Goblin Squad Member
|
Then there is the middle people, I found the post by some of these to be the worst out of the lot. very rude.
My intention isn't to be rude but I'm not making great effort to hide my honest opinion.
I've been played a bare minimum of 30 MMOs in my lifetime. More than I can count or recall.
I've played MMOs where there was no PVP, I've played MMOs where there was PVP and people saw it as a license to randomly slaughter everyone, and I've played games where PVP was confined to factions and/or instances.
Only once did I see a game where PVP was not restricted to instances or factions or burdened with excessive limitations, but the community chose not to let random ganking be the norm. There were massive wars between naval powers, there were small pirate and terrorist factions with limited operations, and most players lived in a world where they could PVE in peace most of the time but still had the occasional thrill of a random encounter where they had to fight or run their way out of a tricky situation.
The only problem was it was a Freelancer server with a max population of 50 players online at a time. Once Freelancer 2 was cancelled it couldn't even fill those slots. I still remember the five years I spent there as the most fun I've had in any game.
Finally there is a game that might replicate what I loved so much about Freelancer Universe. Meaningful player interaction. And one more thing. Freedom.
Pathfinder Online is the only MMO out there where the developers have made the promise to give mechanics that penalize anti-social behavior and enforce rules that will make griefing almost non-existent.
I've been following this game over a year. I've invested time in discussing its features to see some of my ideas actually influencing decisions being made. I've invested in a guild which is now one of if not thee most active guild in this community. Between the tech demo kickstarter, my part of our guild pledge, and my personal pledge I have 516$ invested in this game. Because while there is games for PVE and PVP extremists this is the ONLY game I am aware of dedicated to MEANINGFUL player interaction.
Suddenly this community seems FLOODED with people who want a server that ISN'T dependent on that. I'm smart enough to realize that if player interaction revolving heavily around conflict is the main content of the game, there is only one way to make a PVE server work. Change the content.
If there is one thing I've learned following these forums it's that GoblinWorks listens to its community. So yes I am very defensive when a ton of newcomers with nothing invested in this project come and demand a fundamental change in this game that will destroy the best hope for meaningful player interaction I've seen since I left Freelancer in 2007.
For the PVEers, there are plenty of other places to find what they want. For me... If PFO fails its back to making due with meaningless gankfests while I fruitlessly try to change games with well established RPKing communities and devs who don't care into games with meaningful player interaction.
Death is a set back only when you aren't playing smart.
I would expect bounties similar to what EVE has, you put up an amount, and people get chunks of that amount when they kill the person, depending on how much coin loss the bounty target had. So if you get a 1 million coin bounty, it stays on you until you have lost at least 800,000 coin.
Not sure what to think of assassinations, other than the cost to place an assassination contract should be greater than the cost of getting assassinated. And an assassination should carry harsher penalties to the assassin than a regular kill.
I qquoted Valkenr here as he seems to have listed the 3 types of PvP encounters in the game. I'll go through my reactions to them in hopes that this may shed some light on non-PvPers' thoughts.
(1) Death in the world. I can mitigate both the risk of this happening (travel with a group, stay out of high-danger areas, play at non-peak times) and the loss to me if it does (don't carry valuable items). I can't prevent it - which is honestly what I would prefer - but I can manage it. And if (very big if) the game mechanics, social pressures, and administrative tools work as advertised, this should be tolerable if not fun. I'm leery of those things working, but willing to give it a shot.
(2) Death by bounty. As I understand it, you can only place a bounty on someone who has murdered you. Not just killed you in a PvP encounter - the defender in a PvP attack may be the victor, but would not be subject to a bounty. Again, I have the means of mitigating this risk, in this case to zero (by not murdering anyone). Assuming this is the case, this is a non-issue.
(3) Death by assassination. I can't find much about this - I may have simply overlooked it as there are 180 or so forum pages and a year's worth of blogs - but it seems to be the case that anyone can put out a hit on me and I'd suffer some king of severe penalty when it is fulfilled. This really concerns me, as I have no way to proactively manage risk and loss.
