's a chance your character can end up dead.

Interesting concept - I think, but don't think it'll happen. Go with the idea that a sword through the chest from a lucky peasant is about as likely to kill you as a sword through the chest precisely placed by a warrior...


Stefan Hill wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
Make people start fragile, in terms of hit points, and stay fragile. That creates a risk factor, in that every time you go into a fight there's a chance your character can end up dead.
Interesting concept - I think, but don't think it'll happen. Go with the idea that a sword through the chest from a lucky peasant is about as likely to kill you as a sword through the chest precisely placed by a warrior...

In one case it happened because someone carefully outmanoeuvred you by engaging your sword and then slipping the bind and thrusting in tierce. In the other they closed their eyes and fell forward making your parry fractionally off-line because you couldn't see how they could thrust that low from that position. It's a sword through the chest either way.

Of course, it could be because when I read the words "skill-based RPG" I think of Runequest, and that's always carried this sort of risk. I don't think it'll happen this way either, but I would like to see it tried.

Liberty's Edge

Icyshadow wrote:
...I think the thread title is misleading. You cannot have PvP without griefers if you ask me.

I have been thinking about this and even though you can't prevent griefing it is possible to limit it. You can't prevent someone from opening a safe if they REALLY want to open it. They can always get some absurdly expensive laser/drill/explosive and break open the safe. The idea is to make it difficult enough that they are less likely to want to spend the effort/resources required to open it.

I have considered two possible solutions for PVP griefing. The first is to have an existing established kingdom in the region which is NPC controlled (which could also help provide initial trainers, crafters, etc. while players are still figuring out to use the pointy end of the sword). This NPC Kingdom could allow fledgeling kingdoms to ally with them in exchange for some form of taxation (gold, resources, first born children, etc.). The alliance then provides the fledgeling kingdom with some of their guards to patrol surrounding areas and guard the city walls (or other benefits such as crafters to build housing or mages to add enchanted defenses).

The second option is to simply have existing mercenary guilds (possibly also assassin guilds, crafting guilds, mages guilds, etc.) that a city could attract through some means (e.g. pay the mercenaries).

Goblin Squad Member

Making it so people of high enough level span can't attack each other is a terrible idea in a sandbox game.

For instance let's say Teh Vet Company establishes a settlement in a hex with the intention of it being their capital city. Teh Vet Company are pretty nice guys making it desirable to live around them. Soon their settlement is surrounded by newb controlled shanty towns preventing it's expansion. And half these structures are barely active.

Teh Vet Company makes a declaration. The owner of any structure in their area must swear loyalty to Teh Vet Company, be an active player, and if their structure is in the way of a major project they will pay them to relocate... but they will be relocated.

Teh Vet Company is being pretty reasonable given the reason everyone has settled this fairly remote hex is for their protection, and they are now hindering that companies development.

What do they do to those who refuse to pay heed to their declaration?

Maybe this scenario will be possible in PFO. Maybe it won't. I guarantee you that scenarios will play out where the actions of newbs will hinder the actions of vets. Intentionally or unintentionally.

The solution is not to give newbs magical protection. It's to narrow the gap of power between newbs and vets.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Providing a perfect protection also has exploitable features; that's not a deal breaker in and of itself, but the added cost of figuring out how to allow 'use as intended' while disallowing 'abuse'.

For example, if I want to look around in hostile player controlled areas, is it use as intended or abuse to make a new character that benefits from that protection?

Goblin Squad Member

Yeah, not a good fit for the game as envisioned.

If someone ganks you, put out a reward for the head of the ganker. Maybe hire a couple of people and the three of you can go out looking for some frontier justice.

And keep in mind that the difference between 'been playing for a month' and 'been playing for a year' are not supposed to be so vast as to be insurmountable.
They have said that a more experienced character could be defeated by a group of newer characters, anyway.

How that will actually play out remains to be seen, of course, but with no way to even begin to look at things, I choose to be hopeful right now.


Totally protecting people who don't want to be attacked from other players seems like a bad idea to me. Especially since it's all about enhancing player interaction and players fighting each other is a big way to interact.

If there is to be any restriction in place, and I don't think there should be, the way Runescape did it is pretty decent, IMO. There are no-PVP areas, and then there is a PVP area. When you are in the start of this PVP area, you can only get attacked by other players within a level relatively close to your own, and vice versa. The further you go out, the bigger that window becomes until eventually anyone can attack anyone. This type of a system could be adapted to PFO, I think.

But again, I don't think there should be any such system in the first place.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Reliken wrote:

, the bigger that window becomes until eventually anyone can attack anyone. This type of a system could be adapted to PFO, I think.

But again, I don't think there should be any such system in the first place.

