Is the game still Open PvP?


Pathfinder Online

51 to 100 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

L. A. DuBois wrote:
Also, I point to my other suggestion of having PvP zones instead of servers. Perhaps, closer to settled, civilized areas character-to-character PvP becomes discouraged/prohibited

This is more or less how it's gonna work.

EDIT: I suggest you go read the ''To Live and Die in the River Kingdoms'' chapter in the Blog

Sovereign Court

Oh thanks for point me to that.

Goblin Squad Member

@L.A. DuBois - I have sympathy for this desire. And so does the MMO industry, since 99% of the games it produces cater to it. Pathfinder Online will be the 1% that doesn't, and we accept the fact that the result is that some people just won't be interested in playing.

Goblin Squad Member

I believe people are getting hung up on the terminology of PvP. Everyone instantly associates anything related to that term to mean:

Being ganked by people as you start the game.

From what I gather by everything posted by Mr Dancey and GW, PvP in PFO will be SO MUCH more than just straight up duels.

PvP will encompass ideas from kingdom warfare to economic warfare.

Want to be a realm famous swordmaker? Then find a city and some people willing to supply you with the materials you need and you are on your way.

If people could just broaden their idea of the PvP title, then they will begin to see what GW has planned here. As stated before, I NEVER participate in PvP in themepark MMOs. Because all they are are straight up duels. Character on character fighting. I don't find that interesting.

Pathfinder Online PvP reckons to be much more than that. And based on what I have read, I absolutely cannot wait to get my hands on this game.

Sovereign Court

After having read over the related blog post, I think that this will be in the 1% of that 1% that I feel does things right.
I love the bounty system and despite it, already have ideas for an assassin-type character as something of a mirror to the bounty hunter - I'm just trying to figure out how I can do my best to keep on the tolerable side of the fine griefing line. But that will probably be quite some time after I start before I start trying that out. ...Perhaps kill the person, but defend their corpse as they run back rather than loot it? Eh, not the place for my ramblings.

Anyway, I think that the marshal part is a bit extreme. For veracity, as well as an extra safeguard a system like that would do quite well, but alongside the bounty thing, I don't think it is so necessary to make them what appear to pretty much be gods in human form. Perhaps, at least, make their abilities weaken in some way the further they get from the town as well?

I think that another interesting development that may come to be if there are enough hardcore fans that join is that certain guilds (or equivalent) may be formed that are analogous to traditional medieval guilds. That is, guilds of craftsmen, merchants, etc. Should a guild's reputation as such be significant, other guilds and players may establish truces or other agreements to protect non-combative characters completely independent of any real enforcement aside from the players themselves. It certainly isn't guaranteed to happen, and I think highly unlikely to occur on more than a few servers, but given several of the unique aspects of this game it would be one of the few times that such a system could naturally develop.

EDIT: Oh, as far as I can tell the safe zones mentioned in the blog post seem to only be planned for NPC communities, but if I'm understanding things correctly, there is opportunity for PCs to build communities themselves, no? I'm just wondering if perhaps similar protections (perhaps with a fee of some sort to simulate paying for the guards, etc.) would be extended to these as well.

Goblin Squad Member

Its extremely unlikely the same types of protections you see from an NPC settlement extended, however you may see protections extended by the PCs in control of the settlement in question.

I can see you're on your way to understanding how the Players are the Content. In order for this design philosophy to work well, the systems have to go through some rigorous questions. Will the system enable, or prevent, some freedom of play? Using your request as an example;If the game has NPC style protections against "ganking" then no PC created settlement will endure a siege, the land will become dotted with meaningless towns, cats and dogs will live together. If you then have to design a system that allows towns to be destroyed, but somehow parse out "newbs" that need protecting. In the end, this sort of scope creep is best left as simple as possible, no extensions of safety for "new" characters. Those who wish for a lower risk, lower reward playstyle will already have areas available.

Instead perhaps consider how, as a member of a PC settlement, how you might be able to provide protections for that settlement. Or how as a Mercenary, you can sell your services to settlements to help protect their interests, or extend their power to other areas. How can you build up your economic skills to drive down market prices so that basic equipment is easily accessible to new characters, enabling them to more quickly bootstrap their effectiveness into the general populace.

