Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I have never been a big fan of non consensual PVP, I have seen the topic discussed on here before and will not go into the pros/cons of such a system in this thread. I am not here to decry and denounce those who enjoy non consensual PVP as bad or evil or anything of that nature, we all have preferred play styles, mine just happens to one which eschews such gameplay.
I dont believe that being a "sandbox" game requires said game to feature FFA PVP either with or without full or partial looting. A sandbox is a virtual world in which you can play and interact with the environment as you desire, build or destroy. I am not saying no PVP, for as an example, a player made settlement is being attacked by a rival guild or faction of players, the attackers by means of being the aggressors automatically "flag" themselves for PVP and are open to being attacked by the defenders, who by attacking the interlopers will "flag" themselves for PVP also. What I am saying is that I personally dont want to be in the forest, minding my own business, collecting mistletoe on my Druid when a stealthed Rogue sneak attack ambushes and kills me out of nowhere.
I dont know what the plan is for servers in this game, whether it will include multiple servers like most MMO's or one giant server that everyone shares like EVE. What I do want to know is will there be at least one server that has non consensual PVP turned off? If so I can pretty much guarantee this game will get my $15 a month, if not I will keep waiting patiently for a good PVE sandbox fantasy MMO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey! It's this thread again!
There are no servers, one single server that slowly increases in hardware as the population cap is increased. If you don't want to PvP you will be limited to a few small areas, if you venture out a little more, you get NPC marshals that will rush to your aid and will kill your attacker if they get there in time, the further you go out, the slower the response. If you leave Lawful territory, you will open to attack with no consequence. You only carry what you are willing to lose, you always have backup gear, and only use your good stuff when you are well protected.
Ryan is not budging on catering to ZERO-PvP players. If you can't handle PvP in any capacity, or even the thread of PvP, PFO will not be the game for you. The one thing PFO has against other open PvP games, is that it will be trying as hard as it can to make a good community, groups and people like those in the Goonsquad in EvE will not be welcome and snuffed out early.
If you take some time to browse half of the blog post discussions there are usually a few 'I don't want to have to PvP' discussions, and the same 10 of us spewing out this same answer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I appreciate your pov OP, and the other threads about this subject. But hear some of the logic for WHY "Limited Open PvP" is a part of this sandbox game and WHY it is preferable to have x1 Server: Some reasons:
1. Single Server: All the story, All the community interact.
2. Single Server: An initial smaller player base who is more has more natural vested interest in this type of game fits better than partitiion of player base. In fact I'd say more ways of separating players leads to a weaker community.
3. PvP: is a part of the game design because players build/change/shape the world. Once they go about doing this, they naturally cooperate and compete with each other for resources. Alignment is already a pre-baked eg of this Pathfinder world: Not everyone is going to be allies.
4. PvP: Also from a gameplay pov, if you stumble on some characters: There is no precedent for 100% enemy or 100% friend: So this leaves a gap for not just zero-sum combat gameplay but also other forms of gameplay such as diplomacy, negotiation and oc putting control of how the world is and who your friends are.
5. Non-PvP: There's roles and room for avoiding it: Think Social Contract in RL: If this is possible to build in substantial areas in game, then if you do not like PvP it is conceivable you can still play and enjoy PfO.
So that's really quick sketch of reasons for limited, open pvp. The fact is the Business Plan for PfO is not to compete with many other mmorpgs that already cater to what you are asking for: They would not compete.
But it is to cater to people who wish for a mmorpg with more use of player agency & interaction and the foreshadowing that, that will make for a richer online gameplay. PvP is one part in that puzzle. IF you can hold open the "possibility" of that, then you might have found your "fantasy sandbox mmorpg".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree with you that it might be possible for a good sandbox to be built without non-consentual PVP, however one thing that is a fact making a game with meaningful non-consentual pvp, and having a PVE version, are incompatible.
