Goblinworks Blog: What To Expect From Early Access Beta

[Fnatk]

I have played in several different MMO's and all of them have had some kind of PVP content within them. PFO is based upon a world that has many different types of personalities in it as determined by the 9 different alignments. Not everyone is going to be LG but, conversely, not everyone is going to be CE. The Devs have stressed that this is going to be a community based game and that the "solo" type will find things very difficult to get accomplished simply because of environmental factors as well as the possibilty of player interaction. Since the game is only going to be on one server, they are not making a pve only server. Conflict is part of human nature, and the Devs are trying to assimilate that into their game as much as possible. Even in today's society, conflict exists! It is a fact of life. Those people who shy away from it, tend to lock themselves indoors, and find other ways and methods of existing. To demand a pvp free society is to the point of ludicris as just not possible. Polling the nearly 5200 backers of this kickstarter, I am sure that 50% of them agree with you about the pvp issue, but of that 50%, maybe only 10% (like you) find that the inclusion of a pvp factor is a deal breaker.

Like you, I didn't like pvp when I first started to game; mainly because I sucked at it and got no gratification at being killed. But it was what it was. So I joined a pve server. To be honest, I think that it sucked even more. It was just me and the environment, and as I leveled, I noticed that the environment was no longer a challenge. I wanted more... pvp fills that void. Joining that first warzone and engaging that first "dark Jedi" (SWG), or that "Horde" (WoW), or that player of "Order" (Warhammer), or "Sith" (SWToR), and beating them, brought such an adrenaline rush, and accomplishment knowing that I can do it.

I don't pvp all the time, and I only do it in sanctioned areas, for I feel as you do to that regard, that wanton killing without reason is detrimental to the underlying purpose of the game - entertainment for all who are playing!

Conflict is good for you... it will make you a better player, and bring you some satisfaction of accomplishment.

[Slaunyeh]

Elorebaen wrote:

Random and meaningless, sure, but that is most assuredly not all that offers. Purposeful and meaningful can also be part of the equation, and in fact what GW is shooting for as a major part of the design. The GW blogs that refer to the pvp dynamic outline much of this design.

I still fail to see the purpose and meaning in killing people who don't want to fight you, but maybe I just don't have the right PvP mindset to grasp the finer nuances of griefing.

Because that's really all it amounts to. The only difference between consensual PvP and non-consensual PvP, is to force people who don't want to fight, into a fight. That's griefing. Even GW acknowledge this. But where a consensual PvP game simply makes you unable to be a jerk, PFO takes the approach of hitting you in the face with a baseball bat if you're a jerk. And then hope it will have the same effect.

And maybe it will.

I'm not opposed to PvP in itself. Large-scale castle sieges could be great fun in Warhammer Online. I'm sure faction conflict could be good fun too. But that's the thing, I chose to be there.

[Dakcenturi]

Slaunyeh wrote:

I still fail to see the purpose and meaning in killing people who don't want to fight you, but maybe I just don't have the right PvP mindset to grasp the finer nuances of griefing.

Where do things like ambushes, bounty hunting and assassinations come in if all PvP is consensual? Those are meaningful PvP interactions that can generate a lot of great gameplay and RP, but revolve around non-consensual PvP.

[Valandur]

Quote:

Slaunyeh wrote:
Dakcenturi wrote:
I completely agree if your design goal was to not have PvP you could build a sandbox around it, however I don't see there being a lot of content past it being a hyper advanced farmville (IE you build houses and settlements and craft stuff for people) as soon as you start adding in all the combat aspects of quests and dungeons with no player created conflict it starts turning into a theme-park instead of a sandbox, or at best a hybrid.

Of course I could be missing something, but from my POV to have a MMO sandbox you need player driven conflict.

Again, the only difference in content between that game and the non-consensual PvP game, is the random meaningless ganking in the wilderness. Is that "content" really so significant? You can still have your conflict. Your warfare. Your armoured patrols. The only thing you can't do, is murder me when I don't want to fight you.

