Kickstarter Community Thread: Player vs. Player Conflict


Pathfinder Online

451 to 500 of 807 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court Goblin Squad Member

Well it makes sense to think about it as a game and see how something like that actually helps the point of that game. Now with a sandbox we're very focused on the player.

So what do I get for being murdered and having everything I wasn't wearing stolen or destroyed? What experience is that trying to sell me on for enjoyment, emotional involvement or whatever is the point of things?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

As an additional note, a lot of discussion seems to be around the "A person goes out and mines" premise.

Who controls the territory in which that mine is? Does the settlement which holds that mine allow 'poaching', or is the lone miner part of the settlement that allows bandits to harass their members in their own territory?


Drakhan Valane wrote:
One of my favorite PnP sessions recently was one where the DM had a staged encounter. We picked a fight with a group of goblins. Easy enough. A few rounds in, the goblin hounds that heard the cries and din of battle ran in. Shortly after that, the head goblin druid came in from the brush as he was investigating the noise himself. That was a tough battle and nearly got us killed. I don't see how my story is that different from the PvP scenario you describe.
Robb Smith wrote:
In PVE, I control some of the risk.

You chose to fight the goblins. Not the other way around.

Goblin Squad Member

Robb Smith wrote:

Yes, I am certain there will be a sizable portion of the player base who wants to stand around in case something happens while people mine.

as Ravening stated, you need guards to defend from PvE threats that will show up.

Robb Smith wrote:


At least there's one thing that's becoming rather clear from these discussions, and that is that I think GoblinWorks needs to be very clear, blunt, and direct about whether they are making a PVP Game that involves some Pathfinder, or a Pathfinder game that involves some PVP. If the entire point of this game is to create "meaningful human interactions" by constant exposure to PVP, then I fail to see what the game has to do with pathfinder outside of vague ties to the setting.

Pathfinder is to Pathfinder Online

as Warhammer is to Warhammer Online

(not saying that Pathfinder Online will be like Warhammer Online)

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Robb Smith wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
One of my favorite PnP sessions recently was one where the DM had a staged encounter. We picked a fight with a group of goblins. Easy enough. A few rounds in, the goblin hounds that heard the cries and din of battle ran in. Shortly after that, the head goblin druid came in from the brush as he was investigating the noise himself. That was a tough battle and nearly got us killed. I don't see how my story is that different from the PvP scenario you describe.
Robb Smith wrote:
In PVE, I control some of the risk.

You chose to fight the goblins. Not the other way around.

And how would that be radically different if the goblins picked the fight with the PCs?

Goblin Squad Member

@Ravening: I hadn't considered that style of system before. I'll admit to not having read all the blog posts, so maybe that's why. But for some reason that makes me really REALLY excited for the harvesting prospects. There needs to be a reason rare resources are rare. If they're easy to get and transport . . . well, they're not rare then.

Goblin Squad Member

MicMan wrote:
Jameow wrote:
How does "random item of loot, not a major piece of equipment" achieve any of those things?

Nothing is set in stone. The above quote was used to say that you are not in risk to loose all your gear from a single death. But I imagine that, just like in EVE, you will loose the raw materials you carry because everything else would make no sense.

Also what Fruben said.

If you control hexes and wipe them from people with a low reputation (kill them on sight) you will have managed something. Mining will be save, it will be an archievemtn, a sense of accomplishment.

If you even lose your ore, which isn't even PROBABLE.

It's they dying part that disrupts your mining then. With or without looting.

Sense of community? What does that have to do with pvp looting, I've been part of many close knit communities that had NO pvp, let alone looting. Plenty with pvp but no looting too.

Sandbox is not about working together, it's about having the freedom to do what you like and impact the world. A community, by definition, works together, but that does not invalidate the lone wolf playstyle, as I've said before, the ranger and Druid ARE DESCRIBED as lone wolves.

But all of that is beside the point, as it has nothing to do with how "a random item that isn't part of your main equipment" achieves a sense of community. Or those other things.

The same thing is achieved through wear and tear of items, especially if crafters are the ones that do the repair work.

Goblin Squad Member

Valkenr wrote:

Pathfinder is to Pathfinder Online

as Warhammer is to Warhammer Online

(not saying that Pathfinder Online will be like Warhammer Online)

To be fair, Warhammer really is a PvP game at its roots. Well, Army v. Army. But you can say the same about Pathfinder, too. After all, the DM is a player too.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
I'll admit to not having read all the blog posts, so maybe that's why.

This is my favorite phrase on these boards. It either makes me no-longer sympathetic to the person ranting, or applaud the person owning up to their lack of knowledge.

And the 2nd one is, more often than not, a positive reaction and realization that the game isn't as bad as they thought or better than they thought.

btw, you get applause.


Ravening wrote:
A bunch of stuff that details a beautiful vision of a fully produced game assuming everything that has ever been said in a blog post ends up being implementable, functional, and viable in the game.

Look, Raven. I get what you're trying to say, and that's a beautiful vision of what things *could be* like.

But we're talking about a game that is what, in current plans, 4 or 5 years away from being developed?

You cannot take blog posts as being gospel. I can't think of a single game that didn't have features dropped because they just ended up being unworkable, unfun, or didn't work as planned.

I can't debate against an idealized vision of the future viewed through rose-colored glasses. It might be like what you're saying, or it might turn out to be completely different. Lots of things change in 4 years.

About the only thing I can say about what you've described is it sounds a lot like a sitting duck scenario.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
Valkenr wrote:

Pathfinder is to Pathfinder Online

as Warhammer is to Warhammer Online

(not saying that Pathfinder Online will be like Warhammer Online)

To be fair, Warhammer really is a PvP game at its roots. Well, Army v. Army. But you can say the same about Pathfinder, too. After all, the DM is a player too.

The game takes the lore, races, and objects, and uses them in an entirely different rule-set, that's where the key point is.

Goblin Squad Member

Robb Smith wrote:
But we're talking about a game that is what, in current plans, 4 or 5 years away from being developed?

Well, if the kickstarter succeeds we're supposed to see the beta early-mid 2014 and the release early 2015. Without the million, they still plan to release to the general public in 2016. That means 4 years at the most. Obviously delays can happen, but to claim the game isn't even going to be developed for 4-5 years is WAY off target.


Quote:
And how would that be radically different if the goblins picked the fight with the PCs?

I want to take a moment as a brief aside to talk about the "Social Contract" between Players and GMs in Pencil and Paper games for a moment, because people don't seem to understand it.

There is a social contract in P&P games between the GM and the players, and that contract states that ultimately, the players are supposed to win. This social contract exists for many reasons, first and foremost is because the GM has unlimited access to money, resources, and monsters that they can will into existence by saying "There's an <X> in the room", where <x> is anything.