Or, if you like, How can you reverse all of those positions, and cruelly drive your oppressive regime to all corners of the map. Both sides of this should be available, and as such, players will always be in conflict (ergo: Providing Content), and thusly entertained.

Sovereign Court

Well, that's assuming the protection is identical to the NPC ones. First off, it seems that declared wars nullify the protections (at least for those factions directly involved), so this would be in effect in PC towns as well. In addition, I implied that it could be more of an option that the PC in control of the town could turn on. A sort of purchasable benefit that isn't required. This would allow rogue-towns to exist where there are no rules, beyond those agreed upon and enforced by its players but so that players with larger cities don't have to try micromanaging every little affair in order to keep peace.
It wouldn't be an impenetrable barricade, but it wouldn't require the mayor/baron/king/what-have-you to be logged on at all hours of the day to make sure no one is slitting throats.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

L. A. DuBois wrote:
Oh, as far as I can tell the safe zones mentioned in the blog post seem to only be planned for NPC communities, but if I'm understanding things correctly, there is opportunity for PCs to build communities themselves, no? I'm just wondering if perhaps similar protections (perhaps with a fee of some sort to simulate paying for the guards, etc.)...

There will be a way to have exactly this effect, but it will be very intensive: Have guards stationed everywhere you want to protect, and have them kill anyone who commits a capital offense. Those guards have to be PC characters being played by players, though. NPC guards are specific to NPC settlements, and have a specific metagame role. It becomes too strange for nigh-invincible NPC forces to be available for police work but vanish during invasions.

We aren't going to get a Lego set with picture instructions on how to build a culture. We're going to get a great big heap of bricks and we need to build a shared culture out of them- if police are needed, we need to figure out how to build police with the resources available.

Sovereign Court

Hmmm... It sounds like an interesting idea in theory, but I don't know how likely it is to pan out in reality. Players will probably have to be paid an inordinate sum to spend their game time standing around in some city looking for action that may or may not happen instead of going off and doing what they want to do.

Perhaps, instead of magical no-combat zones, and god-like wardens who instantly have knowledge when someone is killed, have more realistic guards whose powers scale by how much the owner of a city is willing to pay (though even then, never to the extent of the NPC city guards). And rather than vanishing during an invasion, I don't see why players couldn't have a few NPC soldiers to help out.
There would still be benefit in hiring players to do these things instead (better equipment, skills, an actual mind instead of AI) but in the (by my estimation) very likely case that PCs can't or won't be hired as watchmen, it would make a decent fallback.

Just a thought.

Basically, even if this game becomes the most popular MMO in the history of the world and claims that title for a century, there will be jobs that players simply won't be willing to do without unreasonable reimbursement, if at all.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think it would be cool if you could play a Marshal. You'd get an alert when someone was violating a rule established in a Hex controlled by your Settlement and the location of that crime. You'd have the right to go there and stop it. That way you wouldn't have to have PCs standing around every 10 feet waiting for someone to transgress.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
I think it would be cool if you could play a Marshal.

I think that would be very cool, too.

Would you want there to be a way to get to the crime scene very quickly? Perhaps even significantly more quickly than the best Fast Travel? Would you worry about that being gamed - where a player would have a friend commit a crime so they could get back to town quickly?

Sovereign Court

...That could make for a viable alternative.
Let me just say, dread creeped into me the moment I saw the title of this thread, but all but the most stubborn bits of wariness (which will remain until launch, no matter what - just the way I am) have completely evaporated.

Good luck, and I can't wait for more news. ...Actually, I can't wait for release, but news will help my impatience. ^^

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:

I think it would be cool if you could play a Marshal. You'd get an alert when someone was violating a rule established in a Hex controlled by your Settlement and the location of that crime. You'd have the right to go there and stop it. That way you wouldn't have to have PCs standing around every 10 feet waiting for someone to transgress.

There was a system with some vague similarty in a MUD I played. Essentialy certain player could be appointed as DEPUTIES for a Town. These appointments were done by the GM's as the game in question was PVE focused...even though the ruleset mechanicaly allowed for FFA PvP (it was really a RP focused game). The Deputies largely consisted of long time players who were trusted. This worked for that game because it allowed for an easy way to get back to town (teleportation rings were available to anyone...though they could be consumed on use...and were moderately expensive to replace...they were also set to a single point determined previously by the player activating them there) and there were also telepathy devices (i.e. global chat).