The "risk" of PvP isn't a threat. I don't live in constant fear of you suddenly popping out behind a tree and kill me. If you do, I'll just sigh, mutter "oh grow up" under my breath, respawn and continue on my way. That's the meaningful part, of 'meaningful player interaction'. It's only a meaningful (read: fun) conflict if both sides are interested.

In short: I don't want to PvP you. More to the point, I'm not going to fight you, and there's nothing you can do to make me. Whatcha gonna do about it?

Random and meaningless, sure, but that is most assuredly not all that offers. Purposeful and meaningful can also be part of the equation, and in fact what GW is shooting for as a major part of the design. The GW blogs that refer to the pvp dynamic outline much of this design.

Ultimately, if someone isn't interested in playing the game, then, naturally they don't have to play, and probably shouldn't. If someone refuses to accept the game design, and then doesn't look for ways to utilize that design to play in an a positive and awesome fashion, then they probably won't have fun, nor will they be a positive element of the community, methinks.

It is really the same situation with a PnP group.

Goblinworks is fighting a uphill battle in a way. They have to overcome people's aversion to PvP as its been done in every other game. So many people get the Heebie jeebies when they see the term PvP that it precludes their being able to consider any content, or game mechanic that could eliminate the senseless ganking that makes up most games PvP content.

I'm not trying to belittle anyone who's concerned with PvP. But you have to consider the things they have talked about adding into the game that will help eliminate senseless PvP. They have been very open in what they want and what they don't want in regards to PvP content. Personally I think PFO will be big enough to accommodate both types of players, but I'm optimistic in that regard as well as being like Slaunyeh, and not fearing the PvPers that I might encounter. Heck just the narrowed level gap alone will enable my rogue to flee any PvPer that I see, not counting that I will likely see them long before they see me! ;)

Quote:

Whatcha gonna do about it?

I might come to your rescue if you get jumped <grin>

[Slaunyeh]

Fnatk wrote:

Joining that first warzone and engaging that first "dark Jedi" (SWG), or that "Horde" (WoW), or that player of "Order" (Warhammer), or "Sith" (SWToR), and beating them, brought such an adrenaline rush, and accomplishment knowing that I can do it.

That's where I'm different. IMHO, the only difference between a PvE and a PvP fight, is difficulty. A PvE fight is (probably) designed to be beatable. I'll most likely win the majority of PvE fights, and if I'm so far out of my league that that's unlikely, there's probably some kind of indication so I don't waste my time.

PvP is just like that, except if the game is perfectly balanced, the odds of winning that fight should be about 50-50. Of course, the game is never perfectly balanced (good riddance) and I'm me, so it's probably closer to 90-10. On a good day. So the only difference, to me, between fighting an NPC and a PC is that I can probably beat the NPC and get to feel cool.

Frankly? I don't like losing. With odds like that, you'd be an idiot to take part in it. So, PvP just becomes a nuisance. And forced PvP is a nuisance that you can't get around. If the game is good enough, it can weather a few annoying gameplay features.

[Slaunyeh]

Dakcenturi wrote:

Where do things like ambushes, bounty hunting and assassinations come in if all PvP is consensual? Those are meaningful PvP interactions that can generate a lot of great gameplay and RP, but revolve around non-consensual PvP.

Perhaps you 'consent to PvP' by taking on the mantle of leadership of a player-run kingdom. The king and his council are valid targets for assassins. Maybe if there is a war between too countries, there could be occasionally supply trains supplying the war effort on either side, that you could disrupt, and anyone who volunteer to defend (or attack) those supplies consent themselves to PvP for the duration. Maybe a guy who likes PvP get a little bored and posts a bounty on himself to challenge himself to last as long as he can while he's "free game."

I'm not a game designer, and this is hardly the place to actually start designing 'that other game'.

[Slaunyeh]

Valandur wrote:

But you have to consider the things they have talked about adding into the game that will help eliminate senseless PvP.

And that is why I'm still pledged and not going any where.

