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

Goblinworks Blog: To Live and Die in the River Kingdoms


Pathfinder Online

301 to 350 of 419 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Hudax wrote:
Say I need to oil and sharpen my sword regularly (a 5 second action every hour or so)...

I would much prefer a system that automatically consumed resources in my inventory to maintain my weapons, rather than one that required me to manually do anything.

Please don't use tedium as a game mechanic.

At a minimum, allow players the option to either do it automatically or manually.

Goblin Squad Member

To rephrase Hudax's suggestion:

At some point low on the skill tree, players might be able to learn to maintain their weapons. Using oil and a stone on a sword, for example, gives +1 damage and lessens the chance of breakage for the next hour. The player can use it or not. If it is set up that way, most will take time to periodically rebuff their gear.

Or you can go the automatic route, and say that the player consumes food, drink, and maintenance supplies as a matter of routine and is notified when they run out. Giving the player the option to toggle auto-maintenance off allows a player to conserve supplies in tight times. Or they can choose not to burn through oil and stones when they'll be in town for the next day or two.


Nihimon wrote:
Hudax wrote:
In real life, planned obsolesence is a scam, pure and simple.
Are you honestly trying to say that everyone who traded in their old iPhone for a new iPhone 4 did so only because the old one wore out?

No. As a matter of fact, I have no idea what you're talking about.

What was the line from The Office? "The people who don't have an iphone now must really not want one."

Quote:
The simple reality is that Apple didn't build the old iPhones to last 100 years because they knew that most people would replace them inside of 5 years...

Because that is how the last few generations have been trained. My grandmother darned holey socks; I throw mine away. Therein lies the problem--we buy cheap crap (because nothing else is available) expecting it to not last.

Urman wrote:

To rephrase Hudax's suggestion:

At some point low on the skill tree, players might be able to learn to maintain their weapons. Using oil and a stone on a sword, for example, gives +1 damage and lessens the chance of breakage for the next hour. The player can use it or not. If it is set up that way, most will take time to periodically rebuff their gear.

Or you can go the automatic route, and say that the player consumes food, drink, and maintenance supplies as a matter of routine and is notified when they run out. Giving the player the option to toggle auto-maintenance off allows a player to conserve supplies in tight times. Or they can choose not to burn through oil and stones when they'll be in town for the next day or two.

I think you understand my suggestion better than I did.

Goblin Squad Member

Hudax wrote:
As a matter of fact, I have no idea what you're talking about.

People don't want to darn their socks. If I have a choice between spending $30 every 2 years or so, or spending $100 once and having to darn my socks occasionally, I am not going to choose to darn my socks. I'm rich enough not to have to do that, and I don't want to be bothered with it. The guy going to college and working part time at a convenience store is also rich enough not to have to do it, and he also doesn't want to be bothered with it. That doesn't mean there's something wrong with me, or my culture. And it doesn't mean there's something wrong with the companies that have adapted to better serve me.

Hudax wrote:
Urman wrote:

To rephrase Hudax's suggestion:

At some point low on the skill tree, players might be able to learn to maintain their weapons. Using oil and a stone on a sword, for example, gives +1 damage and lessens the chance of breakage for the next hour. The player can use it or not. If it is set up that way, most will take time to periodically rebuff their gear.

Or you can go the automatic route, and say that the player consumes food, drink, and maintenance supplies as a matter of routine and is notified when they run out. Giving the player the option to toggle auto-maintenance off allows a player to conserve supplies in tight times. Or they can choose not to burn through oil and stones when they'll be in town for the next day or two.

I think you understand my suggestion better than I did.

Yeah, I'm a lot more comfortable with Urman's phrasing, too.

Goblin Squad Member

I'd like to see a method how any sort of maintenance can be applied to support the economy in competition with crafter's creating new stuff. What I wouldn't like is to see is any sort of maintenance system extend the life of a piece of gear to work indefinitely instead of having to purchase new gear. For a player driven economy to work, players need to exchange coin with significant regularity.

Goblin Squad Member

Sounds like only high level crafters can repair gear OR you can purchase repair kits with skymetal kits. The catch is that to repair items the crafter will have to use mats and most likely repairing won't be cheap.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Unless repairing 'drains' coin (as in, there is less total coin in the world after repairing than before), then repairs simply don't enter into the coin economy. They enter into the material economy if materials are consumed, or the skymetal economy if skymetal is consumed.


Repairs don't have to be a drain, necessarily. Items used for repairs could be low-level crafted goods. They would always be in demand, would give new crafters something viable to make and sell, and help drive the economy.


Ryan Dancy wrote:

* Lawful and neutral NPCs won't offer Quests to the Criminal

* Lawful and neutral Settlements will be closed to the Criminal

Are you planning for skills like Stealth or Bluff to be able to bypass these, are are these 'hard' limits that break in-game immersion (re: the 2 mentioned skills, or other means to avoid 'being noticed as a bad guy' and having your entry blocked/ social interaction ended, including magical means) ...?

Goblin Squad Member

Quandary wrote:
Ryan Dancy wrote:

* Lawful and neutral NPCs won't offer Quests to the Criminal

* Lawful and neutral Settlements will be closed to the Criminal
Are you planning for skills like Stealth or Bluff to be able to bypass these, are are these 'hard' limits that break in-game immersion (re: the 2 mentioned skills, or other means to avoid 'being noticed as a bad guy' and having your entry blocked/ social interaction ended, including magical means) ...?

Ignoring that neither stealth nor bluff has even been confirmed to be in the game, and the all or nothing proposition in which stealth is possible to be in the game I imagine would make stealth completely useless around large crowds (In general they have pretty much said if stealth is in the game, if one person can detect or sense you, everyone will be able to, meaning a single dog with scent means an end to stealth).

There certainly can be justifyable in game ways to stop that, the NPCs could have a permanent detect spell, or a scrying spell of some kind on you as soon as you have violated a law, leaving you kill on sight to the marshals for as long as you are flagged. They don't need a metaphysical wall, the marshals with powerful abilities hounding you long before you get near the NPCs in the settlement is more than enough to solve the issue.

Now as far as the why, IMO it is pretty obvious, the idea is to prevent griefing, to lower the killing in the high security areas to the point it is rarely if ever done. There can't be a loophole because people would then master the loophole to the point that it negates the whole intention of it. The point of the high security areas with criminal flagging, is to make it so that people who never want to PVP as well as newer weaker characters, aren't regularly hounded and that the majority of the PVP, happens in the areas where people accept the risk/reward ratio of going further out away from the laws. If you allow people to negate the drawbacks of killing the people who don't want the higher rewards, then you effectively turn the NPC settlements into high risk low reward areas.