Anyway, when someone was having a problem with another player in or near town...they would request a Deputy via the telepathy system and usualy one or more would show up. As a Deputy....probably 95% of the time you were doing nothing more then dispute resolution between players. It was very rare that I ever had to take any action beside talking to the other characters....the threat of being able to act was generaly sufficient. We didn't have any automated systems to tell us "This player did this" or any GM-like powers to look back in game logs or anything like that.... but honestly it didn't take you very many calls to start to know who the "trouble-makers" were with a high degree of accuracy. The same people start showing up as being complained about time and again...you knew...beside most people are actualy pretty bad liars.

Oddly enough, I have a buddy who is a police sgt in real life....the way he describes his job is actualy pretty similar. (e.g. most of your time spent resolving disputes and talking to people, usualy don't need to take greater action then that, get to know who the local troublemakers are pretty quickly)

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Ryan Dancey wrote:

I think it would be cool if you could play a Marshal. You'd get an alert when someone was violating a rule established in a Hex controlled by your Settlement and the location of that crime. You'd have the right to go there and stop it. That way you wouldn't have to have PCs standing around every 10 feet waiting for someone to transgress.

In other words, get a "teleport to crime scene" power similar to the NPC marshals have? Perhaps contingent on a building being present in the settlement?

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:

I think it would be cool if you could play a Marshal. You'd get an alert when someone was violating a rule established in a Hex controlled by your Settlement and the location of that crime. You'd have the right to go there and stop it. That way you wouldn't have to have PCs standing around every 10 feet waiting for someone to transgress.

LOVE this idea.

Goblin Squad Member

So... everyone gets to be a marshal, and instantly teleport back to a settlement with overwhelming speed and efficiency... maybe i'm misreading this, but how can that NOT be gamed and abused?

Goblin Squad Member

Gruffling wrote:
So... everyone gets to be a marshal, and instantly teleport back to a settlement with overwhelming speed and efficiency...

To be clear, Ryan didn't say anything about instantly teleporting back to the Settlement. I believe I was the first to ask about that, and I also asked about it being gamed.

Goblin Squad Member

In general I think that our goal should be that if you want to do stuff that is out of the band of normal you should have to earn it and be equipped to do it (and it should likely have counters as well for people who want to stop you from doing it).

So having all the powers of an NPC marshal might require you to earn a bunch of merit badges in Marshaling and to have acquired some specialized gear that could enable your ability to get to a crime scene really quickly.

And other people should have the ability to develop a character that could reduce the effectiveness of the warning you get about a crime being committed or interfere with your ability to travel quickly to a crime scene, etc.

The one thing I don't want to have is PC characters with the "insta-kill" capabilities of the NPC marshals. The NPCs need help because defeating a robot running a script will always be easier than defeating a real live human and we want to make the humans work for success whereas we want the NPCs to always succeed to create a disincentive for misbehavior.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Gruffling wrote:
So... everyone gets to be a marshal, and instantly teleport back to a settlement with overwhelming speed and efficiency...
To be clear, Ryan didn't say anything about instantly teleporting back to the Settlement. I believe I was the first to ask about that, and I also asked about it being gamed.

I was mostly going with the trend of hyperbole, in the hopes (success!!) of getting Ryan's thoughts on the matter. Managing expectations, and all that. And Ryan's response was spot on for what i would hope for in that regard. Game Systems to ENABLE freedom of play.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 32

Ryan Dancey wrote:

In general I think that our goal should be that if you want to do stuff that is out of the band of normal you should have to earn it and be equipped to do it (and it should likely have counters as well for people who want to stop you from doing it).

So having all the powers of an NPC marshal might require you to earn a bunch of merit badges in Marshaling and to have acquired some specialized gear that could enable your ability to get to a crime scene really quickly.

Doesn't this require a 24-hour vigil somewhere online for every settlement, though? The more awkward it is to allow non-trusted people to enter your settlement, the more incentive there is for people to just say NBSI and not allow any non-trusted people in.

Goblin Squad Member

On a NWN persitent world I played on there were npc sheriff's scattered around the community. If you spoke to them you could report a crime which would then send a message to all PC Sheriffs about the crime. It was then up to the players to get there in time.