Well I'd say right off the bat, anything of a level difference cannot be adapted to PFO. Is someone who has trained 2 years in crafting a fair match for someone who spent 2 years leveling wizard? What about someone who has 2 merit badges of cleric, 2 of rogue, 2 of wizard etc... There is no rule of power, as well the general issue that it brings... PVP is meant to be meaningful, If I am guarding X resource because I don't want it to be overmined etc... I don't think I should need a 4 merit badged guard, and a 10 merit badged guard and a 15, and a 20, just to make sure that my opposition isn't able to just walk past a line of guardians.

At least IMO the key point of PVP in the way it is, one side claims an area, moves in a force, sets up the laws they want, and have the power and ability to enforce those laws. Now a rebelion dislikes those laws, they can move in, and overtake the area and remove the current leadership set up their own etc... This is IMO meaningful PVP. That is the sort of PVP that is greatly hindered via "OK you can kill X, but not Y players", as having someone just able to walk by you and do what you want and you not being able to attack them because they are "out of range" is a pain and negates the whole system.

IMO the level range thing is good for meaningless PVP... IE I see you, you aren't a member of the blue faction, you are a member of the red faction, I kill you because I can. IMO that will be greatly cut down simply via notable death penalties and lower power differences. Simple economics of risk/reward. If I assume a 60% or less chance of killing someone, winning gives me 20% of what they have, losing costs me 100% of what I have, and not only that, but even if I do win, there's then a 20% chance his friends are going to take me out. I'm not likely to attack unless there's a good reason to do it, or if my equipment is so bad that it's nothing to lose (in which case I'm probably not a threat to the guy anyway.

And of course we essentially do have areas of non-pvp. IE the high security marshal patrolled areas, in which people attacking are pretty much guaranteed more loss than gain.

Goblin Squad Member

+1 Also things like declarations of war and disputes create the space for negotiation/diplomacy and writing up terms of victory and defeat, if the sides in contest are reasonable, if only to ally against less savory sides in the future and allow both sides to play for stakes that reduce future risk. :)


Ill admit I did not read every post in this threat but I wanted to make a point. (although i second Onishi)

Griefing in my opinion only happens when the player being attacked does not expect danger. Thus if the expectation of danger is CLEARLY stated then you cannot be griefed. For example in EVE online players cannot openly fight at any time in high security space. It is possible to die to other players in high security from people willing to suicide their ships, but the risk of this happening is fairly low if you set up your ship so that it cannot be killed in one shot. The danger in moving from high security to low security is CLEARLY stated. There are consequences for attacking other players inside of high and low security space.

The most dangerous places are zero security. Once again the danger is clearly stated.

Anyways the whole point of this post is that players are clearly told what the level of danger is so they can adjust their actions based on their own risk threshold.

Some caveats:

1. spawn camping should be impossible
2. actions should have consequences
3. risk should be clearly communicated to players (in wow when you enter a pvp area red letters saying so apear on the screen right in the middle. EVE gives a pop up)
4. Dying should have consequences, although should be recoverable.
5. Players should have a way to become safe i they are near a friendly town so they can choose if they want to engage

CEO, Goblinworks

2 people marked this as a favorite.

@Samping - your definition of grief lies to one side of the mainstream. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that a lot of folks disagree with you. As I've said before, grief is in the eye of the beholder - it cannot be absolutely defined.

Star Voter 2013

First of All I'm in favor of an Open world(EvE)environment I enjoy a world dynamic that is more realistic. That being said I have fell victim to many a "ganking" in my day and as troubling or time consuming as it may be as long as my character is not in a "hardcore" setup meaning if I die I'm gone forever then that's really just a nuisance that I came overlook.

As it has been stated the biggest defense we have against that type of play is a strong community, and based on what I have seen the PF RPG’s are very united. However there will always be the person or many as the population grows in game that as they say “just want to watch the world burn” and that’s fine too.

I would like to suggest some dynamic or mechanic that accounts for this type of mentality i.e. having that person as being feared in a certain area meaning not only players but NPC’s would react to them accordingly maybe not being allowed in certain area’s(with out a disguse) or higher shop prices. The hardest part would be how to define what counts as “ganking” so to as not to impact these restrictions too easily. Basically a Reputation Scale.

And on the flip side the player who chooses to go this route will still be involved in the game. Maybe have a Black Market where this character is welcome or at least among like minded players.
I believe this would bring a true morality into the game without assigning Red faction Blue faction type mentality

Layout and Design, Frog God Games

My only serious misgiving is the looting rule, where you lose everything if your corpse gets looted.

People WILL form large ganking groups to raid areas with security just for the joy of killing you and making sure you lose your stuff. I'm sure that this will even happen in high security zones, unless guard response is INSTANT and there's no chance for ANYONE to loot your husk.