For PVP to actually matter,the core of the game has to be based around it. Points of actual conflict to work with etc... Say like resources that become harder to mine as they are overmined. In the non-consentual PVP version of the game, it is designed expecting people to have to protect these mines for their settlement/company.
The PVE version of the game, either can't have that system at all, or people just have to accept that their mines will all be made unminable when people walk past.
The other drawback, even if the mechanics weren't made to need PVP, PVP is also a key to the longevity of a game. Daoc didn't quite need open PVP, but it also couldn't survive without it. When they opened up a PVE server, essnetially the PVP servers immidiately died from 70% of the population moving to the PVE server, which at first sounds like a solid arguement that people wanted PVE servers, but then within a month, the PVE servers also went into a dwindling mess, due to the game itself just having very little in the way of excitement without PVP.
Essentially the moral of the story is, sometimes the players are wrong about what they themselves want.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Part of the concept of player-generated content is that both the protagonists and antagonists of the stories are player characters. If we remove the ability of player characters to enter conflicts, then we lose player-generated stories.
That said, I think that there will be plenty of room to play a game remarkably similar to multiplayer cooperative; you just need to avoid contesting any resources.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personally I have never been a big fan of non consensual PVP...
Then that is something you will have to deal with if you choose to play this game. You might be surprised how enjoyable it is if you get hooked into a good Anti-Griefer organization and bring the fight to the Random Player Killers rather than just getting pushed around.
PFO will not be dividing its population into different servers. The concept is one massive world, where what one player does affects the world all PFO players share with them just like EVE Online. It has been stated over and over, that this game will be one server, one population, not a bunch of little micro servers with micro populations that have no effect on each other.
Dividing the population means a smaller world or a lower population density. It means massive server wide wars or movements will have absolutely no effect on other servers and will really change it from where the players of PFO are creating one epic world with a single history to many, many servers with a history nobody cares about. That is not the vision set forth for PFO
I understand your desire but this game simply is not catered to your wants any more than WoW is catered to people who want to build their own faction, or EVE is catered to people who want fast paced FPS style combat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First, thank you for all the responses and clarifications.
I will elaborate a bit on what I would consider my "ideal" MMO. I got started in the genre with the early days of Everquest, the game instantly gripped me. The level of immersion in that game was simply astonishing, exploring was dangerous and when going into a new zone for the first time you were actually fearful of what lay ahead. On top of this, the social experience of EQ was amazing, the world was dangerous and grouping was highly encouraged, you made friends (or enemies) all along the way, from groups to boat rides to EC tunnel trades, you had to be a part of the community and it was wonderful.
Another great thing about the game was it didn't hold your hand, it didn't make things easy, anytime you completed a goal you felt a HUGE sense of accomplishment, something simple like a Dark Elf or Ogre being able to walk unhindered on the streets of Freeport was a big deal, and if you hit max level you could feel what a big accomplishment it was and know it was in no way handed to you. Travel was not easy, there were no mounts or portals, you either hoofed it or made friends with a Wizard or Druid (if you weren't one yourself). And death mattered, the reason why exploring was scary was because you knew that if you died it had serious repercussions, you had to be smart, constantly think ahead (well I know I am going here, I need to make sure to bind my soul close by).
Was EQ perfect, not by any means, aside from the bugs it was a grindfest, long times camping the same mobs over and over, just praying the RNG gives you the drop you want, not to mention the times when you couldn't find a group or all the camps were taken. EQ may be what is now known as a "themepark" but at the time there were no such distinctions, and it was far less of a themepark than any modern day game of that style, the world was open and free, not on rails, not led from quest hub to quest hub. Overall in its original incarnation EQ was nothing short of great, the first two expansions kept this style, the Luclin expansion started it down the road to ruin and Planes of Power killed most the magic that it had by adding the more linear themepark elements and making travel across the world far too easy.