Goblin Squad Member

Sorry if this has been brought forth before; I just got to this forum and I unfortunately don't have time to read every post.

For death and resurrection; Make soulbound locations tied to Temples, and these temples tied to different deities (Sarenrae being the most common). Each of these temples charge X amount to soulbound yourself to the location; the more remote the temple, the higher the cost. Each resurrection cost X amount (possibly prepaid) and comes with options. For example, you can pay X (lowest amount) to be resurrected with your equipped gear and some temporary disabilities, or you can pay Y (medium amount) to be resurrected with your equipped gear at full stats, or you can pay Z (highest amount) to be resurrected at full stats with all of your gear.

I do not believe these cost should be debilitating, but they should take some toll on the player to encourage a healthy fear of death. This system also gives possibilities for discounts/free resurrections for service to the temple, if your character is into that sort of thing, or if your alignment is close to the temples (assuming there is some sort of alignment mechanic in the game, which would be fun.)

Ok, whats next? :P


Okay, I didn't read all pages of this messageboard, because most of it is arguing about limits of punishment for death. I want to ask opinions on one idea I have. What if make players choose at the point of creation if they want to play "hardcore" type of character. Yea, idea is leaked from d3, but I think, it would be great. For those who chose to play hardcore death is the end. Yes, not much people would play hardcore, but if offer them something from the line "bigger risks - greater rewards" I would say, that it be great option that will also fill the gap for players who thrive for intense realism or just want to challenge themselves. For example if I play hardcore character I will have grater rewards for quests, faster/cheaper "mining" and production, increased exp rewards for monsters and quests. Of course people would not play hardcore chars in the same fashion as usual, they will play more careful to die less and utilize all advantage - increased rewards etc.- as much as possible. Such characters will fill level of society that "not so adventurers" and will flow rapidly, because of natural deaths. I do not know how hard to implement such choice for developers, but I do not see much difficulties. It would be just great if such system will exist and will be not hard to balance...

Goblin Squad Member

If you had such a hardcore option, I'd think that most adventuring types would sign up to be non-hardcore, and could bounce back from death. Crafters, traders, and other non-combat roles (in many cases, just alts of the adventurers) would sign up for no-death option, for the cheaper/faster production, since their role in the game is less risky.

Goblin Squad Member

I don't mind the hardcore option but I don't favor giving it any increased rewards. To which end there isn't really a point unless they don't include a character deletion option.

The reason I don't favor giving it increased rewards is it's pure insanity, that we shouldn't encourage players to do because it will only lead to frustration. In an unrestricted open world PVP game you WILL get zerged in a 1 vs 15+ fight at some point if you play for more than a month. It is an inevitability. Crafter, adventurer, trader, or roleplayer. If you step foot outside safezones at all it is coming sooner or later.

I don't want those who don't already realize this to ragequit when it happens, and people who don't already realize this are the only ones who would roll a hardcore character to be quite frank.

The other reason I don't favor hardcore mode is death penalties need to be harsh enough on everyone that when you get killed in battle it means something. Full loot drop has already been ruled out so we need some other way that winning fights in a war sets your opponents back enough that there is a reason to bother taking the field.

Hardcore mode will just arm the people arguing for trivial death penalties because they can say. "If you want harsh death penalties go play hardcore mode!" Hardcore mode however does nothing to further making dying in battle non-trivial unless your opponents are foolish and prideful enough to use it. I doubt many of them will be.


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

Let me just say a few things up front: I hate PVP and I love PVE.

I think that this hatred comes from the fact that I've been playing (pen and Paper) role playing games for a long time (almost 30 years.) I love that you get together with your friends and defeat the bad guy.

I've been playing MMO's for about 8 years now. I don't mind MMO's that have PVP in them. I just don't want to have to deal with PVP to get to my PVE content. I played a 2 week trial of EVE online and stopped after 2 weeks because I had to deal with PVP to get to the PVE content.

What you have proposed so far seems very much like EVE Online, PVP focused. When I think of Pathfinder i don't think of PVP. Pathfinder, to me, is about defeating monsters and villains (PVE) it's not about killing other players (PVP)unless your in a really bad game. It seems like your just making a fantasy version of EVE online. To me, your sacrificing the feel of Pathfinder to follow the "EVE Model" because it's easy and convenient not because it accurately represents the feel of Pathfinder in any way.

All that being said I am a backer of Pathfinder MMO. I'm always for the little guy. Please consider letting people who want to play the PVE part of the game do so with out having to engage in PVP, and without being severely limited resource wise. That would truly be something new and different from any other sandbox MMO.

Goblin Squad Member

I dont mind pvp even though I prefer to pve and dont really losing my stuff if i die. Just gives me a reason to not die so dont lose time and money.

Goblin Squad Member

Darthgaul wrote:
What you have proposed so far seems very much like EVE Online, PVP focused. When I think of Pathfinder i don't think of PVP. Pathfinder, to me, is about defeating monsters and villains (PVE) it's not about killing other players (PVP)unless your in a really bad game. It seems like your just making a fantasy version of EVE online. To me, your sacrificing the feel of Pathfinder to follow the "EVE Model" because it's easy and convenient not because it accurately represents the feel of Pathfinder in any way.

GM can balance content and even deal with players attempting Old Man Henderson them. MMO pve content is more linear and so more limited - script cannot be other than railroaded. Contrast this with human actors and they can create emergent stories and dynamic content. The problem with pvp is either design short-circuits everything overshadowed by pvp (systems are out of equilibrium as it were) or players intentionally want to sabotage the rules or spirit of the game. They'd be yellow carded of sent-off on a pitch, but in an mmorpg how to officiate successfully, is price for pvp dynamic interactions.

As to PfO, the intention is to allow content to changeable: From safe to dangerous from if dungeon in area A is risky you go search Area B->Z for dungeons etc. It sounds like you won't be deprived of content and that p+p = mix of pve & pvp! Big map size is important probably.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

Darthgaul wrote:
When I think of Pathfinder i don't think of PVP. Pathfinder, to me, is about defeating monsters and villains (PVE) it's not about killing other players (PVP)unless your in a really bad game. It seems like your just making a fantasy version of EVE online. To me, your sacrificing the feel of Pathfinder to follow the "EVE Model" because it's easy and convenient not because it accurately represents the feel of Pathfinder in any way.