In a sense, PFO IS a consensual PvP game. They are just taking the "you can do that, but we'll break your knees if you do" approach, which I can appreciate. It might work.

Valandur wrote:

I might come to your rescue if you get jumped <grin>

Oh, I'd feel terrible if you got killed for helping me while I was afk making a sandwich. ;)

[Valandur]

Slaunyeh wrote:

Valandur wrote:

But you have to consider the things they have talked about adding into the game that will help eliminate senseless PvP.

And that is why I'm still pledged and not going any where.

In a sense, PFO IS a consensual PvP game. They are just taking the "you can do that, but we'll break your knees if you do" approach, which I can appreciate. It might work.

Valandur wrote:

I might come to your rescue if you get jumped <grin>

Oh, I'd feel terrible if you got killed for helping me while I was afk making a sandwich. ;)

Haha! Some of the best friends I've made in games have come from encounters similar to this, no worries. I certainly wont be carrying all my wealth with me if I'm out in the lawless wilderness ;)

Honestly I guess I've seen so many posts by people who hate PvP (like it's done in other games) that I try and stress that GW doesn't want to have senseless PvP. Your way of looking at it is more in line with how I feel about PvP, willing to give them a chance. I hate to see people turn away when they aren't seeing what the Devs have said or considering what they intend.

[Banecrow]

If you do not want to worry about pvp then just make a monk so you can run away faster than every one else. Then you just have to worry about other monks who are the same speed! =)

[Valandur]

Banecrow wrote:

If you do not want to worry about pvp then just make a monk so you can run away faster than every one else. Then you just have to worry about other monks who are the same speed! =)

In the PFRPG do any other classes get speed buffs?

[Uthreth Baelcoressitas]

Barbarians can also run faster, also probably any arcane spellcaster. Rangers in the wild are going to have abilities that make it easier to both track other players and get away from them more easily. Rogues I assume will always be able to get away. Divine spellcasters will have abilities that make it much harder to kill them, especially druids in the wild, but they will most likely be able to wild shape anyway. The only class that I can think of that won't be able to get away easily is the paladin and fighter, and the former will be able to lay the smack down on anything evil (read: griefers) so they most likely won't be attacked much anyway, and the latter will just be a tough fight. Who wants to slug it out in melee with a fighter? I don't.

Anyway, since this is a classless system, you can get the speed of the monk and the wild shape of the druid and the stealth of the rogue if you want. I agree that you shouldn't have to design your character just to avoid PvP, but there are some choices you can make along the way that will help defend against ganking tremendously.

Imagine a Paladin/Fighter. Anyone who attacks that guy when he isn't afk is just asking for trouble.

[Darcnes]

Probably wouldn't have to worry about monk v monk action all that much haha

PvP isn't just Player killing Player .. it's a contention, it could mean immobilizing the attacking and hot footing it outa there or who can non-combatively work their way through an area to reach a desired node of minerals first. Since even combat is not supposed to be as massive of difference even between lowest and max level, this isn't out of the realm of feasibility even in the most uneven of match-ups.

[Valandur]

Darcnes wrote:

Probably wouldn't have to worry about monk v monk action all that much haha

PvP isn't just Player killing Player .. it's a contention, it could mean immobilizing the attacking and hot footing it outa there or who can non-combatively work their way through an area to reach a desired node of minerals first. Since even combat is not supposed to be as massive of difference even between lowest and max level, this isn't out of the realm of feasibility even in the most uneven of match-ups.

I keep coming back to this. I really think this is going to have a serious impact on the game, and especially on PvP. The level gap made PvP a lot less fun for me, although at the time I didn't realize it made much difference, but thinking back I realize it did.

[Slaunyeh]

Valandur wrote:

I keep coming back to this. I really think this is going to have a serious impact on the game, and especially on PvP. The level gap made PvP a lot less fun for me, although at the time I didn't realize it made much difference, but thinking back I realize it did.