Ideally what I would like is a hybrid style game that captures the "feel" of original EQ, hardcore, non hand holding, with a rich story and lore, but adding in many sandbox elements like player settlements and additions to the world, and a rich crafting system (such as the one in SWG). I have played many MMO's over the years, none have ever gripped me and given me the feel that EQ did in those first 2-3 years, I guess I will keep waiting, hopefully a game will eventually be made that suits my wants, possibly even the newly announced EQNext which is said to be a sandbox. Again thank you for your replies and discussion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Gambit: Have you checked the Goblin Works Blogs in any details already? I'd recommend the following for an overview:
1 A Journey of a Thousand Miles Begins with a Single Step [Design Overview]
2 Introducing the Crusader Road [World/Map]
3 Your Pathfinder Online Character [Avatar]
4 To Live and Die in the River Kingdoms [PvP]
5 Adventure in the River Kingdoms [PvE]
6 LFG! (Looking for Group!) [Social Organisation]
Valkenr has produced a list here: Blog Links
PfO is a Hybrid Sandbox-Themepark mmorpg. The community ideally would be drawn largely from the Pathfinder RP game and also Sandbox interested players. Because the Economy is at the heart of the game, the crafting system should be iterated extensively over time I'd guess (don't think there's been a blog on that or items in detail yet). Those early mmos part of the reason they worked well was probably the community?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd bet that 9/10 times someone has a sincere and dramatic aversion to non-consensual PvP, its based in the "ganked" by a much higher level character with almost no hope of competition. Just a hunch...
I expect the parity between long and short time players will be a lot closer than in any themepark game. I also expect that any 1v1 fight will (or should) be quite rare.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't really get this overwhelming fear of "non-consensual PvP." I'm not an awesome, fast-twitch PvP guy, and I certainly had my share of frustration in UO, where the mechanics and varying modem speeds meant getting CORP POR up my bum and then looted by jeering 12 year-olds, on more than a few occasions.
But it's pretty clear GW is not shooting for a world where x_KILLAH_x logs in, ganks some newbs and then logs out laughing.
Beyond establishing safe zones for players who aren’t looking
for a fight with other players, I want to create mechanics that
reward and punish PvP activities outside of certain situations.
When you are at war with another guild or settlement or declare a duel, it’s no problem when your characters kill each other. On the other hand, murdering another character in cold blood moves your alignment a few degrees toward evil, probably earns you a foul reputation, and might even put a bounty on your head.Mitigating circumstances like self-defense have an effect on the response to a PvP killing, but the murderous player bandit will quickly find himself in a much lonelier world than the highwayman who demands, “Stand and deliver!” Will repercussions for killing stop everyone? Of course not; there are always people willing to commit acts of virtual violence regardless of consequences, but I’d prefer to allow for punishments for PvP actions through the natural social fabric of the game world rather than hard-and-fast punishments through game mechanics.
Pathfinder Online will offer a few hard limits, such as starting areas to protect new players, but otherwise I want to give the players the ability to solve their problems with violence while encouraging other avenues at the same time. (Thornkeep p. 80-81)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd bet that 9/10 times someone has a sincere and dramatic aversion to non-consensual PvP, its based in the "ganked" by a much higher level character with almost no hope of competition. Just a hunch...
I expect the parity between long and short time players will be a lot closer than in any themepark game. I also expect that any 1v1 fight will (or should) be quite rare.
Yep. That was my introduction to "reds" in Ultima Online when it launched. I kept playing, learned where the high threat areas were, what I should/should not carry on me. Still hated PvP and Reds until I played DAoC. There you had non pvp areas to level in and PvP areas to wage war in. That game got me to like the idea of PvP, but only when PvP has a reason more than "just because I can".
My take is that PFO will offer up systems that fill in that reason as to why to PvP and have it be a part of the story/politics.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My take is that PFO will offer up systems that fill in that reason as to why to PvP and have it be a part of the story/politics.
Well the most obvious of stories would be players flat out playing the roles of bandits. In areas with no guards you can pretty much guarantee there will be instances of it. What people's take on that is and where the line gets drawn between banditry and douchebaggery is something that will surely get policed early on and hopefully precedents announced so people know where the lines are drawn.