In relation to standing around being a guard in a settlement 24/7 I doubt anyone would be keen on doing that. However, I'm sure some people won't mind doing shifts of guarding a settlement. Although as I understand it, a settlement is going to be represented by 3D icon which you click on to access. At least thats how its going to start out in the early days. So stopping crime won't really be a function until we have a fully realised 3d environment.

Therefore the main job of a guard will be to protect a settlement from outside attack. Depending on how easy it is to do that (i.e. do you need to formally announce a state of 'war'), then perhaps the best people to act as guards are those who will hang around the settlement anyway. Merchants, and crafters. If this was the case then then would be acting as a militia for a settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

I think most settlements will have lots of people online at all hours. And I think we'll have notifications of trigger events that go out-of-game.

Goblin Squad Member

To be honest, I don't "Marshal's" really need much in the way of special abilities in order to perform thier basic function. I could see the following...

- A "badge of office" to clearly display thier status for that community. So that they can be positively identified as such. So this is basicaly just a decorative item that's uniquely tied to the community and position.

- A local chat channel (public not private) where someone can request a "Marshall".

- This is probably the most controversial one. The ability to flag someone as "criminal" to that community (and possibly unflag them as well). So that actions can be taken against a law-breaker.)

The above assumes that the game is at the stage where communities are fully fleshed out 3D environments and there is actualy stuff to do in them. It also applies only to PC controled settlements and assumes that the players of such settlements have the ability to set thier own laws. It also assumes that a "criminal" flag only applies to the specific settlement it is tripped for.

If PC's can control thier own settlements and set thier own laws. All they are doing is appointing a human or group of humans who has the ability to enforce those laws and adjucate criminality. A power that is dependant upon and can be stripped by the PC governing body of that settlement charter.

It's possible that a "Marshall" could be corrupt or abuse thier power...but in a Role-Playing Game that's actualy a GOOD THING. As long as the "criminal" flag doesn't have any consequences outside that particular player controled community....I don't see why there should be much of an issue (again we aren't talking NPC territory here).

I'm assuming that "Marshalls" don't really need fast travel abilities....as settlements (by that point in the game) should be fun places to hang out and socialize and do other things. If not, then probably there are more important things for the Dev's to address then this system.

This doesn't mean that players wanting to play "Marshalls" do nothing but stand around guarding thier towns.... a smart town isn't going to appoint the job to just one person, but a GROUP of people....so even if most of them are offline or off adventuring...there is a decent chance that at least one or two are around.

I don't really think Marshals need much in the way of special powers beyond those described.... possibly if they happen to be in the hex where their settlement is at...they could get a notice of someone breaking the laws there....basicaly simulating someone from the settlement running out to tell them. That would simply be an extension of whatever law system is already in place for those sorts of settlements and the mechanics to support it...

e.g Pickpocketting (assuming it's in game) is an illegal act in that town. Pickpocket fails his roll and gets noticed...he's flagged as criminal and a message gets sent to any Marshals in the settlement/hex.... pickpocket succeeds his roll...and nobody notices, no flag.

Goblin Squad Member

A Man In Black wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:

In general I think that our goal should be that if you want to do stuff that is out of the band of normal you should have to earn it and be equipped to do it (and it should likely have counters as well for people who want to stop you from doing it).

So having all the powers of an NPC marshal might require you to earn a bunch of merit badges in Marshaling and to have acquired some specialized gear that could enable your ability to get to a crime scene really quickly.

Doesn't this require a 24-hour vigil somewhere online for every settlement, though? The more awkward it is to allow non-trusted people to enter your settlement, the more incentive there is for people to just say NBSI and not allow any non-trusted people in.

One assumes there are other reasons for settlements to want a sigificant amount of people entering (e.g. Trade/Commerce improving the economic prosperity of the settlement).

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:


One assumes there are other reasons for settlements to want a sigificant amount of people entering (e.g. Trade/Commerce improving the economic prosperity of the settlement).

It's all about variables, how much damage could a handful of unwanted people do to an area before it is reasonable to expect them to be cleared out against how much good do unscheduled beneficial visits bring.