That certainly made "random" PvP in WAR more serviceable than in most games. First, there was no ride-by one-shots. Secondly, duking it out actually took a while, even if you're reasonably sure to win. So generally you'd only start a fight if you really meant it... a fight is going to inconvenience the attacker as much as the attackee.

[Valandur]

Slaunyeh wrote:

Valandur wrote:

I keep coming back to this. I really think this is going to have a serious impact on the game, and especially on PvP. The level gap made PvP a lot less fun for me, although at the time I didn't realize it made much difference, but thinking back I realize it did.

That certainly made "random" PvP in WAR more serviceable than in most games. First, there was no ride-by one-shots. Secondly, duking it out actually took a while, even if you're reasonably sure to win. So generally you'd only start a fight if you really meant it... a fight is going to inconvenience the attacker as much as the attackee.

Betad Warhammer, had high hopes for that game. I loved DAOCs RvR, but they went and released too soon and just flopped.

Your right though, they had a narrower level gap then many games. Good point.

[OpinionOrSatire]

OK. I see now why I was confused. I missed the whole "minimal PvE" idea. This will probably not be a game for me. Has there ever been a game for me? I've never heard of one. Will there ever be a game for me? Probably not.

So, I guess I have to decide whether I want to support something that has no intention of supporting my play style. (I'm not asking for feedback — this is something I'm going to have to work out on my own.)

All I have left, really, is intellectual curiosity. Right now, I'm most curious as to how an alignment system and bounties are supposed to accomplish anything.

Bounties are marginally effective IRL. Ideally, they lead to the death or capture of a (suspected) criminal. The capture may or may not last depending on the era we're talking about, legal wrangling, and levels of actual guilt. Either way, the criminal activity stops for a while.

In game, all that happens is that the nasty person/people that initiated some unwanted/unprovoked PvP 'fun' get some more PvP fun as 3rd parties attempt to collect a bounty. At best, their character dies the temporary death of an MMO, and then it's back to the business of killing everything that moves. So, all you are really doing is providing the antisocial player with the entertainment they wanted in the first place — PvP combat. The victim is still aggrieved and the perpetrator has never been happier. So I ask you, will this act as a disincentive for further bad behaviour, or is it going to actually promote it as the so-called punishment may very well be perceived as a reward? The victim is no less likely to be victimized again later, whether by the same player/PC or a different one that figured out the same path to their own personal fulfillment. Where exactly is the punishment?

Oh, right. The victim gets punished. First they suffered an unprovoked attack and had X resource/item/coin stolen from them and Y amount of time being unable to play while they await their resurrection. Then, their only redress is to pay a bounty out of pocket to entertain the bad guys for a while. So, the attacker is richer and the victim is poorer twice over.

The notion of bounties in perpetuity is silly. How exactly is anyone going to pay for that? And when sending 'challenging and meaningful player interactions' to the criminal is the best you can do, there's really no point in bothering at all. This is essentially a protection racket. Commit a few assaults to ensure people see you as a menace and forever more you'll have all your future entertainment paid for by your victims.

I imagine that the designers have thought of this and simply haven't shared their ideas on how they expect to implement the system in a way that will have meaningful outcomes. I'm just waiting to be enlightened.

As far as alignments go, there's a slew of problems to deal with.

Take a gander at the Landrush listings. Read the various proposals and then compare their self-descriptions with their proposed alignments. More often than not, there's a significant gap between the actions and behaviours they want to foster and the alignment they think that fits under. This will either mean that a huge swath of the community will need to make a reality check due to their alignment misconceptions, or the game designers will try to NOT alienate the lion's share of subscribers and instead embrace "the customer is always right". In other words, a rude awakening for players or the game kowtowing to the popular interpretations instead.

Lets deal with the concept of alignment consequences. So, a member of a LG town start behaving badly and drifts to LN. In PF, alignment drift only had meaningful consequences if you were a member of an alignment restricted class (paladin, druid, barbarian & monk) or clergy whose divine casting was contingent on your alignment being within a step or two of some deity. With no classes in PFO, what are the consequences of alignment drift?