Organised attacks/raids between player organisations would be the other main source of combat. This sort of thing would, I imagine, be 100% endorsed and encouraged as this is where the real 'stories' can build from. They've made mention of the politics and kingdom systems they're looking at further down the road and it sounds like it will be amazing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm still banging my drum that the community assortment is going to make a big impact. For this reason I think the early 7 months could be a very good balance. After that I'm more wary of PvP's relation to griefing. Ideally eg Bandits may have a Guild and "Good Practices" etc and there could be self-regulation for non-affiliated aka "unsanctioned" bandits?! In the Thornkeep pdf Lee Hammock mentions that the design is intended to distinguish between a "stand & deliver" & outright "murdering" characters. I think that's a big distinction, bandits are in it for a small "tax", and any alignment shifts compromise their flexibility.
So ideally player-enforced solutions will be part of the game's infrastructure over time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Article on formation of "social norms" in online communities: How to reduce antisocial behavior in your game
1: The overall goal should be to build community norms
2: There are two types of norms. Both are important
3: Sanctions
4. Should sanctions be graduated?Concluding:
In conclusion, a significant amount of research exists that could help community managers build and sustain communities where prosocial behavior is normative. What I’ve talked about is really only the tip of the iceberg and there are still a lot of questions about behavior in online communities that need to be answered. It is up to game developers and researchers to keep trying to figure out how to construct societies that promote prosocial behavior. If anyone things this is interesting and would like to apply it to their communities I’d be happy to talk about it in more detail – just leave a comment, tweet me or shoot an email.
I don't really get this overwhelming fear of "non-consensual PvP." I'm not an awesome, fast-twitch PvP guy, and I certainly had my share of frustration in UO, where the mechanics and varying modem speeds meant getting CORP POR up my bum and then looted by jeering 12 year-olds, on more than a few occasions.
But it's pretty clear GW is not shooting for a world where x_KILLAH_x logs in, ganks some newbs and then logs out laughing.
Beyond establishing safe zones for players who aren’t looking
for a fight with other players, I want to create mechanics that
reward and punish PvP activities outside of certain situations.
When you are at war with another guild or settlement or declare a duel, it’s no problem when your characters kill each other. On the other hand, murdering another character in cold blood moves your alignment a few degrees toward evil, probably earns you a foul reputation, and might even put a bounty on your head.Mitigating circumstances like self-defense have an effect on the response to a PvP killing, but the murderous player bandit will quickly find himself in a much lonelier world than the highwayman who demands, “Stand and deliver!” Will repercussions for killing stop everyone? Of course not; there are always people willing to commit acts of virtual violence regardless of consequences, but I’d prefer to allow for punishments for PvP actions through the natural social fabric of the game world rather than hard-and-fast punishments through game mechanics.
Pathfinder Online will offer a few hard limits, such as starting areas to protect new players, but otherwise I want to give the players the ability to solve their problems with violence while encouraging other avenues at the same time. (Thornkeep p. 80-81)
Thats is why many of us are leary of PVP. I tried PVP once in Everquest got my Paladin to 10 lvl only to have a pair of level 50's use my group as target practice and then they guarded our corpse for the next couple of hours so we could not get the rest of our stuff back. So some of us are leery of PVP for similar reason.
In theory I would not mind a PVP system where there was a reason for PVP and people fought when there was a reason to, , but PVP seems to attract 14 year old psychos
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wish for a PvE server with only 'consensual PVP' in it..
The 'open PvP' is the only thing that is stopping me from supporting the game 100%
Had my finger over the support button on kickstarter and such a few times, but the PvP part stopped me from going through with it..
I don't know why they wont, or can't, support both types of servers.
I really really want to love this game, but the non-consensual PvP is just stopping me from doing that..
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
It has been made clear why characters will not have general unexplained protection from other characters. PFO is not EverQuest in Galorian, and won't appeal to people who want to play that game.