There aren't any rules for this really, so all that exists is this said social contract. The GM's job is to *challenge* the players without killing them. Yes, sometimes the players make bad decisions and die, but the GM does not go out of their way to kill the players.

So the answer to your question, Decius, is "That wouldn't happen", because it's a violation of the Social Contract. If the players were getting their collective butts kicked by the goblins because they were attacked instead of being the attackers, then that Head Goblin druid just wouldn't show up, and the players would never know.

I know that probably doesn't make a lot of sense if you don't play a lot of P&P games, but it's also one of the reasons why it's nearly impossible to compare P&P gaming to MMO gaming. In an MMO, if that monster is there and you aggro it, you're going to get stomped. In P&P, it's a Shroedinger's Goblin, and it simultaneously exists and doesn't exist based on whether or not it will murder the PCs.

Drakahn wrote:

Well, if the kickstarter succeeds we're supposed to see the beta early-mid 2014 and the release early 2015. Without the million, they still plan to release to the general public in 2016. That means 4 years at the most. Obviously delays can happen, but to claim the game isn't even going to be developed for 4-5 years is WAY off target.

Sorry, meant to say "released" - The forums here are *REALLY* PVP centric, so I have to move quickly between posts to keep up with all the different attacks to my viewpoints.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Again, I'm one of those guys Robb is alluding to when he says "dozens of scar-brothers who are silently nodding and thinking "Amen, brother. Preach it." I'm one of them. We've never met, but from the sounds of it, we've had similar experiences. Having played MMO's since they've been available to play, and seeing all of these creative PvP experiments in action, I'll add my opinion to what has already been eloquently expressed in this thread.

In my experience with Non-Consensual PvP MMO mechanics, the following is generally true:

Customers, paying or not, will not play victims, indefinitely.
Or put another way;
Customers will not indefinitely pay to be victims, not even half of the time.
Regardless of whether or not "pay" means time or money or both.

It is illogical to presume that victims will stay around being victims forever. It's a negative experience. No-one likes it. Presuming a steady stream of loss, at whatever rate you want to use, means you're designing to fail, just over whatever time period the victim loss becomes catastrophic.

As such, regardless of how innovative you as a supporter of GoblinWorks might think these systems are, despite some very smart people over the past 15 years trying all sorts of variations on the same theme, something new is required. Everything that has been discussed so far has already been tried in other MMO's or theorycrafted to death. Flagging, item loss on death, reputation, varying degrees of "safe areas", bounties, all of it.
Obviously, I can't say with any degree of certainty that what has been described to date, put together under a new context of PFO's "world" will 100% fail.
I will say, though, that I have seen EACH of these mechanics fail spectacularly on their own, either in theory or in practice, given the deplorable state of human nature. I've seen flagging abused until pointless. I've seen item loss on death abused until the devs recant and remove it or the game dies. I've seen Reputation systems laughably trivialized even with 1 integer change per death/kill on a scale of 1000 or 10000 per rank.

Penalties for killing those with high reputation just encourages mule rep grinding, as has been pointed out and demonstrated in all the games that have it.

Safe areas are mapped and used by the very people they're meant to stop, to attack other players and have those players killed by guards. How? The griefer stands on the non-guarded side, 1 pixel away from the guarded side. They attack the noob on the guarded side. The noob retaliates, and the guards kill the noob. Never happen? Has happened.

Item loss on death also just ends up encouraging naked zerging. All professional murderers will simply never carry anything they aren't holding. Thusly, killing them nets you nothing. The only people with something to lose are the victims, not the criminals. If the system is changed so that criminals lose anything, criminals will attack naked with their fists, in zergs of 50-80 players, with multiple accounts all slaved to a small group of sociopaths. If the "justice" system is further modified to include stat/skill/badge loss, that's the tipping point at which you'll lose all those customers, but by then it's too late, because all the customers you WANTED are long gone due to taking so long to address these concerns.

Why? Because the fanatical zealots all drinking the cool-aid now, two years before this game has the slightest chance of ever hitting the public? Those folks? They WANT those features. They WANT the PvP features you are going to have to remove due to player outcry. If you take them away, you lose your core of fans/customers. Now what? You're left with a half baked cake, just like every other attempt in the genre at "getting this right".

And don't think it won't happy to you, GoblinWorks employees. History is a great teacher. Many other development teams have said the same thing you have said. Hell, they just said it in GW2 and now look at the game? All the changes they should have made during the first HOURS after launch (not days, not weeks, not months) were not done, and the game is permanently screwed because of it. That's a so-called AAA MMO failing in 2012, but I'm sure they said "We will fix these big problems immediately when we see them, never fear, our loyal fans!". Riiiiight.

On the current hot topic of item loss on death for non-criminal victims. When I first read about this system, I had the same reaction. Why would any company desiring financial success penalize customers for being victims, and AT THE SAME TIME, reward aggressors for victimizing their customers? It made no sense months ago, and it stll makes no sense.

IMHO: "Meaningful Player Interaction" does not require direct PvP combat, at all, in any form. (just like PnP PF) I'll put my tiny stick in the sand with that opinion expressed.

Lastly, it's nice to see that there is some flexibility alluded to on some of these mechanics. Up until this past week or so, the way in which these mechanics have been described and defended was the very definition of "set in stone". The recent change is good to see, but I, like Robb, will never play a game where victimization is rewarded.

Goblin Squad Member

Robb Smith wrote:
There aren't any rules for this really, so all that exists is this said social contract. The GM's job is to *challenge* the players without killing them. Yes, sometimes the players make bad decisions and die, but the GM does not go out of their way to kill the players.

I see what you are getting at, but there are subtle variations of this dynamic, especially when it comes to Sandbox campaigns. If the 1st lvl PCs stumble upon an ettin's lair in the wilderness, let's say, and they decide to go for a frontal assault, then they will most likely die.

In the scenario you mentioned, I could easily see how you could view it without considering it a breaking of the contract. The scenario could very well happen, including the goblin druid. If the party enters a situation in which the NPCs are looking for blood, then the NPCs will work hard to kill the PCs. Moreover, the more intelligent the NPCs (e.g. intelligent humanoids, etc) will work every angle possible to defeat the PCs if it has come to battle.

Your "Shroedinger's Goblin" (great phrase!) is also a plausible scenario, and certainly part of the GM's toolbox, but it isn't the only one, nor does it have to be.

For reference sake, I have been playing pnp since I was probably 10, so about 31 years give or take.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yup. There's nothing a GM can truly do to prevent players from making absolutely stupid decisions and getting thrashed/killed accordingly. There are limits to plausibility involved. The best GMs have you limping out of the cave after hours of adventure with everyone at like, 4 hitpoints, no spells remaining, with a fair amount of treasure, and stories to share back in town.