Pathfinder Online *is* very much about heroes defeating monsters and villains—the only difference is that some of those villains happen to be controlled by other players.

The tabletop RPG does indeed have PvP—in fact, it *depends* on it. It's just that the player controlling the adversarial characters is called "the GM."

Goblin Squad Member

Darthgaul wrote:
To me, your sacrificing the feel of Pathfinder to follow the "EVE Model" because it's easy and convenient not because it accurately represents the feel of Pathfinder in any way.

Love or Hate PvP, but this view is missing a fundamental aspect of the discussion. As a Massively Multiplayer game, PFO: a) is not trying to emulate the small scale of the table-top, and b) try to imagine what would happen in a convention hall of gamers, all with individual agendas and some magical omniscient DM able to challenge and coordinate all those individual wills. In the conventional, players would most certainly challenge other players.

As to the scale of a table-top game; most DMs are really not interested in managing thousands of NPCs or otherwise trying to convince the players the verisimilitude of the world with constant descriptions of everything. Its assumed. You sit at the table and everyone more or less agrees to imagine the world functioning around them. What PFO strives to do, is give all that "happenings" over to the players. Allow the world to have that sentience, and all the enrichment and detriment of experience that goes along with that.

Its not that this doesn't represent the "feel" of the Pathfinder at the table, its that when the "background" of a table top game jumps out to bite you, you can look at your DM and point to him as the adversary. PFO, you'll be able to point at that player, and say THAT person, They are now my content.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Vic Wertz wrote:
Darthgaul wrote:
When I think of Pathfinder i don't think of PVP. Pathfinder, to me, is about defeating monsters and villains (PVE) it's not about killing other players (PVP)unless your in a really bad game. It seems like your just making a fantasy version of EVE online. To me, your sacrificing the feel of Pathfinder to follow the "EVE Model" because it's easy and convenient not because it accurately represents the feel of Pathfinder in any way.

Pathfinder Online *is* very much about heroes defeating monsters and villains—the only difference is that some of those villains happen to be controlled by other players.

The tabletop RPG does indeed have PvP—in fact, it *depends* on it. It's just that the player controlling the adversarial characters is called "the GM."

That reminds me of the first time I played Space Hulk. At one point well into the game, I looked at the person teaching me (and playing the genestealers) and said "You're not some impartial DM determining how the genestealers react to what they perceive. You're an opposing player trying to win."

He looked back and said "Yes. Of course. Did you think I was playing to lose?"

So it will be in PFO. The bandits will not be impartial CR-appropriate NPCs with class levels, they will be players who saw that there was commerce there and want to stop it. The necromancer raisings a massive army of undead aren't a combination plothook and final boss, they're players who want to see if they can pull it off. And when you destroy a bandit hideout or burn the necromancers' tower, your actions are identical to those of someone who burns down our town.

Goblin Squad Member

Vic Wertz wrote:
Darthgaul wrote:
When I think of Pathfinder i don't think of PVP. Pathfinder, to me, is about defeating monsters and villains (PVE) it's not about killing other players (PVP)unless your in a really bad game. It seems like your just making a fantasy version of EVE online. To me, your sacrificing the feel of Pathfinder to follow the "EVE Model" because it's easy and convenient not because it accurately represents the feel of Pathfinder in any way.

Pathfinder Online *is* very much about heroes defeating monsters and villains—the only difference is that some of those villains happen to be controlled by other players.

The tabletop RPG does indeed have PvP—in fact, it *depends* on it. It's just that the player controlling the adversarial characters is called "the GM."

But that's not the same thing at all.

When we play, I'm virtually always the GM. But the players are not defeating me when they overcome a challenge. They're succeeding, sure, but I'm not failing.

In PVP that is 100% not true. If I run into some PVP wank who's out to kill me and take my stuff, there is no imaginary on-paper creation that loses - one of the two of us loses and one wins (or it's a draw, but in a sense that's me winning because they didn't take my stuff).

That is what can make PVP really suck, especially in a sandbox environment when you could very well be first level and some 10th-level jerk is being a jerk just because they can.

At a tabletop game, you might decide not to play with a player who's a jerk, or with a GM whose only goal is to kill PCs. In PFO, however, your only options are "play" and "don't play."

I have to say, the amount that PVP is getting highlighted in all these discussions is not giving me high hopes; I was hoping for something more in the spirit of how our group likes to play Pathfinder (PCs as a team, GM as the one enabling the game), but this looks like it's going to very much evolve into an "us vs. them" scenario.

Goblin Squad Member

I hate the idea that bad guys are viewed as "bad". I hope that there will be plenty of oppurtunities for the "bad" guys to actually embody what they are trying to do. Not so much the X-Men vs. Apocalypse but more of the Professor Xavier vs. Magneto likeness when it comes to playing evil. Apocalypse was out to conquer and rule the world. Magneto was doing what was necessary to protect his people.

I see a lot of POTENTIAL for this in our PFO setting. I just hope that we are given the tools and vehicles to make this happen. Not just the same old "we are the good guys because we fight those with the "Evil" alignment tag" deal that has been done to death...

Yes there will still be the killers and conquerors, but I don't want that to be the only version of evil to play.

I feel much better as a "good" guy if I'm killed by someone who is doing trying to do something "good" but going about it in a starkingly different manner than what society accepts. Getting killed by the rampaging lunatic with an army because he wants to rule everything would get very old very quickly. Besides... Magneto had a badass helmet.

Goblin Squad Member

gbonehead wrote:
I have to say, the amount that PVP is getting highlighted in all these discussions is not giving me high hopes; I was hoping for something more in the spirit of how our group likes to play Pathfinder (PCs as a team, GM as the one enabling the game), but this looks like it's going to very much evolve into an "us vs. them" scenario.

PvP is highlighted because its what concerns people, such as yourself. That concern, and the attempts to modify it tend to rise to the top just based on the context of the thread, not because the focus of the game will or won't be on that exclusively. PvP will be prevalent, but only as prevalent as the players make it. There will be lower risk areas where, for lower rewards, you can avoid PvP and primarily focus on developer provided content. These areas will not be a focus of content delivery. Other players ARE the content. You still seem to be missing some of the ideas of scale and how you can have just as much camaraderie with your Chartered Company and still be fighting and challenging other players. At the tabletop you might be playing a group of mercenary heroes fighting a collection of bandits, represented by the DM (who is inherently a player as well). In PFO the only difference is that the people in charge of the bandits don't have to also manage all the rules and regulations of the gameplay. Your DM as bandits is really just Some Guy as a bandit. In your view he's a "bandit", but to him he might and probably will have a perfectly valid reason to take on your Merc Co.