Just like the 4e and Next discussions; there will be room for another PF themed MMO game, because the market is growing and there are many niches.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I wish for a PvE server with only 'consensual PVP' in it..
The 'open PvP' is the only thing that is stopping me from supporting the game 100%
Had my finger over the support button on kickstarter and such a few times, but the PvP part stopped me from going through with it..I don't know why they wont, or can't, support both types of servers.
I really really want to love this game, but the non-consensual PvP is just stopping me from doing that..
Well, for boredom and tiredness of massive repeating myself on the same topics. The general summery is If the game is designed around meaningful PVP than a PVE server just won't work. Much in the same way that in WoW and other PVE games, the meaningless PVP just doesn't work and contributes as nothing but a griefing mechanic.
saving myself some breath, have you actually read the majority of this thread before replying? In general this point was made Here .
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It has been made clear why characters will not have general unexplained protection from other characters. PFO is not EverQuest in Galorian, and won't appeal to people who want to play that game.
Just like the 4e and Next discussions; there will be room for another PF themed MMO game, because the market is growing and there are many niches.
I think this is a great point for the OP. This game will be open pvp, single server. No amount of threads or argument is likely to change that.
From your description of your favored game, you might want to look at Greedmonger, it is advertising limited consensual pvp.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Gambit I just wanted to thank you for bringing up this subject.
I for one am not a fan of non-consensual PVP.
Pathfinder is at its heart a cooperative game. It is about a group of players working together to over come the challenges a GM puts in front of them.
PVP changes the whole paradigm of the game from being a cooperative game to being a competitive game.
Gambit suggests a simple and elegant solution for all of us Pathfinder players who find non-consensual PVP to be a deal breaker.
By providing a second server that is PVE and not a non-consensual PVP server, you provide an environment for those of us, who like pathfinder, who would like to play Pathfinder online, but find the non-consensual PVP aspects of the game to be a simple deal breaker.
Now for those of you who say we will simply have to accept this…no we don’t.
The end result will be a segment of players who will simply go elsewhere to play their online fantasy games.
Anyways Gambit, thank you for bringing this simple and elegant solution of a second server up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's like saying "Look, I love the idea of a pathfinder car. It's what I've always wanted, and I'd buy for sure by one, except for one thing: engines. Personally, I've never been a fan of engines. They guzzle gas, make noise, and plus one time I rode that Darkfall "wheeled engine" without steering or brakes, and I crashed. So I suggest a release version of the Pathfinder car without an engine."
Asking for a sandbox without significance in player interaction is like asking for a car minus the engine. I'm very sorry some other developer didn't think through their car design, and just put V-8 engine on go-kart wheels, with none of the things that make a car usable (like controls), and you didn't enjoy the experience. But given the fairly clear and repeated articulation of a design philosophy that points out the steering, throttle, brakes, etc. of this particular design, why would you expect the same result?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
By providing a second server that is PVE and not a non-consensual PVP server, you provide an environment for those of us, who like pathfinder, who would like to play Pathfinder online, but find the non-consensual PVP aspects of the game to be a simple deal breaker.
It's not that Ryan has a great game design, and just decided to force PvP on everyone for the heck of it. If the players aren't able to meaningfully interact with each other, then there won't be anything to do in the game.
I hope that you're able to take a step back and look at it objectively. If the other players aren't providing the content for you, and the developers aren't providing anywhere near enough to keep even the most casual players busy, then what would a PvE server look like? You'd go out and kill a few monsters. You'd have a handful of quests that you'd do. And then you'd sit around and wait. Oh, and that Settlement you're trying to build? There wouldn't be any room to build it because everyone would have one and they'd never be threatened.
The end result will be a segment of players who will simply go elsewhere to play their online fantasy games.