And then ~XxX~SephirothPKMaster~XxX~ jumps you naked wearing nothing but a dagger, murders you, and takes your stuff and leaves the rest to rot in the wilderness. EPIC ADVENTURE HAD BY ALL!

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

*sighs* It feels like beating against a wall over and over... no matter what is being said and done or offered as an olive branch people will always complain about pvp, loot drops etc.

But if you feel like you want to play pvp, risk free and without the loss of items, a themepark MMO is for you. Not a sandbox MMO.

Goblin Squad Member

Robb Smith wrote:

Yup. There's nothing a GM can truly do to prevent players from making absolutely stupid decisions and getting thrashed/killed accordingly. There are limits to plausibility involved. The best GMs have you limping out of the cave after hours of adventure with everyone at like, 4 hitpoints, no spells remaining, with a fair amount of treasure, and stories to share back in town.

And then ~XxX~SephirothPKMaster~XxX~ jumps you naked wearing nothing but a dagger, murders you, and takes your stuff and leaves the rest to rot in the wilderness. EPIC ADVENTURE HAD BY ALL!

Yet another example of poor planning by the party/person. You shouldn't be seeking encounters that leave you battered with no way to heal, and if you see one your choices are to run or gamble.

There is a play style change that has to happen to swap from PvE heavy themeparks to body looting sandboxes. You have to plan ahead, and just because you can do something, or can buy something, doesn't mean you should do it or buy it.

Goblin Squad Member

Robb Smith wrote:
-snip- There is a social contract in P&P games between the GM and the players, and that contract states that ultimately, the players are supposed to win. This social contract exists for many reasons, first and foremost is because the GM has unlimited access to money, resources, and monsters that they can will into existence by saying "There's an <X> in the room", where <x> is anything.-snip-

I think this is a paradigm shift between a few intimate players who are the HEROES (in the making) and a simulation of a virtual world where thousands of players are the inhabitants of that world.


perfect example. group consists of human-barbarian human-wizard dwarf-warrior human-cleric. fight goes on and dwarf is at 12 out of 45 HP. cleric is at 22 out of 23 hp everyone else is at full hp because dwarf does his job. boss walks into the room hits the dwarf for 7 hp and its the clerics turn. cleric says I cast cure moderate wounds, on myself. dwarf grabs his dew walks to his car and goes home. do ya blame him?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Valkenr wrote:

Yet another example of poor planning by the party/person. You shouldn't be seeking encounters that leave you battered with no way to heal, and if you see one your choices are to run or gamble.

There is a play style change that has to happen to swap from PvE heavy themeparks to body looting sandboxes. You have to plan ahead, and just because you can do something, or can buy something, doesn't mean you should do it or buy it.

You're absolutely right. Dungeons are never perhaps a little tougher then what you planned on. As a contingency, what I should have done is hired a guard to sit outside the dungeon and wait while the rest of us went down through the dungeon and had fun for 3 hours or so, so we could come back up loaded with treasure and tell them how awesome it was. Then they could tell us about all the fun they had standing there, doing some more standing, doing a little more standing, and then telling us that they think they saw an eagle.

Then, in case the guard got jumped, I should have hired a a guard for my guard, to be engaged only if the guard got attacked.

Or I could camp in the dungeon, neglecting the fact that to be an MMO, the game would need things like respawn mechanics.

So, let's sit down and map out the 50 people you think should need to be involved for 4 of us to explore a dungeon and not get murdered, and see how much of a chore we can make the game into instead of fun.

Goblin Squad Member

Robb Smith wrote:

Yup. There's nothing a GM can truly do to prevent players from making absolutely stupid decisions and getting thrashed/killed accordingly. There are limits to plausibility involved. The best GMs have you limping out of the cave after hours of adventure with everyone at like, 4 hitpoints, no spells remaining, with a fair amount of treasure, and stories to share back in town.

And then ~XxX~SephirothPKMaster~XxX~ jumps you naked wearing nothing but a dagger, murders you, and takes your stuff and leaves the rest to rot in the wilderness. EPIC ADVENTURE HAD BY ALL!

*grins at Robb* or an epic story that was not complete upon leaving cave, but also involved the exciting and dangerous journey back to town. Why should the epic adventure end at the cave mouth?!

Additionally, another goblin, or a passing ettin could also jump out and attempt to slaughter the weakened party. If the party thought that the journey back to town would be a cakewalk, then they were probably mistaken.

Given the info we have so far, while it may technically be possible that mr pk master is able to kill the entire party, it doesn't look feasible.


Elorebaen wrote:
*grins at Robb* or an epic story that was not complete upon leaving cave, but also involved the exciting and dangerous journey back to town. Why should the epic adventure end at the cave mouth?!

My point, Elorebaen, was to demonstrate the kind of unfun behavior that occurs when PVP looting is a factor. All of your examples provided, in a PnP game, would be a pretty clear violation of the Social Contract I was referring to.

Goblin Squad Member

Valkenr wrote:
Robb Smith wrote:

Yup. There's nothing a GM can truly do to prevent players from making absolutely stupid decisions and getting thrashed/killed accordingly. There are limits to plausibility involved. The best GMs have you limping out of the cave after hours of adventure with everyone at like, 4 hitpoints, no spells remaining, with a fair amount of treasure, and stories to share back in town.

And then ~XxX~SephirothPKMaster~XxX~ jumps you naked wearing nothing but a dagger, murders you, and takes your stuff and leaves the rest to rot in the wilderness. EPIC ADVENTURE HAD BY ALL!

Yet another example of poor planning by the party/person. You shouldn't be seeking encounters that leave you battered with no way to heal, and if you see one your choices are to run or gamble.

There is a play style change that has to happen to swap from PvE heavy themeparks to body looting sandboxes. You have to plan ahead, and just because you can do something, or can buy something, doesn't mean you should do it or buy it.

It doesn't work that way, no matter how you look at it, you have only so many ability slots available, whether you are a 5 year veteran or in your third month. You had to choose what you would take in advance. If you are going on a dungeon crawl as a group, you have a finite number of abilities and refreshes.

You can compromise and take some abilities better suited to pvp with you, yes, but in the end you can't "prepare" for a gank squad waiting for your most vulnerable moment to attack you.

In a good fight you SHOULD pull through by the skin of your teeth, not breeze through it with abilities to spare. It sounds like you WANT the pve content to be boring so that pvp is the only interesting thing to do.

PFO is NOT a pvp game, it is a sand box.


Psyblade wrote:

*sighs* It feels like beating against a wall over and over... no matter what is being said and done or offered as an olive branch people will always complain about pvp, loot drops etc.