Its all about perspective, and letting go of preconceived notions.

Goblin Squad Member

gbonehead wrote:
When we play, I'm virtually always the GM. But the players are not defeating me when they overcome a challenge. They're succeeding, sure, but I'm not failing.

If you can separate the character you're playing as a GM from "you", then why can't you separate the character you're playing as a player from "you"?

If you're the GM, playing a character in a duel with a player, and you're trying to succeed, and you fail, how is that not "you" failing?

I understand that you're not emotionally invested in the character the same way you would be if you thought of it as "yours", and that may be all the explanation needed to answer my question, but I'm trying to point out that it's really just a viewpoint change.

Goblin Squad Member

gbonehead wrote:
I have to say, the amount that PVP is getting highlighted in all these discussions is not giving me high hopes; I was hoping for something more in the spirit of how our group likes to play Pathfinder (PCs as a team, GM as the one enabling the game), but this looks like it's going to very much evolve into an "us vs. them" scenario.

I cannot say as to how the game will look when it is finished, but what has been described so far is the spirit of a sand-box MMO. To get a MMO that feels more like a tabletop game (a DM walking you through challenges with the hope that you will win) you would need to play a theme-park style MMO.

So in that manner, yes, PFO breaks from PFRPG. However, Goblin Works has decided not to focus on the "a DM walking you through challenges with the hope that you will win" portion of PFRPG, but rather on the "open world, you can go anywhere, do anything, live a fantasy life" aspect of PFRPG.

I know that does not appeal to everyone, its just up to you as to what you like. There are plenty of (relatively) good theme-park MMO's out there, I'm just glad we are getting a (hopefully) good sand-box MMO.

Nihimon wrote:

If you can separate the character you're playing as a GM from "you", then why can't you separate the character you're playing as a player from "you"?

If you're the GM, playing a character in a duel with a player, and you're trying to succeed, and you fail, how is that not "you" failing?

I understand that you're not emotionally invested in the character the same way you would be if you thought of it as "yours", and that may be all the explanation needed to answer my question, but I'm trying to point out that it's really just a viewpoint change.

As a player you want to win, as a GM you want the player to win. In either role way you can separate character from player, but it has nothing to do with that, it is about each participants wants.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It seems like a lot of people are concerned about the PvP aspect of PFO, I understand their concerns but I think it's more or less a case of not having enough experience playing in that kind of environment. PvP in PFO will most likely not be Darkfall or Mortal, let me explain.

1. PFO is not full loot, you only drop a portion of what's in you bag. No armor drop, no weapon drops. In Darkfall and Mortal as full loot systems, you as a player gain everything you need to play the game from full loot drops, in PFO item drops from PvP will be minimal at best.

2. In Darkfall and Mortal there is litteraly no PvE to speak of, all there is for combat is PvP. Ryan has made it very clear that PvE in PFO will be very robust and rewarding. You will gain more rewards and riches through PvE. Players tend to follow the path of least resistance and fortune.

3. In Darkfall and Mortal there are no safe zones other then in a few cities, and even in the cities you can be killed out side the gates, this leads to griefers concentrating at the front gates for the easy kill. In PFO the safe zones are going to be much larger, maybe 4-10 hexes in size, so the griefers will have to venture further out into hostile territory to get a kill. And we all no griefers don't enjoy risk, they want easy kills and don't enjoy being challenge by equal opponents.

4. Convenience! If you spend 30 minutes to travel out into the wilderness to hunt mobs or gather resources, I will bet that before you attack another player you will consider the fact that if you lose your going to have a long ride back. In PFO travel will be a huge determining factor for many players.

5. The size of the world! In Ultima Online the world is so large that you could spend hours hunting by yourself without ever running into another player, and in most cases that other player is doing something other then trying to kill you. Once again the majority of gankers in UO would camp out side of cities or teleportation stones, looking for the easy kill.
Get out into the wilderness and PvP does happen but in most cases it's a welcomed challenge. But once again in PFO travel restrictions will most likely be the deciding factor for PvP encounters in the open world.

6. Give players more rewarding features other then PvP and you will see a more balanced game. If PvE is more rewarding then PvP, players will do what's more rewarding for them.

If PFO provides its players with a rewarding and robust PvE and non combat experience we will have a great game.

Goblin Squad Member

Gruffling wrote:
gbonehead wrote:
I have to say, the amount that PVP is getting highlighted in all these discussions is not giving me high hopes; I was hoping for something more in the spirit of how our group likes to play Pathfinder (PCs as a team, GM as the one enabling the game), but this looks like it's going to very much evolve into an "us vs. them" scenario.
(snip) PvP will be prevalent, but only as prevalent as the players make it. There will be lower risk areas where, for lower rewards, you can avoid PvP and primarily focus on developer provided content. These areas will not be a focus of content delivery. Other players ARE the content. You still seem to be missing some of the ideas of scale ... (snip) Its all about perspective, and letting go of preconceived notions.

In other words, you have to engage in PVP to do well. How is that not making PVP the focus of the game?

As far as getting rid of preconceived notions - preconceived notions like "evil is bad?" I really, really don't want to turn this into a philosophical discussion about morality - but if the game is rewarding high-level jerks who pick on low-level players who dare set foot outside "safe zones" I just don't see that as attractive.

Nihimon wrote:
gbonehead wrote:
When we play, I'm virtually always the GM. But the players are not defeating me when they overcome a challenge. They're succeeding, sure, but I'm not failing.

If you can separate the character you're playing as a GM from "you", then why can't you separate the character you're playing as a player from "you"?

If you're the GM, playing a character in a duel with a player, and you're trying to succeed, and you fail, how is that not "you" failing?

But I'm not. My goal isn't to "beat" the PCs. I could do that in two seconds, easily. My goal is to create a tough yet fair challenge that they can beat (perhaps not immediately, perhaps at once, it all depends).

That NPC isn't "my" character. In PVP the opponent isn't an NPC. They're another player whose goal is to beat my character. I don't like it, and I never will. This isn't Monopoly, this will be a living, breathing game that they want me to invest time, energy, and money in, and as such, if I'm forced to leave low-reward non-PVP zones in order to achieve success in the game, it's going to be off less interest to me.