The other factor is in general positive trade geographically usually comes from the same places. Namely ones surrounding settlements. How often is it practical to assume that someone looking to unload goods is going to travel past 5 valid settlements to get to yours. So you generally know that 90-99% of people looking to do trade with you, are probably from your surrounding cities. Someone traveling 50 miles away avoiding the 5 or 6 settlements between you and him, you might be suspicious of, after all why was his business not of value to the places closer to him, there's probably a reason why they don't want him, and it's very possible you shouldn't want him either.

Eve is a solid example of one where despite having an extremely deep economic system, the danger of an unknown party in ones territory usually outweighs the benefits, from what I've seen in the listing 18 of the top 20 corporations or so, are not blue shoot it. It's pretty simple really, they either recruit or ally the people who they can trust, and take no chances with unknowns.

So all that being said, the actual reduction of the NBSI mindset, is more or less going to rely on one of several possibilities.

1. Minimizing the damage a small group of people could do in the time it takes for a reactionary response. In eve I believe this was an issue because ships that aren't ready for combat, could be blown to bits in 5 seconds or so from my understanding. Meaning an unchecked individual could cost someone a rather noteworthy amount of money faster than he could yell help.

2. Acceleration of the reactionary response. Obviously with 1 noted, even if it takes 10 minutes for a PKer to kill someone, that does no good if it takes 30 minutes for help to arrive. This is the point Ryan is addressing in this conversation.

3. High value in random trade. Obviously 1-2 are more or less completely null and void, if nearby cities are more or less certain to have everything needed to be traded for. If goods are needed from further away, than odds are the neighbors don't have it, if resources tend to run out and re-appear, IE mithral used to be common in the great legionaries territory, but now it seems that it dried up there, but The first file has a high supply of it now, that takes my option of trusting 1 settlement for all of my mithral needs, and being more open becomes more beneficial.

Goblin Squad Member

A big reason for NBSI in EVE is that the UI element that gives you visibility into who else is on the local grid with you (ships you could interact with) essentially forces you into flagging every single entity in your space as either blue or not blue. There's no "green" (this guy is known to us, is OK, but isn't a member of our social organization).

Since you fight via that UI, whatever the UI settings you have pretty much define your tactical responses. It takes too long and causes too much confusion to be switching between various setups for analysis. EVE is very much a "hurry up and wait" game where you have long stretches of not doing much punctuated with brief interludes where you better hit exactly the right keystrokes at exactly the right moment or you could screw something up pretty badly for you and your mates.

When there was a large NRDS entity in EVE (it has since collapsed under internal stressors and external incursions), it worked pretty good. But partly it worked well because the people who did the enforcement spent a lot of extra time being good at making NRDS work. Its unclear if anyone will bother doing that again in EVE.

In Pathfinder Online I hope to have lots of green.


Ryan,

I remember heading into CVA space in Eve; that was the "good" alliance who was NRDS.

I would do a lot of killing there, and eventually got reported and became KOS to all CVA. So, I'd wait a bit and then petition some of their leadership and they'd take me off KOS. Then I'd come back and do it again.

The whole thing makes one feel like a true "outlaw"--having to play both the physical and meta-game to survive.

Then, as you say CVA fell apart and got chopped up by a number of the larger NBSI corporations, one of which I was in at that point.

I've since left Eve and have been waiting for a good replacement since then. I'm glad to see that you want to further this type of gameplay, and I think you'll find a niche market that's bigger than 1%.

-Faohs

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
In Pathfinder Online I hope to have lots of green.

It is my most fervent hope that you and everyone else at Goblinworks ends up with lots of green as a result of Pathfinder Online.

Goblin Squad Member

@Nihimon,

I've only read about EvE, never actualy played it but clearly organizations are doing what works for the particular dynamics that are created for it's ruleset. That doesn't mean those strategies will be particulary effective for games with different dynamics created by different rulesets. Obviously we're not sure exactly what the dynamics for PFO will be....but I can think of a few important potential differences....

- There are actual Dieties who care about thier followers moral behavior and can reward or penalize them accordingly. I can't see Torag or Iomedae being too pleased with a Cleric or Paladin who habitualy kills people on sight purely because they are strangers.

- Probably a little bit of difference on the destructive capacity on infrastructure between what is effectively 12th century personal weaponry and a futuristic spaceship with missles and lasers. I'm guessing if someone shows up in your territory with a Trebuchet, thier is cause for concern about the infrastructure but a rapier...probably not so much.