But if you feel like you want to play pvp, risk free and without the loss of items, a themepark MMO is for you. Not a sandbox MMO.

If it feels like you're beating your head against a wall, it's because you are. I've stopped listening to people telling me I want a theme park instead of a sandbox MMO a long time ago, because you have no idea what I want in a game, and no one has even taken 5 seconds to bother asking.

Goblin Squad Member

Robb Smith wrote:
Valkenr wrote:

Yet another example of poor planning by the party/person. You shouldn't be seeking encounters that leave you battered with no way to heal, and if you see one your choices are to run or gamble.

There is a play style change that has to happen to swap from PvE heavy themeparks to body looting sandboxes. You have to plan ahead, and just because you can do something, or can buy something, doesn't mean you should do it or buy it.

You're absolutely right. Dungeons are never perhaps a little tougher then what you planned on. As a contingency, what I should have done is hired a guard to sit outside the dungeon and wait while the rest of us went down through the dungeon and had fun for 3 hours or so, so we could come back up loaded with treasure and tell them how awesome it was. Then they could tell us about all the fun they had standing there, doing some more standing, doing a little more standing, and then telling us that they think they saw an eagle.

Then, in case the guard got jumped, I should have hired a a guard for my guard, to be engaged only if the guard got attacked.

Or I could camp in the dungeon, neglecting the fact that to be an MMO, the game would need things like respawn mechanics.

So, let's sit down and map out the 50 people you think should need to be involved for 4 of us to explore a dungeon and not get murdered, and see how much of a chore we can make the game into instead of fun.

*grins at Robb* I suppose that is one way to do it, and if you can convince someone to be entrance guard, then good on ya! I imagine they probably want a hefty contract to do so. I could see a professional guard class appearing, mercenary groups who protect caravans for these sorts of scenarios.

- Another way, would be to heal up before leaving.
- Another way, would be to scout ahead before leaving.
- Another way, would be to consider the potential for danger after leaving the dungeon as part of the adventure.
- Another way, would be to work out some extra guards to meet you at the dungeon, as opposed to waiting the whole time.

We all want to make this the best it can be, but the bottomline is that there will be PvP, so how can we accentuate the positives and reduce the negatives. I think we can do this! =)


Elorebaen wrote:


- Another way, would be to heal up before leaving.
- Another way, would be to scout ahead before leaving.
- Another way, would be to consider the potential for danger after leaving the dungeon as part of the adventure.
- Another way, would be to...

Not enough of the game mechanics are known, so I somewhat have to fall back on unrealistic PNP rules to illustrate the point.

~XxX~SephirothPKMaster~XxX~ was more satire than anything.

Goblin Squad Member

Robb Smith wrote:
Elorebaen wrote:
*grins at Robb* or an epic story that was not complete upon leaving cave, but also involved the exciting and dangerous journey back to town. Why should the epic adventure end at the cave mouth?!
My point, Elorebaen, was to demonstrate the kind of unfun behavior that occurs when PVP looting is a factor. All of your examples provided, in a PnP game, would be a pretty clear violation of the Social Contract I was referring to.

I understood you. I also, do not think this is necessarily "unfun" (in the same that epic stories can come from horrid deaths, mishaps, etc, etc), nor do I think the pnp Contract you are referring to is the only form of that pnp Contract, which was my point.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Robb Smith wrote:
Elorebaen wrote:
*grins at Robb* or an epic story that was not complete upon leaving cave, but also involved the exciting and dangerous journey back to town. Why should the epic adventure end at the cave mouth?!
My point, Elorebaen, was to demonstrate the kind of unfun behavior that occurs when PVP looting is a factor. All of your examples provided, in a PnP game, would be a pretty clear violation of the Social Contract I was referring to.

getting back to the whole PnP part. There is a risk vs. reward in the game (and depending on your gm it can be easy or hard). It's why I mentioned the kingmaker idea. But it seems most people expect that in a PnP setting they are being treatedlike the heroes etc and that they can get away with it.

in a sandbox game you, the player and all the other players around, are the storyteller and the characters in the game and thus you can make your own story and actions that will impact the game. So if there are people that want to go out and play bandit, it is their right. In regards of that they should get a reward for their actions. And they will get punishment as well. Same goes for good players, they won't be able to go out and pk right away and will have to wait till they get attacked.

Also in regards of the player loot, it will happen, as Ryan has said, but not how it is going to happen and what you are going to lose. So for those against it, shrug it off, learn to play with others and work together or take the risk. But loot dropping due to a death is going to happen.

Goblin Squad Member

Robb Smith wrote:
Elorebaen wrote:


- Another way, would be to heal up before leaving.
- Another way, would be to scout ahead before leaving.
- Another way, would be to consider the potential for danger after leaving the dungeon as part of the adventure.
- Another way, would be to...

Not enough of the game mechanics are known, so I somewhat have to fall back on unrealistic PNP rules to illustrate the point.

~XxX~SephirothPKMaster~XxX~ was more satire than anything.

Aye, it is challenging to have these conversations without a lot of concrete details. I imagine these discussions will renew every time a new bit of game mechanic is revealed. *chuckles*

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elorebaen wrote:
Robb Smith wrote:
Valkenr wrote:

Yet another example of poor planning by the party/person. You shouldn't be seeking encounters that leave you battered with no way to heal, and if you see one your choices are to run or gamble.

There is a play style change that has to happen to swap from PvE heavy themeparks to body looting sandboxes. You have to plan ahead, and just because you can do something, or can buy something, doesn't mean you should do it or buy it.

You're absolutely right. Dungeons are never perhaps a little tougher then what you planned on. As a contingency, what I should have done is hired a guard to sit outside the dungeon and wait while the rest of us went down through the dungeon and had fun for 3 hours or so, so we could come back up loaded with treasure and tell them how awesome it was. Then they could tell us about all the fun they had standing there, doing some more standing, doing a little more standing, and then telling us that they think they saw an eagle.

Then, in case the guard got jumped, I should have hired a a guard for my guard, to be engaged only if the guard got attacked.

Or I could camp in the dungeon, neglecting the fact that to be an MMO, the game would need things like respawn mechanics.

So, let's sit down and map out the 50 people you think should need to be involved for 4 of us to explore a dungeon and not get murdered, and see how much of a chore we can make the game into instead of fun.

*grins at Robb* I suppose that is one way to do it, and if you can convince someone to be entrance guard, then good on ya! I imagine they probably want a hefty contract to do so. I could see a professional guard class appearing, mercenary groups who protect caravans for these sorts of scenarios.

- Another way, would be to heal up before leaving.
- Another way, would be to scout ahead before leaving.
- Another way, would be to consider the potential for danger after leaving the dungeon as part of the adventure.
- Another way, would be to...