I'm sure it'll be a lot of people's cup of tea. Just not mine; I don't like having PVP forced upon me as a condition for success.

Nihimon wrote:
I understand that you're not emotionally invested in the character the same way you would be if you thought of it as "yours", and that may be all the explanation needed to answer my question, but I'm trying to point out that it's really just a viewpoint change.

It's not a viewpoint change. At a standard game, a great GM will ensure that the deck is not stacked against the PCs unless it's for a darn good reason (S&S#1, I'm looking at you). In a PVP environment, there is no GM, and that other player will be doing their darndest to make sure the deck is stacked against you.

This isn't a viewpoint thing. This is a "what kind of game is this and do I really want to play it" kind of thing.

Some people think Diplomacy is awesome. Others find it to be an obnoxious exercise in backstabbing and douchebaggery. I don't think either viewpoint is wrong, but nor will I ever play Diplomacy again, even though I fully understand that other people like it.

Goblin Squad Member

@ gbonehead:

1) GM imagines most of the cause and effect (with dice) in one medium.
2) Other players create most of the cause and effort in the other medium.

Perhaps 1) could be recreated in NWN form, but for an MMO the biggest asset is the large number of people potentially and it's exciting to see if they can all be harnessed successfully.

You are suggesting correctly, just one toxic player smuggled into the game can easily ruin the whole experience for many people including yourself. That's more or less true.

But it's also possible that GW can limit that problem (see blogs).

I think if that issue can be limited, most of the time PvP has potential to make the gameplay more interactive than most mmorpgs achieve or aim for. I'm not so concerned personally with "DOING WELL" in these games, more the emergent stories of complex interactions that including pvp as another dimension to the virtual world.

My opinion is in favor of open-pvp (not ffa-pvp) in mmorpgs for this possibility. I think mmorpgs are intended to be played longer than most games, and so it makes sense to aim for complexity if it's possible.

Goblin Squad Member

gbonehead wrote:


In other words, you have to engage in PVP to do well. How is that not making PVP the focus of the game?

As far as getting rid of preconceived notions - preconceived notions like "evil is bad?" I really, really don't want to turn this into a philosophical discussion about morality - but if the game is rewarding high-level jerks who pick on low-level players who dare set foot outside "safe zones" I just don't see that as attractive.

First Response: Levels and the efficacy of characters in PvP have been somewhat misused. Levels in the tabletop context don't exist. Comparison is best served as Timespent (new character vs old), and in this a "relatively new" character should be able to compete with one that has been in the game for a long time (paraphrasing from Devs), although the older character will have more versatility. Until specifics are revealed, we'll just have to take that on faith.

as to PvP: I'll quote myself as that seems more relevant than responding to a non sequiter

Gruffling wrote:
...not because the focus of the game will or won't be on that exclusively. PvP will be prevalent, but only as prevalent as the players make it....

I didn't say PvP could be avoided and the highest levels of achievement ascended to, nor did I say PvP wouldn't be a focus. Merely pointing out that the game could still be played, and thusly enjoyed, at a lower level of risk.

Regarding "Evil": I'm also not interested in pointing out the vagaries of moral reductionism, but was merely pointing out that most PvP contests are not about good vs evil, but a more ambiguous My Interests vs That Guys Interests. Combat isn't the only option, but given the context of an MMO, it will happen. Economic Wars, Resource Management, and PvE content will also be options to be explored.

gbonehead wrote:


But I'm not. My goal isn't to "beat" the PCs. I could do that in two seconds, easily. My goal is to create a tough yet fair challenge that they can beat (perhaps not immediately, perhaps at once, it all depends).

That NPC isn't "my" character. In PVP the opponent isn't an NPC. They're another player whose goal is to beat my character. I don't like it, and I never will. This isn't Monopoly, this will be a living, breathing game that they want me to invest time, energy, and money in, and as such, if I'm forced to leave low-reward non-PVP zones in order to achieve success in the game, it's going to be off less interest to me.

I'm sure it'll be a lot of people's cup of tea. Just not mine; I don't like having PVP forced upon me as a condition for success.

My Response as a long time DM: "YOU" the DM don't want to kill the players, both because its trivial as well as counterproductive, but as the DM you can, and I think should, attempt to embody the will of the NPCs you're playing, to whatever degree maintains verisimilitude (A bandit isn't a stat block and an XP value, he's some grunger with low morals and a knife). In this context, you most certainly are trying to "beat" the players.

But this is also a non sequiter, as we the players of PFO are in many cases the opposing forces. Much like a DM should be, but unfettered from the concerns of keeping the story moving forward. In PFO the story of a character moves on regardless of how many times they die, whereas I just proved in my home game, death on the tabletop has much higher stakes, and is therefore much more rare.

I would also love to point out that no one is telling you you MUST LOVE PvP to enjoy this game, nor is anyone attempting to tell you you're wrong for not enjoying PvP. Some of us are trying to bring about a broader more nuanced perspective, based on a number of months discussion on the topic. At the end of the day, you may not like Pathfinder Online, and that's fine. Although I haven't read/heard a single thing from the Devs that I don't like, my ultimate judgement is reserved for after I actually play the game.

It is about preconceived notions, and managing expectations. At least for me.

Goblin Squad Member

Gruffling wrote:
... as the DM you can, and I think should, attempt to embody the will of the NPCs you're playing, to whatever degree maintains verisimilitude (A bandit isn't a stat block and an XP value, he's some grunger with low morals and a knife). In this context, you most certainly are trying to "beat" the players.

This is what I was trying to say. Thanks for putting it so well.

Goblin Squad Member

As one who is looking forward to being the bad guy/bandit within the context of this game, the PVP, death, and loot aspects of the game are of great concern to me. PVE is fine and all, I hope there's a robust, diverse, and engaging PVE aspect for the game. It's simply not what I am interested in. If you don't want to participate in any form of PVP, I'm sure there will be nice, safe dungeons to run and loot, then sell your goods to the trader promising the highest price. Nothing wrong with that.

PVP is not simply mortal combat. It also includes less violent (but no less intense) activities such as negotiation and trading. Since one goal of PFO is to have everything in the game created by players, that means A LOT of non-combat PVP is going to be taking place.

As a bandit I have some fairly specific concerns.