- I'm guessing in EvE there are a limited set of reasons why a stranger would show up in your territory aside from causing trouble. In Pathfinder it might not be uncommon to see an adventurer party want to use your settlement as a base (and spend gold there) to explore the Temple of Elemental Evil that was discovered in the neighboring hex.... and it's probably to your benefit that the Temple of Elemental Evil gets taken out before it's malice spreads to your hex (i.e. NPC bad guys are a realistic threat).

- Specialization of trade and geographic distribution of resources. I'm guessing in EvE a settlement can be pretty much self-sufficient or only depend upon close allies. So you can predict that the unkown people coming into your territory are carrying things you can readly aquire from a known source. In Pathfinder, the person you just slayed can be an adventurer that was coming to sell the ring of fireballs they just recovered from a nearby dungeon...or Renaldo or trader of Mithral that he is carrying from it's nearest source 8 hexes away...because he can get a better price for it by taking it to a distant market (yours) where it is unavailble at any price then trying to sell it next door in bulk.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
@Nihimon...

I'm utterly at a loss as to why that was addressed to me...

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
@Nihimon...
I'm utterly at a loss as to why that was addressed to me...

Because I'm a moron who gets mixed up.....sorry ;)

Goblin Squad Member

No worries :)

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
@Nihimon...
I'm utterly at a loss as to why that was addressed to me...

You were last with the "batton", obviously!

@GrumpyMel: That's an interesting description of the comparison, so I'm concluding that:

More Green = more cosmopolitant

More cosmopolitan, more trade/influence/social hub etc etc... which also probably allows more espionage/intrigue to sneak in.

Goblin Squad Member

@AvenaOats...

/battonpass

Goblin Squad Member

lol :)

/battondrop

Goblin Squad Member

@AvenaOats,

Yeah that's the way I see it. Note that I think based upon the settlement and the specific goals of the organization that has founded it, far more restrictive policies could make sense as well. But it should be a trade-off for them, less economic prosperity/growth for greater security/control.

I'd hate to see the restrictive policy (or the more open one for that matter) be something that 99 percent of the game uses. Choices are only meaningfull if the results they achieve are attractive under certain circumstances.

Otherwise it'd kinda be like If choosing to be a fighter meant you won every scenario in the game and choosing to be a thief meant you lost... it's kinda a choice without a choice, if you get what I mean?

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:

@AvenaOats,

Yeah that's the way I see it. Note that I think based upon the settlement and the specific goals of the organization that has founded it, far more restrictive policies could make sense as well. But it should be a trade-off for them, less economic prosperity/growth for greater security/control.

I'd hate to see the restrictive policy (or the more open one for that matter) be something that 99 percent of the game uses. Choices are only meaningfull if the results they achieve are attractive under certain circumstances.

Otherwise it'd kinda be like If choosing to be a fighter meant you won every scenario in the game and choosing to be a thief meant you lost... it's kinda a choice without a choice, if you get what I mean?

Wonder what the influence of alignment will be? That might be a general marker for different shades of security over different alignments?

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:

... Pathfinder Online will be an Open World game with Limited PvP and Limited Loot.

The PvP restrictions will be that there may be some places where you cannot attack or be attacked, there are some places where attacking without the right to do so will trigger a response that will kill you (maybe before you are able to kill your target).

The Loot restrictions will be that you will retain the weapon and armor you were wearing when you died, and if someone other than you attempts to loot your corpse, some or all of the rest of your inventory will be destroyed, but if you can reach your corpse first you can recover everything you had when you died.

We think that these limitations will address the majority of the dysfunctional griefing activities that plague games with Open World Full PvP Full Loot. If they don't we'll keep working on the system until we find a good balance of restrictions and freedom that keeps such antisocial activity to a minimum.

RyanD

Just checking in again after a few months...

<IMHO>
IMHO:

Your two "limitations" have the following logical failure points:

Any place that a player can be attacked, they will be attacked, 100% of the time, 24x7. There is no "may" or "maybe" in MMO's. Players either can or cannot. And if they can, they will. And if they can, and it negatively affects the gameplay experience of another player, they will especially do it as often as they can, regardless of any punitive mechanisms in place. This has been demonstrated very clearly in any MMO that supports such mechanics since Meridian 59.