Lets flip it on its head. What if during pvp, the lower the health you had, the higher the chance of spawning a revenant, an npc monster that hits harder and faster and targets vulnerable players. Would that add you your enjoyment to have your fights greenfly interrupted by something designed to kill you when you're at your weakest and engaged in something else?

It would be exciting in its unpredictability, but in the end just lead to most people bring quickly killed by monsters during pvp.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Psyblade wrote:
in a sandbox game you, the player and all the other players around, are the storyteller and the characters in the game and thus you can make your own story and actions that will impact the game. So if there are people that want to go out and play bandit, it is their right. In regards of that they should get a reward for their actions. And they will get punishment as well. Same goes for good players, they won't be able to go out and pk right away and will have to wait till they get attacked.

So, what is the risk/reward to the party? Losing everything they have and everything they've gained over the past 3 hours, and their reward is getting to keep everything they've already earned by exposing themselves to a ton of risk.

And the risk/reward to the PK? They either get free stuff, some of it likely to be good since they did just come out of a dungeon. The risk is one dagger.

Yeah, seems fair.

Goblin Squad Member

Robb Smith wrote:
Psyblade wrote:
in a sandbox game you, the player and all the other players around, are the storyteller and the characters in the game and thus you can make your own story and actions that will impact the game. So if there are people that want to go out and play bandit, it is their right. In regards of that they should get a reward for their actions. And they will get punishment as well. Same goes for good players, they won't be able to go out and pk right away and will have to wait till they get attacked.

So, what is the risk/reward to the party? Losing everything they have and everything they've gained over the past 3 hours, and their reward is getting to keep everything they've already earned.

And the risk/reward to the PK? They either get free stuff, some of it likely to be good since they did just come out of a dungeon. The risk is one dagger.

Yeah, seems fair.

This is the point I keep bringing up too. People keep saying risk vs reward, but it's a one sided equation, all the risk is taken by the adventurer, none by the pvper. The pvper is rewarded for the adventurer's investment in time, equipment, resources, gets to take advantage of a player who is not refreshed, equipped for fighting something other than the pvper and then has the gall to call it risk vs reward while not risking anything.

Having said that, given the looting system, you wouldn't lose most of the stuff you got anyway, there's just a chance you'd lose some of it. Personally, I am a hoarder, chances are, killing me will get you junk that's utterly worthless or so common that you used ore resources attacking me than you'd gain.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

Robb Smith wrote:
Psyblade wrote:
in a sandbox game you, the player and all the other players around, are the storyteller and the characters in the game and thus you can make your own story and actions that will impact the game. So if there are people that want to go out and play bandit, it is their right. In regards of that they should get a reward for their actions. And they will get punishment as well. Same goes for good players, they won't be able to go out and pk right away and will have to wait till they get attacked.

So, what is the risk/reward to the party? Losing everything they have and everything they've gained over the past 3 hours, and their reward is getting to keep everything they've already earned.

And the risk/reward to the PK? They either get free stuff, some of it likely to be good since they did just come out of a dungeon. The risk is one dagger.

Yeah, seems fair.

The risk is indeed to lose your items, and that goes for both (also if you are so ignorant to leave a dungeon low on health you deserve the gank, but that is my cruel comment about it). The reward for both will be to get the items (yes for the one attacking it seems trivial, but depending on where he attacks you he can/might also suffer an alignment hit).

As an example with eve. you have the pirates, they are people who gank in lowsec where they prey on the miners, unaware rat-ers etc. If lucky they get the gank, they get some items. The result after a while will be they can no longer enter the hi-sec areas anymore. If you have -3 you will be attacked by patrols (and they will slow/stun (web) you so you cannot get away and proceed to kill you. The result after a while will be that they are limited to the low sec or nul sec areas. They cannot have access to the items that are being sold in the hi-sec locations, and those prices are most of the times half of what they are in low-sec and sometimes even more expensive in nul-sec. So they will have to work harder to get their money to buy the items needed if they die.

That is another thing a bandit will have to take in consideration, am I willing to go full evil and be locked out at certain areas, hunted down when I go to a neutral/good location etc.

The decision or the reward isn't that simple as you put it down. If the bandit is chaotic/evil and find something he/she needs to sell, they will have to put in more effort then someone else, and the same goes if they want new gear. It will cost more due to their alignment and the location they are in.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Robb Smith wrote:
Quote:
And how would that be radically different if the goblins picked the fight with the PCs?

I want to take a moment as a brief aside to talk about the "Social Contract" between Players and GMs in Pencil and Paper games for a moment, because people don't seem to understand it.

There is a social contract in P&P games between the GM and the players, and that contract states that ultimately, the players are supposed to win. This social contract exists for many reasons, first and foremost is because the GM has unlimited access to money, resources, and monsters that they can will into existence by saying "There's an <X> in the room", where <x> is anything.

I do not concur, either with that specific social contract or that the GM has permission to put anything into existence.

D&D is sometimes a cooperative storytelling mechanism. In those cases, the social contract is that everything is intended to create the story being told, and the DM and players can put anything into existence that furthers the story. It is still necessary for that which is created to exist in a self-consistent world. In these games, there can't be a goblin rogue hiding in the closet unless there is a cause, but any participant can offer the goblin in the closet.

Sometimes D&D is a competitive game with elements of challenge; in those cases the job of the designer is to create a scenario is challenging but winnable and entertaining. The task of the DM (who as a person probably overlaps with the designer) is to determine what happens in the world as designed in response to the players. The DM cannot add or remove things from the design, and the designer should not make changes to the world on the fly. In these games, there can't be a goblin rogue hiding in the closet unless the game design puts one there (and a good game design makes sure that there is a cause for it).

Often there is a hybrid system, where the DM/designer changes the world in order to make the story continue. That does not mean 'the player characters win'; it means that the story doesn't end.

It would be wrong for a hostile group of goblins not to attack if they were certain that they would win and had no reason to refrain. If the story requires that the PCs not be killed by goblins, then superior forces of hostile goblins are not encountered. If the scenario doesn't intend to threaten the PCs with death by goblin, then there is no way to encounter them.

There are many other axes as well; where your game falls on the field isn't important to anyone but the participants.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Psyblade wrote:
As an example with eve. you have the pirates, they are people who gank in lowsec where they prey on the miners, unaware rat-ers etc. If lucky they get the gank, they get some items. The result after a while will be they can no longer enter the hi-sec areas anymore. If you have -3 you will be attacked by patrols (and they will slow/stun (web) you so you cannot get away and proceed to kill you. The result after a while will be that they are limited to the low sec or nul sec areas. They cannot have access to the items that are being sold in the hi-sec locations, and those prices are most of the times half of what they are in low-sec and sometimes even more expensive in nul-sec. So they will have to work harder to get their money to buy the...