An end result far more detrimental to the players who simply go elsewhere than for Goblinworks and Pathfinder Online.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
By providing a second server that is PVE and not a non-consensual PVP server, you provide an environment for those of us, who like pathfinder, who would like to play Pathfinder online, but find the non-consensual PVP aspects of the game to be a simple deal breaker.It's not that Ryan has a great game design, and just decided to force PvP on everyone for the heck of it. If the players aren't able to meaningfully interact with each other, then there won't be anything to do in the game.
I hope that you're able to take a step back and look at it objectively. If the other players aren't providing the content for you, and the developers aren't providing anywhere near enough to keep even the most casual players busy, then what would a PvE server look like? You'd go out and kill a few monsters. You'd have a handful of quests that you'd do. And then you'd sit around and wait. Oh, and that Settlement you're trying to build? There wouldn't be any room to build it because everyone would have one and they'd never be threatened.
The end result will be a segment of players who will simply go elsewhere to play their online fantasy games.An end result far more detrimental to the players who simply go elsewhere than for Goblinworks and Pathfinder Online.
What N said. Simple and straightforward.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I don't think that it's a failure if there is a large percentage of Pathfinder fans who can't stand PFO. The concept of PFO requires a certain level of meaningful player interaction, and cutting that feature will result in a radically different game.
I'd rather have PFO as it has been described succeed or fail on its merits than have what amounts to a reskin of an existing fantasy MMO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The end result will be a segment of players who will simply go elsewhere to play their online fantasy games.Anyways Gambit, thank you for bringing this simple and elegant solution of a second server up.
Well the harsh truth is the pathfinder table top and most table top games are about freedom. Freedom to be good or evil. Freedom to be chaotic or lawful. You could be a soldier, scholar, bandit, tyrant, or priest. Making a PVE server kinda ruins that aspect because you are limiting characters. The Devs are providing high sec areas to protect people who don't want to get ganked all the time. The best thing i could say is try it out. If you don't like it nothing is stopping you from quiting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
Now for those of you who say we will simply have to accept this…no we don’t.The end result will be a segment of players who will simply go elsewhere to play their online fantasy games.
...
The idea of having more than one server is very doubtful to even be in the design document for PFO. Everything I've read since the game was announced was that they want to have a setup akin to EvE online, which is one server.
I have never read anything in any of the blogs that suggested or even hinted at multiple servers. So as of now there is only going to be one server that is non consensual PvP. This part that has to be accepted as they are not likely to change from it at this point.
You are right, though, in that people who do not want that environment don't have to play. Just know that GW never advertised or in any other way gave anyone reason to believe they would offer more than one server with non consensual PvP. Those that believed otherwise conjured those thoughts in their own mind out of hope it would be so.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't remember the source.... Go go gadget Nihimon!
But anyway I remember reading statements by one of the devs, most likely Ryan, that the vision for Pathfinder Online is a single server. It's probably right in the blog. But it's 1:20am and I've been dancing all night, so I am probably going to pass out as soon as I finish this post if I make it to the end...
Anyway. The vision of this game is one server, one community, one world to call our own.
As I've stated many times before, I started gaming as a carebear. When PVP was forced on me I got mad enough to fight back, and I've been an Open World PVP enthusiast ever since. Open World PVP isn't just for griefers, it's for people who want to see meaningful player wars, people who want the thrill of sneaking goods past hostile players and blockades, and anti-griefers like me.
I would encourage everyone who is not currently an Open World PVP enthusiast to join up with GL. I'll teach you how to survive. I'll teach you how to fight back. And I'll teach you how to have fun in an Open World PVP game without griefing people.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope to see the Adventure and somewhat the Exploration pillars of PfO to be really enjoyable content and gameplay for players who only like PvE - AND for there to be large sections of the map that are peaceful and conducively organised and run by LG Player Kingdoms (no mean amount of player organisation and teamwork required to run these) partly for the mission objective to be an area for such players to enjoy without worrying about PvP!
That is a vision worth sticking around and taking a chance on, surely?
The description of PvE look awesome in themselves for PfO, aside from the fact this content is integrated into other areas of the game to provide other types of players with content!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't remember the source.... Go go gadget Nihimon!