Regarding the loot restrictions you outline, 100% of the time, someone will loot your corpse when you die. There will be no "if someone other than you attempts to loot your corpse". It will be, 100% of the time, WHEN someone other than you DOES loot your corpse "some or all of the rest of your inventory will be destroyed".
Additionally, there is also no "if you can reach your corpse first" because if travel time to your corpse is 1 second or greater, that means whoever just killed you is going to loot your corpse first. Full stop. There is no "IF" here. It's a "WHEN" and it's guaranteed.

Given the above, your mechanics as outlined do nothing but promote griefing and are quite frankly, extraordinarily naive given what has been demonstrated in the past via similar MMO mechanics.

As has been pointed out frequently on these forums, if your goal is 5k-10k subscribers, then you're on the right path. That is, you're building a niche game for a niche audience with a niche lifespan. Again, why anyone would do such a thing when they could do better/more is a cause for serious concern from a financial investment perspective.

Power, space, lighting, wages, benefits, server hosting, and internet transit are not free. Fundamentally and previously proven-to-be broken mechanics such as these, coupled with no clear business case regarding how you're going to pay for all those "unfree" things hasn't changed my mind in the slightest regarding PFO. (And it really is tremendously misleading to continue calling it that, given it has almost nothing in common, mechanically, with Pathfinder the RPG)

</IMHO>

Goblin Squad Member

vjek wrote:
... 100% of the time, someone will loot your corpse when you die....

I'm not sure I buy that. Star Wars Galaxies and Eve both had systems where you were semi-sort-of okay unless someone either hit you with a "Death Blow" (SWG) or "Podded" (Eve) you. I don't believe the statistics on how often those were used were "100%".

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
vjek wrote:
... 100% of the time, someone will loot your corpse when you die....
I'm not sure I buy that. Star Wars Galaxies and Eve both had systems where you were semi-sort-of okay unless someone either hit you with a "Death Blow" (SWG) or "Podded" (Eve) you. I don't believe the statistics on how often those were used were "100%".

A common practice of GL in Darkfall if we felt someone posed a threat but did not bear any particular ill will toward them was to kill them, revive them, then tell them to leave.

That quote is total nonsense.

Goblin Squad Member

@Vjek,

You are making an awfull lot of assumptions about specific mechanics that don't neccesarly hold true....

Just for example if GW put in a 60 second timer for looting where the looter could not do anything else but loot and any attack upon them would interrupt that activity then I highly doubt there will be anything approaching your 100 percent of the time, the killer or someone else loots the corpse.

The details of the specific mechanics actualy matter a heck of alot toward the end result.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

So, there is one prediction of someone permanently camped just outside of whatever the marshal protection area is. Despite not playing well with others, this group of people keeps equipment good enough to win fights against organized players, has enough presence to occupy the entire field, and doesn't fight among itself often enough for internal divisions to weaken it.

Call them Goons, even if they aren't literally. They are the content.

Goblin Squad Member

We still don't know the specifics of looting. How long it'll take, whether or not it can be interrupted, and how vulnerable you are while doing it. If you had free reign to any and all equipment it might be worth it, but there's no guarantee you'll salvage anything worthwhile, especially if you've killed someone far below your level.

Weighing the potential for decent loot against the odds of being attacked by Allied PCs, Wandering Mobs, Martial NPCs, or anyone else who happens to be walking by, not to mention you have no idea how long it'll take your victim to return and try to get revenge.

With all this in mind, plus the bounty system, character alignment, and the fact that many people are traveling in groups or with hired muscle, many potential griefers will at the very least have to think twice about ganking anyone who comes along.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thought I keep coming back to is that a significant part of the fun of mastering a game is figuring out how to play within the game's constraints. I've been playing Stronghold Kingdoms for a while now, and I actually find it engaging and challenging to try to find a way to place all of my buildings in my villages.

I don't remember who said it, but there was a thread quite some time ago that made the point (much better than I will here) that every inconvenience the devs save us from is an opportunity lost for someone else who wants to play by managing that inconvenience in-game.

I don't expect to get killed much, but the fact that I might is going to make it a lot of fun for me to plan an expedition :)

Goblin Squad Member

It'll also give people an actual profession aside from generic adventurer. How many pen and paper modules begin with "You've answered a call for caravan guards..."? Now you can actually pursue that career. You can find like minded friends and create a company for safely escorting crafters, diplomats, and pacifists through hostile areas. That's an entire game in and of itself!