Or you just do what the smart eve players do and get a second account. That solves that problem pretty quick, doesn't it?

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

Robb Smith wrote:
Psyblade wrote:
As an example with eve. you have the pirates, they are people who gank in lowsec where they prey on the miners, unaware rat-ers etc. If lucky they get the gank, they get some items. The result after a while will be they can no longer enter the hi-sec areas anymore. If you have -3 you will be attacked by patrols (and they will slow/stun (web) you so you cannot get away and proceed to kill you. The result after a while will be that they are limited to the low sec or nul sec areas. They cannot have access to the items that are being sold in the hi-sec locations, and those prices are most of the times half of what they are in low-sec and sometimes even more expensive in nul-sec. So they will have to work harder to get their money to buy the...

Or you just do what the smart eve players do and get a second account. That solves that problem pretty quick, doesn't it?

yes, but that means they have to pay for 2 accounts. But I am getting to a point where i am going to try and give up with this whole argument. There will always people who will want no risk and all the rewards (like in a themepark) and don't want to work for it.

It is a pointless discussion and as said before, you will lose loot when you die in this game. So either suck it up and sign up for the kickstarter to see how it is, find friends to play with or just leave.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Robb Smith wrote:
Psyblade wrote:

*sighs* It feels like beating against a wall over and over... no matter what is being said and done or offered as an olive branch people will always complain about pvp, loot drops etc.

But if you feel like you want to play pvp, risk free and without the loss of items, a themepark MMO is for you. Not a sandbox MMO.

If it feels like you're beating your head against a wall, it's because you are. I've stopped listening to people telling me I want a theme park instead of a sandbox MMO a long time ago, because you have no idea what I want in a game, and no one has even taken 5 seconds to bother asking.

It sounds like you want Saga of Ryzom, but with scripted dungeons and an equipment-from-loot system.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You're right. There are people that want no risk and all reward. Pvpers who gank for loot. Not pve'ers who spend hours acquiring a resource only to be set upon by someone fully refreshed and equipped to fight them, rather than whatever is needed to harvest the resource.

Killing the pvper provides no benefit, if they're sensible, they have nothing of value to loot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Psyblade wrote:
yes, but that means they have to pay for 2 accounts. But I am getting to a point where i am going to try and give up with this whole argument. There will always people who will want no risk and all the rewards (like in a themepark) and don't want to work for it.

You're missing the entire POINT. The point is that you say there's risk and reward. What I am demonstrating to you is with either minimal effort or a tiny amount of additional resource expenditure, practically every punishment that has been extoled is MEANINGLESS.

Quote:


It is a pointless discussion and as said before, you will lose loot when you die in this game. So either suck it up and sign up for the kickstarter to see how it is, find friends to play with or just leave.

No company has ever gained any useful data during the design process by having a select group of fanboys tell them how awesome all their ideas are and how this is gonna be the "best game ever!". They learn valuable information by people like me coming here and telling them why certain ideas are trash and why they will not be appealing to large subsections of the market. There are ENTIRELY TOO MANY Eve supporters on this board and not enough contradicting voices that will give this game any sort of chance to evolve beyond anything but Eve 2: Now With Swords.

And, in case you haven't read numerous posts, I've been signed up since the first hour it went up. I'm determining if I'm staying pledged or not.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

Robb Smith wrote:
Psyblade wrote:
yes, but that means they have to pay for 2 accounts. But I am getting to a point where i am going to try and give up with this whole argument. There will always people who will want no risk and all the rewards (like in a themepark) and don't want to work for it.

You're missing the entire POINT. The point is that you say there's risk and reward. What I am demonstrating to you is with either minimal effort or a tiny amount of additional resource expenditure, practically every punishment that has been extoled is MEANINGLESS.

Quote:


It is a pointless discussion and as said before, you will lose loot when you die in this game. So either suck it up and sign up for the kickstarter to see how it is, find friends to play with or just leave.

No company has ever gained any useful data during the design process by having a select group of fanboys tell them how awesome all their ideas are and how this is gonna be the "best game ever!". They learn valuable information by people like me coming here and telling them why certain ideas are trash and why they will not be appealing to large subsections of the market.

And, in case you haven't read numerous posts, I've been signed up since the first hour it went up. I'm determining if I'm staying pledged or not.

I will give you 1 company, they aer growing and working on a 2nd sandbox MMO.

Their name: CCP, creators of Eve Online, Dust514 and WoD Online.

Known for their sandbox game, 45k+ people online average, and with a peak towards 70k+ (if not higher).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just want to confirm that you were talking CCP, the company who, just last year, had their CEO come out and apologize for not listening to their fans telling them that things that were put into or taken out of the game were horrible ideas?

The company whose CEO made this statement?

Hilmar Veigar Pétursson, CEO wrote:


Somewhere along the way, I began taking success for granted. As hubris set in, I became less inclined to listen to pleas for caution. Red flags raised by very smart people both at CCP and in the community went unheeded because of my stubborn refusal to allow adversity to gain purchase on our plans. Mistakes, even when they were acknowledged, often went unanalyzed, leaving the door open for them to be repeated.

Just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing.

Goblin Squad Member

Jameow wrote:

It doesn't work that way, no matter how you look at it, you have only so many ability slots available, whether you are a 5 year veteran or in your third month. You had to choose what you would take in advance. If you are going on a dungeon crawl as a group, you have a finite number of abilities and refreshes.

You can compromise and take some abilities better suited to pvp with you, yes, but in the end you can't "prepare" for a gank squad waiting for your most vulnerable moment to attack you.

In a good fight you SHOULD pull through by the skin of your teeth, not breeze through it with abilities to spare. It sounds like you WANT the pve content to be boring so that pvp is the only interesting thing to do.

PFO is NOT a pvp game, it is a sand box.

Having other hostile players around is simply a factor you must incorporate into any plan, if you want to go do a dungeon you will be safe inside and won't need as much PvP prep, but you will need to organize transportation and protection of the loot afterward. If you want to do a superdungeon you need to account for other groups being in the dungeon coming from different entrances, they may be hostile, you may agree to help each other and split the take.

The regular dungeon(and possibly modules when they get put in) is the only place you can go balls-to-the wall, because you know you will be safe inside. Everyone just needs to save a refresh for the end and heal up before they leave. Then you go back to town and organize a caravan to transport your loot from the dungeon.

Your 'skin of your teeth' comment got me thinking to graphical physics, you put the axis' and origin where you want. You think of a good victory as almost dieing, I think of a good victory of almost passing the threshold that makes me easily open to ganking. I work harder to stay above that line than you do to not die, and I don't get to use everything at my disposal, because I need a contingency if I get jumped.