Where can I hide out?
Can I set up an ambush?
Can I ransom that caravan?
What information can I glean by someone's appearance?
Would I stand a chance against someone who's been playing longer than I have?
How can I communicate with other people?
Can I set up contacts to sell my goods?
Will these goods I've stolen be flagged as such?
Can I be tracked down? Can my hideout be found and looted?
Can someone hire me to disrupt a rival's caravans?
Can I gain infamy or notoriety?
Can I disguise myself or remain anonymous during my nefarious deeds?
Can I send a lackey to infiltrate the caravan guards and get information on dates and times of shipments, and what they will be carrying?
Can I observe without being observed?

Some of these have been somewhat addressed in the blogs, others have not, but I'm looking forward to pitching in my 2 bits and seeing what can be done.

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

As a GM, I set out to create something that is an even fight, often stacked towards the bad guys. I then play them as cuthroat as I can. My players don't want to be cutting down enemies that don't even want to win. They enjoy the challenge, the thrill of overcoming the odds. If I, as a GM, were to play to lose, then the PCs would have no purpose. The enemies have to be real, and their desire to win has to be real. Otherwise, there is no purpose in playing the game.

Goblin Squad Member

Alexander_Damocles wrote:
As a GM, I set out to create something that is an even fight, often stacked towards the bad guys. I then play them as cuthroat as I can. My players don't want to be cutting down enemies that don't even want to win. They enjoy the challenge, the thrill of overcoming the odds. If I, as a GM, were to play to lose, then the PCs would have no purpose. The enemies have to be real, and their desire to win has to be real. Otherwise, there is no purpose in playing the game.

Although i tend to GM the same way, i have odds with the statement of no purpose. How I play isn't the only way to play. Some people want to play a story, with less risk and more rewards. My opinion of PFO is that if you want high rewards, you have to engage in risk. Others feel differently, but i don't think it makes their preferences any less valid. I hope PFO will be a game that allows for as many niches of playstyle as possible, and so far that's what they've described, and what I've argued for.

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

I don't mean you have to have my preferred level of risk. I just mean that at whatever level of risk you play at, the opposition has to be trying to win. If they are playing to lose, it cheapens the story. If the enemy wanted to lose, why do what they are doing in the first place? Be it an NPC bandit or a PC one, they should both be playing to win.


Vic Wertz wrote:
Darthgaul wrote:
When I think of Pathfinder i don't think of PVP. Pathfinder, to me, is about defeating monsters and villains (PVE) it's not about killing other players (PVP)unless your in a really bad game. It seems like your just making a fantasy version of EVE online. To me, your sacrificing the feel of Pathfinder to follow the "EVE Model" because it's easy and convenient not because it accurately represents the feel of Pathfinder in any way.

Pathfinder Online *is* very much about heroes defeating monsters and villains—the only difference is that some of those villains happen to be controlled by other players.

The tabletop RPG does indeed have PvP—in fact, it *depends* on it. It's just that the player controlling the adversarial characters is called "the GM."

Umm, no. Just no. This is not true. The GM is not analogous to another player, but to game developers and module designers, because he has to wear many hats.

To put it one way, in true PvP, each group of players wins half the time, by definition. If GM controlled NPC's won every second game it wouldn't be a tabletop RPG any more, it'd be a wargame or board game.

Or to put it another way, in PvP the other side's players are not playing for you to have fun. They are not necessarily trying to make life unpleasant for you, but they are playing for their own fun and whether you are having fun or not is your own responsibility. A GM had better be concerned with whether his players are having fun or not.

To put it in a third way, in PvP each side has roughly equal resources and information. A GM has infinitely more resources and information than the players.

=========

On a completely different topic, I am curious whether Goblinworks might consider putting up a PvE server to go along with the regular PvP servers, as the whole "building your own village" thing sounds pretty cool, but I have no interest in paying to be someone else's content.

Goblin Squad Member

Thorri Grimbeard wrote:


On a completely different topic, I am curious whether Goblinworks might consider putting up a PvE server to go along with the regular PvP servers, as the whole "building your own village" thing sounds pretty cool, but I have no interest in paying to be someone else's content.

I suspect this is extremely unlikely.


Gruffling wrote:
I would also love to point out that no one is telling you you MUST LOVE PvP to enjoy this game, nor is anyone attempting to tell you you're wrong for not enjoying PvP. Some of us are trying to bring about a broader more nuanced perspective, based on a number of months discussion on the topic. At the end of the day, you may not like Pathfinder Online, and that's fine. Although I haven't read/heard a single thing from the Devs that I don't like, my ultimate judgement is reserved for after I actually play the game.

This is clearly a game by people who enjoy PvP for people who enjoy PvP, and, just being realistic, if you're someone who's tried PvP in other games and you didn't like it there, you're probably not going to like it here either.

I do find the PvP players' expectations that there will be "resource-gatherer" players for the PvP players to prey on amusing. The resource gatherers will be (alts of) other PvP players. People who don't like PvP will play other games where they don't have to worry about people 20 levels higher than them* killing them and taking their stuff.

*Substitute "with characters minmaxed for PvP" for "20 levels higher than them" as appropriate.


Gruffling wrote:
Thorri Grimbeard wrote:


On a completely different topic, I am curious whether Goblinworks might consider putting up a PvE server to go along with the regular PvP servers, as the whole "building your own village" thing sounds pretty cool, but I have no interest in paying to be someone else's content.
I suspect this is extremely unlikely.

LOL I suspect that you are completely correct!

Goblin Squad Member

Thorri Grimbeard wrote:
I do find the PvP players' expectations that there will be "resource-gatherer" players for the PvP players to prey on amusing. The resource gatherers will be (alts of) other PvP players.

This is not the situation in EVE, where there are as many as (if not more) players who are focused on aspects other than PvP. Some of them are quite good at PvP, but by no means all (or even most) of those players.

RyanD


Really? That surprises me, but if that's the way it is, that's the way it is, and that's cool :)

Goblin Squad Member

Thorri Grimbeard wrote:
-snip-This is clearly a game by people who enjoy PvP for people who enjoy PvP, and, just being realistic, if you're someone who's tried PvP in other games and you didn't like it there, you're probably not going to like it here either.

My anticipation is that the player run kingdoms requiring many levels of cooperation will be a bigger draw.

Goblin Squad Member

Gruffling wrote:
Thorri Grimbeard wrote:


On a completely different topic, I am curious whether Goblinworks might consider putting up a PvE server to go along with the regular PvP servers, as the whole "building your own village" thing sounds pretty cool, but I have no interest in paying to be someone else's content.
I suspect this is extremely unlikely.