Maybe you become the top rated caravan guards in the surrounding kingdom, guaranteeing your clients will reach their destinations unscathed or you'll provide reimbursement. Heck, you could build an empire out of this.

Or someone could just switch off their pvp flag and avoid the whole thing.

Shadow Lodge

an actual mmo with WPvP that isnt instanced!?!?! are you kidding me, i havent been able to do anything like that since i quit wow 4 years ago. all these new mmos are making pvp worthless.

you guys are making me want to play this game so bad.

Goblin Squad Member

Mcduff wrote:
Or someone could just switch off their pvp flag and avoid the whole thing.

They've made it clear that the only way to do that will be to stay inside one of the three NPC settlements. Player made lawful settlements (which will come later) can punish, but not stop murder.

Other than that, there will be no "flag" to turn off.

Additionally, there have been hints that characters skilled at assassination will be able to bypass the barriers of a lawful town that would otherwise make murder very difficult or impossible.

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

vjek wrote:

Just checking in again after a few months...

<IMHO>
IMHO:

Your two "limitations" have the following logical failure points:

Any place that a player can be attacked, they will be attacked, 100% of the time, 24x7. There is no "may" or "maybe" in MMO's. Players either can or cannot. And if they can, they will. And if they can, and it negatively affects the gameplay experience of another player, they will especially do it as often as they can, regardless of any punitive mechanisms in place. This has been demonstrated very clearly in any MMO that supports such mechanics since Meridian 59.

I plan on playing the game. I won't kill every player I meet. Thus, your 100% statistic just went away. I played SWG with my pvp flag on. Didn't always get into fights. Sometimes, for roleplays sake, we'd go at it. Loser walked away in shame. And if i get in a fight with a bandit, I'll be happy. Its extra content! A good fight for my life! That isn't a negative impact.

As to loot: if you fight in a town, the marshals will take you down. The devs had said as much, and if you don't trust what they say, then discussion is impossible.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:
Mcduff wrote:
Or someone could just switch off their pvp flag and avoid the whole thing.

They've made it clear that the only way to do that will be to stay inside one of the three NPC settlements. Player made lawful settlements (which will come later) can punish, but not stop murder.

Other than that, there will be no "flag" to turn off.

Additionally, there have been hints that characters skilled at assassination will be able to bypass the barriers of a lawful town that would otherwise make murder very difficult or impossible.

Sarcasm dude. I was comparing the nearly limitless options provided by open pvp to the safer rout taken by most mmos. The whole point is that if you allowed flags, it would kill any attempt at the scenario I mentioned. No one would pay for guards when they could just make themeselves immune to attack with the press of a button.

You're absolutely right though, regarding the NPC settlements.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:

So, there is one prediction of someone permanently camped just outside of whatever the marshal protection area is. Despite not playing well with others, this group of people keeps equipment good enough to win fights against organized players, has enough presence to occupy the entire field, and doesn't fight among itself often enough for internal divisions to weaken it.

Call them Goons, even if they aren't literally. They are the content.

The Goons do not have the entire border between High Sec and Low Sec blockaded off...

Even in Darkfall, the absolutely most brutal game on the MMO market to date... stepping from the border of a safe area into a PVP area is not a death sentence. I've spent many hours successfully living out of starter towns on Darkfall. Sure it can be pretty dangerous farming the goblin spawn outside Heart of Eanna or Sandbrook because those are the two most well known spots for newbs to farm, but anyone with a little forethought can learn the system.

Be alert, have an escape plan, don't be overly trusting of those you don't know well, never carry more than you are willing to lose on your person, and avoid highly populated areas unless anti-griefer vets are present. Most of all learn names and tags. Some people and clans can always be counted on for help. Some will always try to harm you. Know who they are so you know who to run to, and who to run from.

Open world PVP is not near as brutal as people make it out to be. It's an issue of learning some survival instincts... and really using a lot of common sense. Even should companies like GL entirely fail, and Goon Swarm comes to PFO and establishes itself as the primary power, this game will still be playable.

51 to 100 of 103 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Is the game still Open PvP? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.