Hostile players should be in the back of your mind every moment you play the game, they are always a variable, and the moment you start ignoring that variable you suffer the consequences. If you don't want to make your character good for PvP, you will need a group that can compensate for your shortcomings.

I can easily accept having to have a PvP plan ready at all times and never putting my self into a situation where I can easily get jumped and have my last 3 hours of play go down the toilet, other can't. You won't find me running a mining camp without serious protection for my camp and caravans, and I won't be sending out all of my take in a single run.

I'm seeing examples in this thread that don't incorporate into the PFO that has been described so far. Everything major will be done in groups, and will end with a caravan of loot, not something you can carry and lose. Banditry will be a viable way to get things, PvE should be seen as the easy part, the hard part is getting your reward back. You won't have it in your bag, it will be in some sort of transportation. If you get killed it doesn't get mostly destroyed, it changes possession, it is up to you to seek out your attackers with greater numbers and get your stuff back.

Goblin Squad Member

Valkenr wrote:

[

Having other hostile players around is simply a factor you must incorporate into any plan, if you want to go do a dungeon you will be safe inside and won't need as much PvP prep, but you will need to organize transportation and protection of the loot afterward. If you want to do a superdungeon you need to account for other groups being in the dungeon coming from different entrances, they may be hostile, you may agree to help each other and split the take.

The regular dungeon(and possibly modules when they get put in) is the only place you can go balls-to-the wall, because you know you will be safe inside. Everyone just needs to save a refresh for the end and heal up before they leave. Then you go back to town and organize a caravan to transport your loot from the dungeon.

Your 'skin of your teeth' comment got me thinking to graphical physics, you put the axis' and origin where you want. You think of a good victory as almost dieing, I think of a good victory of almost passing the threshold that makes me easily open to ganking. I work harder to stay above that line than you do to not die, and I don't get to use everything at my disposal, because I need a contingency if I get jumped.

Hostile players should be in the back of...

That doesn't change the fact that one group has been equipped and outfitted for a pve situation. EVEN IF THEY HAVE PREPARED for pvp, the other have arranged themselves exclusively for pvp.

It comes back to risk vs reward. What did the bandits risk? Equipment they can't lose? If they HAVE resources of value they wouldn't be taking them on a raid, and wouldn't need to risk it to get more.

It's not the "you have a risk of fighting players" I'm objecting to, it's that there is no risk for the papers. All the work is don't by the pve'ers.

So I ask again, what did the bandits risk?

Which is why I brought up the random revenant attack. With probability increasing the weaker you are. It's an interruption.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Psyblade wrote:

yes, but that means they have to pay for 2 accounts. But I am getting to a point where i am going to try and give up with this whole argument. There will always people who will want no risk and all the rewards (like in a themepark) and don't want to work for it.

It is a pointless discussion and as said before, you will lose loot when you die in this game. So either suck it up and sign up for the kickstarter to see how it is, find friends to play with or just leave.

I'm honestly curious as to what you're trying to accomplish here. On this page alone you've claimed that not liking one aspect means that this game just isn't for the complainer and they should stop discussing what they'd like to change. And now you're again misrepresenting things by claiming that those disagreeing with you just want to have no risk.

Things aren't as set in stone as you suggest. The mere existence of this thread and Ryan's postings on it shows that GW still want to engage with the community on the topic. In terms of PvP looting Ryan even said that what is lootable and how that system will work is still on the drawing board, so it's completely appropriate to give opinions on how one thinks that system should work.

Goblinworks are ultimately going to make the game that they're inspired to make and I wish them all the best in that regardless. But as a big fan of Pathfinder who currently is rather lukewarm on this game I feel it's a worthwhile thing to explain why. It wouldn't take a lot of changes to get me more interested in backing this game, so I might as well say what those changes would be rather than hoping GW guess at them.

Ultimately I trust that GW will follow their vision for the game, while also at least taking into account how the community feels about various aspects. I trust them to be able to look at numerous different ideas and opinions and use their judgement on what is workable and what isn't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for the support Morgen, Berik, Vjek, and others. I do appreciate others being willing to step up and toe the line with me on this one. I do feel that those of us with this mindset are heavily underrepresented here, probably due to having been driven off in the past.

And to Jameow, I know that we don't agree 100% on this, but I appreciate you being at least able to step over the line here with us for a little bit and say "you know. From this side of the line, it doesn't really make sense."

To those of you out there lurking who here who are perhaps shy, don't want the exposure, or don't enjoy confrontation, you're welcome to send me private messages and I'll be happy to represent you as well. Or, as an alternative, you can just favorite this post.

CEO, Goblinworks

9 people marked this as a favorite.

@All - lots of points to make.

Player Loot: When you die, other characters may get part of your carried inventory. That's a hard & fast rule.

The elements of the design that are being worked on determine what of your inventory is vulnerable to being looted and how you can influence that vulnerability.

What This Means

1: You won't leave an area you consider extremely safe carrying valuable inventory. Because you'll spend a lot of time in areas that are not safe, you'll accumulate a lot of Gear that you can afford to lose. Having some of your stuff taken off your body is not the end of the world when that stuff represents a small fraction of your net worth.

2: Attacking other players has an upside in that the stuff you loot from them may be worth the effort. This will create a value in PvP and therefor people will engage in it.

3: The accumulation, loss, and replacement of Gear on a very regular basis drives the economic engine, which makes harvesting resources, processing and transporting crafting materials, and crafting items a worthwhile and interesting part of the game.

4: People will carry too much valuable stuff, get killed, loose it, and quit in anger. It's the nature of the beast. Sometimes they come back after a cooling off period, sometimes they leave forever. Pathfinder Online won't be a game everyone likes to play and we're OK with that.

Guard Contracts: Like Bounties, they'll work best when you offer them to known trustworthy individuals or groups. Offering an open contract to guard something is going to be pretty darn risky. Offering it to a Chartered Company with a great reputation for showing up and beating off interlopers, and not acting as spies for the interlopers will be the smart thing to do.

If you "cheat" on a Guard Contract and gank your employers, that will not be considered griefing. They should have done a better job vetting their employees. Your reputation will collapse quickly and your alignment will quickly shift to evil and the problem won't be persistent.

If you "inform" on your employers and they get ganked, you may not suffer much reputational or alignment harm. So you might be able to keep getting contracts but eventually people are going to notice a pattern of ganking when you're involved and they'll stop hiring you. I wish we could make a rule about this but it's utterly impossible to detect or enforce.

Chaotic Evil vs. Lawful Evil:

This is a big area where we think we can directly influence people's behavior.