Goblin Squad Member

Loot griefing should be a non-factor. People shouldn't be carrying more than they are willing to lose. And anything good should be in your equipment that stays with you. A big part of PFO will be asset management.

Ryan said that killing for loot would be a total lottery, you have to wait for someone who isn't thinking clearly, or is overly arrogant.

Everyone should play minecraft to prepare for this game, if you can't keep playing after you lose your first full diamond gear set, PFO will probably not be the game for you.

I want to see two things:
1. Heavy consequences for getting killed by a marshal, or when someone collects your bounty. (like your body is fully loot-able, including your equipment which does not stay with you)

2. Game side mechanics that allow easy communication between anti-griefers, and the general population. It should take less than 5 minutes to contact an anti-griefer organization, and most of that time should be walking.

Layout and Design, Frog God Games

Then wouldn't that make the system where you can carry and switch out multiple sets of items useless?

If it's a complete non-factor, why have it at all?


You can never fully kill griefing in video games. Nobody could, nobody can, and nobody will be able to.

There is always someone who will find some way to make the game miserable for others for his own amusement.


In EVE the rule is dont fly what you cant afford to lose. Usually you have lots of ships ready to go for different situations. I imagine gear will be like that in pathfinder.

Basic weapons and armor will probably be cheap enough to have lots of sets so you can have your axe and longsword and mace with you and still have lots more at home.

More powerful enchanted gear that is more complex to make/built with scarce materials would be used less often/for special times (perhaps more for PVE for example).

So dying sucks. There is a cost in terms of money and equipment. But the loss isnt insurmountable. It just takes preparation before and time after.

I second the person who suggested trying out minecraft. No other game have i ragequit so many times, and still came back later.

Goblin Squad Member

Icyshadow wrote:

You can never fully kill griefing in video games. Nobody could, nobody can, and nobody will be able to.

There is always someone who will find some way to make the game miserable for others for his own amusement.

like evil;)

Goblin Squad Member

Chuck Wright wrote:

My only serious misgiving is the looting rule, where you lose everything if your corpse gets looted.

People WILL form large ganking groups to raid areas with security just for the joy of killing you and making sure you lose your stuff. I'm sure that this will even happen in high security zones, unless guard response is INSTANT and there's no chance for ANYONE to loot your husk.

I raised a similar point and asked about creating a timer on the husk, thereby limiting the husk from being instant looted before a guard could respond to the crime. In principle Ryan thought it a good idea, so I might make its way into the game.

Star Voter 2013

Ravening wrote:
Chuck Wright wrote:

My only serious misgiving is the looting rule, where you lose everything if your corpse gets looted.

People WILL form large ganking groups to raid areas with security just for the joy of killing you and making sure you lose your stuff. I'm sure that this will even happen in high security zones, unless guard response is INSTANT and there's no chance for ANYONE to loot your husk.

I raised a similar point and asked about creating a timer on the husk, thereby limiting the husk from being instant looted before a guard could respond to the crime. In principle Ryan thought it a good idea, so I might make its way into the game.

I would be in favor of a mechnic like this, something that states you must be out of "combat" a specified time in order to Loot the "husk" in addition the looting process should take a bit longer then a click "take all" option. This will allow people to "gaurd" our fallen and maybe even leads to an Active Gaurd mechanic meaning I select the "husk" of my fallen friend or ally and select Gaurd so as to make anyone who try's to loot said "husk" go through me first to do so.

Goblin Squad Member

The key to minimizing griefing will be mechanics that support social arrangements. Ultimately, griefing is antisocial social behavior, marked by a disregard for others' rights and legitimacy, and what social interaction griefers have is limited, in the context of supporting continued griefing.

A lot of prior games have been marked by design failures to support social behavior. UO not only didn't support social behavior, it ended up with perverse incentives for antisocial behavior.

As a very crude example, if people could wink in and out of existence at will, it would greatly enable those who wanted to act in antisocial/sociopathic ways, and greatly retard the efforts of those who wanted to build social arrangements. That's the kind of thing designers need to think through.

Again, if in the real world, antisocial people could respawn into new bodies ad infinitum, and those who were social could not without losing their existing arrangements, conditions, investments, etc. the world would be a madhouse. These are the kinds of things devs need to think through.

So thinking about the best mechanic for looting husks is certainly a legitimate inquiry, but I think it's a lower order issue than thinking through an abstraction of the advantage social behavior has, and then letting social, non-griefing behavior norms be an emergent aspect of gameplay.

1 to 50 of 73 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Paizo Licensed Products / Pathfinder Online / Allowing PvP but not griefers... 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.