Heh :)
I think Ryan has said this many times, but this post was easy to find.
From Goblinworks Blog: A Journey of a Thousand Miles Begins with a Single Step:
We want the largest possible servers. If we can get everyone into one, that's the ideal outcome.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It seems like a lot of people think of pvp as "meaningful player interaction".
You must have played better games than me. In my experience open world pvp is 50% zerging, 40% ganking wounded or already engaged players, and 10% good fun fights.
I'm resigned to the fact that PfO will have it and I'm determined to enjoy the game in spite of it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Rafkin:
I'm thinking of meaningful player interaction being not only combat, but: Negotiation, treaties, trade pacts, politics, declarations of war and of course adventuring, which ALL make combat more meaningful as well as the reverse.
I prefer pvp combat to pve combat because players are more intelligent and interesting to interact with in this kind of gameplay than AI in my experience. So added to that context that makes that combat fun AND meaningful (eg above contexts). What you see in mmorpgs that separate pvp is 2 things:
PvE players: We're losing players to pvp kingdoms, so the world is feeling empty/those players are levelling faster! :(PvP players: This combat is the best! But... what's the point after taking the keep/station for the 10th time, nothing changes... :(
So how to combine and make everyone happy? It's impossible, it can't be done, it... shouldn't be done... ?
So the next question is limited open-pvp and if that prevents the slippery slope spiralling down to ffa pvp that you seem to mention above with those proportions? Good design and the will of the community I'd like to see win the day and make PfO a different mmo to most others. It's no guarantee, but heck, I want to see mmorpg take a risk than reproduce the same designs again and again with players disappointed. And agree most mmorps that allow ffa-pvp end up attracting a very narrow niche of player. At least those players really dig that form of gameplay it could be said.
So, the question is, why can't pve player have another server and why do pvp players need pve players? Because it's a sandbox the content is going to be a lot liter than most big budget themeparks can provide, so it's probably not practical nor fair to charge a separate server , is one main reason I guess? Second dividing up the player base dilutes the community: The more interactions and rate of interactions and range of interactions, then this game is beginning to go places imho.
Also, the ideal is that players who only like pve can do that, only like pvp can do that, and any player that likes both gets the best game on the market.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think many of the people in here agree with you, Rafkin.
There are numerous examples to be found of how PFO will limit the viability of the 90%, as you have experienced it. You don't even have to read through threads to find them; many are right in the blog posts.
PFO will have unit-based combat for large-scale battles (anti-zerging). There will be anti-griefing mechanics such as bounties and NPC marshals in the starting towns that will kill anybody that attacks you. You will not be required to return to your corpse in order to keep playing (anti- corpse-camping).
Most of all, besides the fact that there are already anti-griefing player groups organizing, all organizations will have incentives to police their own areas: Banditry will hurt the availability of the resources they need in order to continue developing.
I imagine that there will be places where one can be sure not to be killed, placer where one can be reasonably sure of not being killed, and places one would only travel with a party due to the danger of banditry.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You must have played better games than me. In my experience open world pvp is 50% zerging, 40% ganking wounded or already engaged players, and 10% good fun fights.
I would say the majority of that stereotype comes from pure PVE games, that slap open world PVP into them. WoW, EQ and a good percentage of other games.
Bottom line is if in the game CAN survive as a PVE game, the PVP is going to be poorly implemented and fall into forms such as the ones you describe. IMO IF the game is the type that a PVE and PVP server can survive separate from each-other, then the PVP server shouldn't bother to be implemented, it is a waste.
WoW has what I call meaningless pvp, eve has what I call meaningful pvp.
Out of lazyness with the same topics going over and over again. Let me toss how I defined the differences on a different topic
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It seems like a lot of people think of pvp as "meaningful player interaction".
Rafkin, it's not that PVP is sole definition of meaningful player interaction, but rather that meaningful player interaction includes PVP. If at the end of the day nobody can do anything to anyone else, how the heck would we make content for each other?