Being Chaotic Evil in Pathfinder Online will suck. You'll be stuck in crappy Settlements where you won't have access to good markets, good training, good workshops, or other "good" aspects of Settlement life. Everyone else in the game will have more better stuff than you. I suspect you'll also find that the only places those Settlements can survive are in Hexes with undesirable attributes, and even then I suspect they'll get destroyed regularly by people who just want the land.

Chaotic Evil characters will also likely be "killable on sight" by lots of other characters which means that they'll be running for their lives every time they encounter other PCs. They'll have bounties on their heads and bounty hunters trying to earn those bounties. When they get too close to NPC Settlements the Marshals will appear and nuke them. When they get detected in territory controlled by people who don't want CE characters around they'll be hunted mercilessly.

You get to be Chaotic Evil by ganking people, betraying people, and generally acting like an a!&~~@@. The variables we will have to work on in terms of balancing are how fast you go CE, and how you dig yourself out of that hole once you're in it.

Being Lawful or Neutral Evil will not likely suck. You'll still have access to decent Settlement resources. Many folks might not like you, but won't be able to kill you on sight. People won't trust you very much (mostly) but you'll probably find enough who will to be able to stay busy doing interesting things.

Lawful and Neutral Evil characters do bad stuff but most of what they do that is bad is not ganking. They work for Dark Gods, they dabble in evil magic, the ally with monsters, etc. But they don't gank. They're probably great bounty hunters. :)

This idea that we've evolved that your Settlement has a big influence on your character power is a way we think we can avoid the problems that have set back PvP in other sandbox games where eventually the gankers accumulate so much wealth and power that they don't care that they can't visit X city. In Pathfinder Online, if your Settlement sucks, you will suck too. So being a ganker means, de facto, that you'll suck vs. the rest of the server.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:

@All - lots of points to make.

Player Loot: When you die, other characters may get part of your carried inventory. That's a hard & fast rule.

The elements of the design that are being worked on determine what of your inventory is vulnerable to being looted and how you can influence that vulnerability.

What This Means

1: You won't leave an area you consider extremely safe carrying valuable inventory. Because you'll spend a lot of time in areas that are not safe, you'll accumulate a lot of Gear that you can afford to lose. Having some of your stuff taken off your body is not the end of the world when that stuff represents a small fraction of your net worth.

2: Attacking other players has an upside in that the stuff you loot from them may be worth the effort. This will create a value in PvP and therefor people will engage in it.

3: The accumulation, loss, and replacement of Gear on a very regular basis drives the economic engine, which makes harvesting resources, processing and transporting crafting materials, and crafting items a worthwhile and interesting part of the game.

4: People will carry too much valuable stuff, get killed, loose it, and quit in anger. It's the nature of the beast. Sometimes they come back after a cooling off period, sometimes they leave forever. Pathfinder Online won't be a game everyone likes to play and we're OK with that.

Guard Contracts: Like Bounties, they'll work best when you offer them to known trustworthy individuals or groups. Offering an open contract to guard something is going to be pretty darn risky. Offering it to a Chartered Company with a great reputation for showing up and beating off interlopers, and not acting as spies for the interlopers will be the smart thing to do.

If you "cheat" on a Guard Contract and gank your employers, that will not be considered griefing. They should have done a better job vetting their employees. Your reputation will collapse quickly and your alignment will quickly shift to...

It's certainly a novel system. I'm cautiously optimistic. It seems like sure, you could gank people for resources, but you won't be able to do much with them, since you won't have access to structures to make best use of them.will there also be equipment wear and tear? I liked that in both uo (originally) and darkfall, eventually you had to replace your gear.

Goblin Squad Member

Ok, Ryan, so.

First question, small scale issue:

With my CE account/char I do whatever I want, kill anyone I want, and hand every piece of gear, every resource, and every single coin, item of value, everything acquired, over to my second account, who proceeds to make anything I want, and hand it back.

My second account, of course, lives in the best settlement in the world, with access to everything/anything I need or want, because they've never done anything "wrong".

My CE char or group of CE chars then have the absolute best equipment money can buy.

Plan to handle this case?

Also, second question, large scale issue:

What stops an extremely devoted group of individuals from making the best possible settlement entirely for CE characters? Thus nullifying any downside to being CE, and allowing them the ability to do anything they want, anytime they want, to anyone they want?

Are the answers...?

1) The player cannot reach the highest levels of training, EVER, as chaotic evil, period? No matter what, that alignment cannot reach max skill/whatever, EVER? That will not be well received with those players desiring to play CE for any reason, but I'm curious all the same.

2) CE players cannot construct settlement?. Again, that too would not be well received by players currently planning 100% CE settlements of the highest quality.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

Berik wrote:
Psyblade wrote:

yes, but that means they have to pay for 2 accounts. But I am getting to a point where i am going to try and give up with this whole argument. There will always people who will want no risk and all the rewards (like in a themepark) and don't want to work for it.

It is a pointless discussion and as said before, you will lose loot when you die in this game. So either suck it up and sign up for the kickstarter to see how it is, find friends to play with or just leave.

I'm honestly curious as to what you're trying to accomplish here. On this page alone you've claimed that not liking one aspect means that this game just isn't for the complainer and they should stop discussing what they'd like to change. And now you're again misrepresenting things by claiming that those disagreeing with you just want to have no risk.

Things aren't as set in stone as you suggest. The mere existence of this thread and Ryan's postings on it shows that GW still want to engage with the community on the topic. In terms of PvP looting Ryan even said that what is lootable and how that system will work is still on the drawing board, so it's completely appropriate to give opinions on how one thinks that system should work.

Goblinworks are ultimately going to make the game that they're inspired to make and I wish them all the best in that regardless. But as a big fan of Pathfinder who currently is rather lukewarm on this game I feel it's a worthwhile thing to explain why. It wouldn't take a lot of changes to get me more interested in backing this game, so I might as well say what those changes would be rather than hoping GW guess at them.

Ultimately I trust that GW will follow their vision for the game, while also at least taking into account how the community feels about various aspects. I trust them to be able to look at numerous different ideas and opinions and use their judgement on what is workable and what isn't.

What I am trying to tell people is that they are to focused on the fact they might get ganked, lose items and then ragequit. The item loss is a part of a sandbox game and GW is putting the tools ingame to have your security and protection ensured. However people keep falling back on the same argument that there is no risk vs. reward and that it is all one sided.

I have been playing mmo's for a while and played both sandbox and themepark mmo's and what certain people want is either a mix of a sandbox or just a full themepark because they don't want to lose their hard earned items.

But, that is now done since Ryan described what is going to happen and what they envision as their goals.

451 to 500 of 807 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Kickstarter Community Thread: Player vs. Player Conflict All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.