I agree, in order for PVP to be meaningful and not just glorified griefing, PVP has to be integrated as necessary to the games design. If PVP is tacked in as an extra to the game, losely enough that it can be removed without redesigning the game from scratch... than that means it is nothing more than a meaningless griefing mechanic, and that the PVP servers of the game will be nothing more than the PVP servers of WoW, rift or any of the other PVP/PVE server games in which the PVP servers are nothing more than a meaningless brutal kill everyone on sight always.

Goblin Squad Member

Its worth it to remind folks that we're likely to have a single persistent world, all on "one" server. Thats one of the main selling points really.

All the handwringing about PvP strikes me as reflex to how its been done in the past. WoW's instances, Darkfall's crazy silly emergent behavior both being cited obliquely as examples of the evils of PvP, but still the closest thing we've seen out of a modern MMO is EVE, and even that has so many divergences its really hard to imagine a good basis to make references.

Goblin Squad Member

Gruffling wrote:

...

All the handwringing about PvP strikes me as reflex to how its been done in the past. ...

Speaking for myself only, there's no handwringing, but rather a logical deconstruction of ideas presented that have been tried in the past, and failed in the past.

That is what has me worried, not a reflex.

I've seen these types of optimistic systems attempted, and they don't work. Players abuse every system in every possible way. All player interaction, either direct or indirect, combat or not, has to be considered from the perspective of the most anti social griefing jerk ever to grace the human race.

From what I've seen, so far, the details that will add consequence to negative action have not been enumerated. Until they are, I consider the system as described to be a work of pending failure.

To be specific:

Quote:

When your character dies, your corpse will turn into a soulless husk on the spot. At the moment of death, a timer will begin to count down giving you a minute or two before anything else happens.

...
If you are alone, or have no companions capable of resurrecting you, you'll have to deal with the fallout.
...
However, until you return to your husk, you are in danger of losing the rest of your inventory. If you get to your husk before anyone else, you'll be able to get all your stuff back. However, if another player finds your husk before you do, they'll be able to loot it.
...
There is some incentive to strike down other players within this system, but it doesn't reward attackers with the full value of the defender's inventory.

In the current system as described, murderers are rewarded and victims are punished. Taking that concept to a logic conclusion over time will net fewer paying customers. This is illogical, and as a result, confusing.

Quote:
Your character will re-enter play at the soulbinding point holding and wearing whatever gear they had equipped when they died, so you won't have to start without your armor, or the weapons, wands, or staves you were using.

In the current system as described, the mechanics of the PvP death system create an emergent gameplay tactic that causes players to never carry any items in their inventory. Again, illogical in 2012 when there are so many other more elegant solutions to the problem.

Quote:

At the edges of the security zone, it may be possible for a swift assault to destroy a target and still give the attackers time to flee before the marshals arrive.

...
After the timer expires, the marshals will not respond to the reappearance of the target in their patrolled lands.

In the current system as described, it is possible for players to be attacked and possibly killed within high security areas. Given the nature of the stated purpose of a high security area, this is also illogical, and is again, confusing.

Quote:
Killing an opponent as a part of a declared war, or in an area that does not have laws against murder, will not trigger the bounty system.

In the current system as described, there are areas of the game where murders can be committed with no consequences. These areas are also described as being the most desirable, from a challenge, risk, and reward perspective. Driving your paying customers, by design, into the areas of the game specifically where murders have no consequence is again, illogical, given the victimization nature of PvP, as described so far.

I apologize if I have misunderstood, and the highest risk/reward hexes are NOT FFA PVP Murder-Yes areas, I will humbly admit my error and withdraw this last point.

I have every hope Goblinworks comes up with innovative, fun, and rewarding solutions to the victimization that comes with 1v1 ffa/open world pvp. So far, what is described, to me, falls short.

I feel it's important to note, I feel EVERY OTHER ASPECT of the game, as described, is well done and shows great potential and promise. This single aspect has me extremely concerned as a long time MMO player. UO, Shadowbane, Darkfall, Mortal Online, and other PvP-centric titles have all had to deal with this problem. They have all fallen short of their potential, in my opinion, given the solutions demonstrated to date. I hope PFO doesn't make the same mistakes.

There are very few changes required to these mechanics to make them extremely attractive to a customer not interested in paying to be a victim. However, as described in this blog entry, without further clarification, the PvP mechanics in PFO require paying customers to be victims. This, in my experience playing MMO's since 1995, is not a sustainable long term business model.

Goblin Squad Member

@vjek: Logical concerns. I'd agree the pvp has potential to cause problems, but at the same time it has potential to open up dynamic gameplay.

I hope the danger is offset by player contracts -> reciprocity -> trust/alignment -> stable groups of players strong enough to overcome smaller instable groups of gankers (assuming there was a danger of it getting that bad after bounties, criminal flagging penalties, ncp guards etc) and any pvp is more about bandits and sanctioned pvp eg war between kingdoms etc). And in the wilds, people that do want to pvp each other a lot more, tend to find like-minded people out there and avoid large chartered companies if they can.

I hope this pattern emerges as the dominant one and gives strong reason for cooperative player formed groups. :) We shall have to see. The selective process ideally needs to filter for players imo.

Goblin Squad Member

The soulbinding death solution has some potential for abuse. I can see griefers camping a corpse (without looting it) just to kill the player again when they come to claim their stuff. The criminal flag for murders in secured areas is a start, but it too can be circumnavigated. There needs to be a severe punishment for murder in secure areas, otherwise what would be stopping someone from creating a character, giving them the best possible gear they can use, murdering someone, return the gear, and make a new character to repeat the process? The gear donor doesn't necessarily have a link to the griefing character, so you can't go after them, and multiple accounts can be sorely abused in this fashion.

A 'low-level/low-time' character should be able to stand a chance against a 'high-level/high-time' character, otherwise you end up with high-time, well-equipped characters running roughshod over new characters. And even if they do get beat down by a mob of lowbies they won't lose their +5 vorpal sword of griefing or their +5 full plate of pwnage. There's really no risk for the murderer at that point, especially if he's got friends who've set up a settlement elsewhere. A lowbie probably won't have the resources to place a bounty, may not have connections to those who can, and being stomped into the ground first thing in the morning is (almost) nobody's idea of 'fun'. The murderer may not get any tangible reward, but a griefer like that isn't doing it for the coin, he's doing it for the entertainment he gathers from ruining somebody else's day.