So far, all I've read is that you might have to leave a town / nation / guild and join another one. That's a meaningful consequence? Really?

It reminds me of an old joke called "Why Worry?" The final bit of it is "Either you go to Heaven or you go to Hell. If you go to Heaven, there's nothing to worry about. If you go to Hell, you'll be so damned busy shaking hands with people you used to know that you won't have time to worry!" By referencing this old saw I mean that the only obvious consequences or implications of having to change organizations are social. This change only means something negative to the person dealing with them if finding a new place to live/play will be difficult, making new friends will be difficult, and/or, most importantly, that it won't be happening to large groups of people. Why's that? Well, if everyone you've been playing with drifts from LN to CE, the alignment shift is utter meaningless and the social consequences are mainly absent. You're still going to be able to play with the same people.

I guess the real question is, what happens when "Joe" drifts badly? Will Joe's friends send Joe off into the wilderness and forget him until he finds his way back from alignment 'hell' and can rejoin the community? "It's a shame what happened to Joe." Or will they say, "Dang it, I want to play with Joe!" and in a desire to maintain group unity, decide that it would be far easier to force their own PCs into the same negative drift than wait for Joe to be able to finesse his PC back from the brink?

If this whole discussion smacks of social engineering to you, that would be because it is! Welcome to the world of a game designer. You designa and implement affordances for things you want to happen and you remove affordances from — and build disincentives for — things you don't want people to do.

(Affordance is a term used in environmental psychology and interface design. An affordance is an attribute that enables something to be used in a particular way. For example, beverage cans and bottles are designed to afford being held firmly and comfortably in one hand and to be relatively stable. It might be cheaper to manufacture them wider but then they couldn't be help comfortably. It might be cheaper to make them narrower but then they would be much to easy to knock over. An example of an unforeseen affordance is milk crates. They were designed to be ideally suited for transporting bags and cartons of milk. The handholds were comfortable, the weight of a full crate was manageable, they were stackable and efficiently used storage space. Unfortunately for dairies, grocers and convenience store owners, they were also exactly the right size to store vinyl records. This unforeseen affordance meant that teens and college students everywhere were stealing milk crates to build 'modular shelving' for their record collections. Given the relative scarcity of vinyl these days the problem is quite minor now but wasn't a generation ago.)

Anyway, I've some thinking to do, and hopefully some explanations / elaborations from designers to read.

[AvenaOats]

@OpinionOrSatire - Can't see that far ahead for those questions. But the Goblin Works blog on Alignment is good place to start specifically:

Signed... in Blood

RESPECT: Find Out What It Means to Me!

[Valandur]

OpinionOrSatire wrote:

OK. I see now why I was confused. I missed the whole "minimal PvE" idea. This will probably not be a game for me. Has there ever been a game for me? I've never heard of one. Will there ever be a game for me? Probably not.

So, I guess I have to decide whether I want to support something that has no intention of supporting my play style. (I'm not asking for feedback — this is something I'm going to have to work out on my own.

I think you need to check out this thread and watch the video on alignments that they mention. It's different then what your talking about.

Thread

Perhaps this video on Escalations

Looks like a lot of PvE to me.

[Being]

@OpinionorSatire:
Good insights and questions posed there.

I can offer up one element of anti-griefing machinery I have heard is planned, and that is that the murderer gains the 'Criminal' label.

So what?

Well because a lawful good city works best, with a happy productive citizenry and law abiding citizens a lawful good city will also have material advantage and facilities unavailable elsewhere. Or so I have heard.

But a criminal charactr cannot gain entry. Cannot take advantage of the perks. Cannot entr to engage in illicit activities. They will be confined to the, well, other side of the tracks. Poor town, where the pickins are meager and Oh, btw, that kid running away down the alley has your wallet.

Regarding alignment... we're trying to figure that one out. Drop on in to the alignment thread if you're of a mind to. It is currently somnolent, and could use a wake up.