It is only the threat of war that can bring the urgency to make peace, the scarcity of resources that make them valuable, etc. That PFO will have competition and conflict is what opens the game up to diplomacy, negotiation, political action, and commerce.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It seems like a lot of people think of pvp as "meaningful player interaction".
You must have played better games than me. In my experience open world pvp is 50% zerging, 40% ganking wounded or already engaged players, and 10% good fun fights.
I'm resigned to the fact that PfO will have it and I'm determined to enjoy the game in spite of it.
I personally consider X vs. X fights where X is the same number and every player is the same level the lowest level of PVP. It's what I refer to as tournament style PVP.
In war style PVP everything comes into play. Politics, economic, logistics, timing, terrain, training, propaganda, etc. It isn't just about the battles it's about everything that happens in-between. People who get "zerged" could have recruited more players, made more allies, turned people on their enemies or hired mercenaries.
I find that far more fun than battles where player skill is the only factor.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ CaptnB
As long as it doesn't take forever to teleport like some games.
Also I am in the RPG use of Mirror image and Blink/Blur when ambushed works wonders. Or Major Image and Quickened Dimension door at higher levels.
Basically as long as you’re not exploiting anything can be a valid strategy. However it might not be a viable one.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my earlier post. I want pathfinder to succeed and by extension Pathfinder online, I am a willing supporter of their kick starter efforts, and I will most likely continue to support their development efforts, even though I have second-thoughts about non consensual pvp.
Rafkin
“It seems like a lot of people think of pvp as "meaningful player interaction".
You must have played better games than me. In my experience open world pvp is 50% zerging, 40% ganking wounded or already engaged players, and 10% good fun fights.
I'm resigned to the fact that PfO will have it and I'm determined to enjoy the game in spite of it.”
I think rafkin has done a better job at summing things up then I have. So I am willing to give the game a try…..
In a PVE server There could be plenty of external threats the game designers could provide that would require people to work together.There are plenty of things that could destroy settlements. The world wound could spit out powerful demons, wandering giants (self propelled siege engines) could cause tremendous damage, and well goblins and orcs are always prolific…..or is it fecund? In short t wondering monster or monsters could provide plenty of threats, particularly if they wander all over the place.
Anyways I don’t see how providing a second server for those who don’t want non consenual PVP would impinge on those who do? There would simply be a place for both players.
I suppose it doesn’t really matter. That ship has most likely sailed. I am willing to give the game a try in spite of it as Rafkin says.
Kakafika, I hadn't spotted your post before i posted......you bring up some interesting ideas.
Well I am willing to give the game a try...we shall see how it goes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don’t see how providing a second server for those who don’t want non consenual PVP would impinge on those who do?
It doesn't impose on the other players, it imposes on the Devs, since you're going to be demanding that they provide you with content since you won't have other players as your content.
In a PVE server There could be plenty of external threats the game designers could provide that would require people to work together.
Well I am willing to give the game a try...
Very glad to hear that, and I expect you'll be glad about that decision :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Zerging and ganking are valid strategies, invisibility and teleportation are valid counter strategies.
Well I would say both invisibility and teleportation are certainly up for grabs on whether they will be implimented at all. Both fall into the category of, if they are, it will likely be very different from the P&P rules. Teleport as written in the pathfinder guide, would almost certainly squash any chance of seperate economies, a transport industry, most protection industries etc...
Invisibility, could be implimented, but it is still not a certainty on any level. Invisibility and stealth will depend on GW's ability to impliment them in ways that cannot be exploited or bypassed via any tricks on the client side (and don't get started in the debate, we've got at least 2 topics devoted to that.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The main thing that is keeping me from embracing PfO as a pvp centric game is that the more pvp focus there is the less this game will resemble the tabletop version. There are just too many abilities, high level abilities, that just can't be balanced.
When I stop and remind myself that this is not suppose to be a recreation of a table top session the pvp pill is easier to swallow.