Now having the lawless 'murder-yes' areas outside of NPC controlled lands is not a problem. If done right there should be plenty of content available within the 'secure' areas for those who would rather compete against virtual intelligence instead of real intelligence. The high reward stuff should always be limited to the higher risk areas, and lawlessness is a high risk.

PVP should not be synonymous with griefing, and there should be facilities built into the system that minimize griefing potential without completely neutering PVP. Admittedly this can be a fine line to walk, and the definitions of each of these terms is a little different for many people. Most of those I have talked to who despise PVP had their first taste of PVP through griefing, usually a one-sided thorough beating, and it scarred them.

Goblin Squad Member

vjek wrote:
All player interaction, either direct or indirect, combat or not, has to be considered from the perspective of the most anti social griefing jerk ever to grace the human race.

I disagree. The game systems should be designed to maximize the benefit of the players who engage those systems conscientiously. The anti-social griefers can't be stopped by systems anyway - they must be dealt with by human beings. Goblinworks has made every indication that they will use whatever means are necessary to avoid letting PFO degenerate into rampant anti-social behavior.

Goblin Squad Member

Sintaqx, you've highlighted some excellent points, both logically sound and legitimate concerns. I too, share those concerns. I agree IF there is enough content to satisfy both playstyles, PFO has made a good decision regarding high level content & areas. Unfortunately, no info on that.

I would put a few questions to you, though, regarding this hypothetical situation: Let's say there are 4 types of metal in PFO, and the fourth (most difficult to acquire) is required for settlements and above construction. There are two hexes where one can obtain Metal4. One hex is flagged 'murder-yes' while the other is not.
In your opinion, should the amount of Metal4 extractable from either in a given time frame be the same?
Should the amount of Metal4 extractable from either in a given time frame be higher for the 'murder-yes' hex, or higher for the hex NOT flagged 'murder-yes' ?
Finally, should Metal4 be obtainable in ANY hex not flagged 'murder-yes' ?

I think the answer to those questions would be very telling, both from Goblinworks officially, and the outspoken community supporters of the currently describe PvP & death mechanics. In particular, overall, what desirable behavior is being encouraged that will build a strong community, encourage subscriber retention, and be fun?

AvenaOats, I hope it turns out as you've described, but in practice, what I've observed in the titles I mentioned is not that pvp-topia. It's more like pvp-gang-thuggery, and that's where it stops. Now, if ffa PvP was limited to those involved in kingdom level politics, or declared wars only, that has some potential.

It also seems strange to me that 'murder-yes' areas exist at all. When was the last time a player murdered a fellow adventurer while playing Pathfinder, the RPG, or in all the DnD games that have ever been played? I would bet a nickel it's a very low number, and yet PFO has this feature. Very odd. Maybe it should be renamed Pathfinder-PvP-Online, so people can make the distinction between that intellectual property and this one? >:) Ok ok, that was a low blow, but it does make the point.

Nihimon, I would point to all the successful PvE-focused MMO's ever made that stopped anti-social griefing jerks with in-game systems. Where PvP is consensual, in those titles, I have never been griefed. I admit, it may be possible, but it has never happened to me.

On the other hand, every title, including UO, Shadowbane, Darkfall, and Mortal Online? Griefed by jerks in every one, using PvP either legitimately or PvP exploits.

I disagree with your assertion that systems can't stop anti-social griefers, as I've seen it with my own eyes, and paid money to companies that have done it, for years.

It is confusing to me that Goblinworks has publicly committed to "use whatever means are necessary to avoid letting PFO degenerate into rampant anti-social behavior" and yet this blog describes a system which allow players to be murdered ~~anywhere, at any time.

Quote:
At the edges of the security zone, it may be possible for a swift assault to destroy a target and still give the attackers time to flee before the marshals arrive.

Goblin Squad Member

vjek wrote:
I disagree with your assertion that systems can't stop anti-social griefers...

You're right that if you don't allow PvP, then there won't be as much griefing. But PvP is central to the design of PFO. There aren't any game systems compatible with PvP that can stop griefing without imposing an unacceptable cost on legitimate PvP.

vjek wrote:
It is confusing to me that Goblinworks has publicly committed to "use whatever means are necessary to avoid letting PFO degenerate into rampant anti-social behavior" and yet this blog describes a system which allow players to be murdered ~~anywhere, at any time.

Therein lies some of the problem. You equate "murder" with "griefing". In a PvP environment, it is not griefing just because you didn't want them to kill you. It's griefing when it happens over and over for no good reason. Big difference.

Imagine, if you can, being obviously targeted by someone who constantly boasts of his desire and ability to be a master assassin, even to the point of offering discounts for murdering you. I can imagine it, and it doesn't really bother me. He'll pay the iron price for his attempts, and if it gets obnoxious, I'll rely on the moderators to put an end to it. But believe me, I won't go running to them the first time he kills me, and I'll probably have a much more "lively" experience in unknown territory than I would if I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that I was always safe.

Goblin Squad Member

Murder as an in-game mechanic is great, in the proper context.

Being murdered in a high security zone does not appear to be the proper context. Otherwise, why have a high security zone mechanic? Is it safe or not? As described, it is not safe. There is no security. Why is it called "high security" if security isn't high?

Regarding "... and if it gets obnoxious, I'll rely on the moderators to put an end to it. ... "

That would appear to be at odds with your previous statement of:
" ... The anti-social griefers can't be stopped by systems anyway - they must be dealt with by human beings. ... "

Unless you meant "human beings" other than yourself?

Why not have a method in-game to deal with it automatically, rather than placing the burden upon overworked moderators and front line support staff? I certainly wouldn't want to be dealing with grievances between bickering players if I was in that job. Why foist the problem on them?

It seems like now is the time to get the PFO design document modified to deal with these fundamental problems that have failed in UO, Darkfall, Shadowbane, and Mortal Online. They have tried them, they have failed.

As well, regarding the statement that "PVP is central to the design of PFO", where is that design coming from? Pathfinder, the RPG? Or Eve? Is PFO going to be a fantasy setting for Eve 2.0, or is it going to embody the spirit of Pathfinder the RPG, where murdering your fellow players is unthinkable to the vast majority of participants?
I'd like to read a transcript of the conversation between Ryan and Lisa that reconciled that philosophical schism.

301 to 350 of 419 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Paizo Licensed Products / Pathfinder Online / Goblinworks Blog: To Live and Die in the River Kingdoms 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.