For me, at least, the ability of other players to dictate what happens to my character is an unpleasant and scary thing. Where it is possible to minimize or avoid that, I'm happier. It may be that people like me simply do not have a place in an open-PvP world, but I thought it was worth trying to explain my concerns.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The PvP people say it can't happen that way.And so does GW.
Of course it can happen. Hundreds of games have managed it, so it's not like it's some sort of impossible pipe dream. GW have said that they aren't going to make it happen, which is their prerogative.
Some people are disappointed in that decision.
Personally, I'll wait and see how it plays out in practice, even if I'm not particular hopeful. No one else has managed an "open PvP" system that actually works as intended, so I'm not expecting GW to pull a miracle.
But hey, I hope they will prove me wrong.
The "can't" applies to having a "pvp toggle" button with the core design aspects of PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
(3) Death by assassination
I don't get what you mean by "Death by assassination" but there will be no feature in the game where one player can kill you and impose penalties that don't go away after you ressurrected.
What is ment with Assassination is that a group of players conspires to put you down during a very critical moment (f.e. just as you transfer a large amount of raw matrials in the name of your guild from one settlement to another). This takes a lot of subterfuge and preparation and is usually part of one large guild trying to best another large guild and not some personal thing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The PvP people say it can't happen that way.And so does GW.
Of course it can happen. Hundreds of games have managed it, so it's not like it's some sort of impossible pipe dream. GW have said that they aren't going to make it happen, which is their prerogative.
Some people are disappointed in that decision.
Personally, I'll wait and see how it plays out in practice, even if I'm not particular hopeful. No one else has managed an "open PvP" system that actually works as intended, so I'm not expecting GW to pull a miracle.
But hey, I hope they will prove me wrong.
Actually, many MUDs in days gone by did succeed at open PvP. It all depends on the maturity of the player base and how people react to griefers and the like. EVE is also another game I would nominate as having pretty much worked.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
(3) Death by assassination. I can't find much about this - I may have simply overlooked it as there are 180 or so forum pages and a year's worth of blogs - but it seems to be the case that anyone can put out a hit on me and I'd suffer some king of severe penalty when it is fulfilled. This really concerns me, as I have no way to...
You won't be able to find much on assassination, the devs even don't know how it is going to be implemented. One thing is sure though, they can't make it so anyone can place a contract on anybody, otherwise it just get's exploited. There has to be a barrier and restrictions, and this is probably something that is going to get played with and refined in the early enrollment phase.
@MicMan
Ryan told us that assassinations will carry penalties greater than normal death, it's bed time, so I'm not going to dig out the quote.
I don't get what you mean by "Death by assassination" but there will be no feature in the game where one player can kill you and impose penalties that don't go away after you ressurrected.
What is ment with Assassination is that a group of players conspires to put you down during a very critical moment (f.e. just when you transfer a large amount of raw matrials from one settlement to another). This takes a lot of subterfuge and preparation and is usually part of one large guild trying to best another large guild and not some personal thing.
I'd call "put(ing) you down" to be death by assassination. But semantics aside, we may be getting to part of the problem: to a non-PvPer, death of one's character is VERY personal. Again, it may be an unbridgable divide - you may have me assassinated just to encourage a war with my guild, nothing personal - but as I'm struggling under whatever game mechanics you've imposed on me (loss of my ability to manage my own risk), it feels very personal: I've been penalized, and you did it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Death by assassination. I can't find much about this - I may have simply overlooked it as there are 180 or so forum pages and a year's worth of blogs - but it seems to be the case that anyone can put out a hit on me and I'd suffer some king of severe penalty when it is fulfilled. This really concerns me, as I have no way to proactively manage risk and loss.
This feature isn't going to be used much on random adventurers and people who like to just avoid PVP while they do their own thing much. It sounds as if it will be complicated and/or expensive to perform, meaning in order for a hit to be put on you, you probably will have to give someone a reason to really want you dead. It will most likely be used on:
1. Major political figures.
2. Well known PVPers.
3. Loudmouths.
One of the two of us should be very concerned.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The "can't" applies to having a "pvp toggle" button with the core design aspects of PFO.
The text you quoted was talking about a separate PvE server, so I assumed that was what you were responding to. Either way, the difference is academic.
As you say, it's a core design. I like to think that design is an intentional process, which means that they very well could have designed a game with a clear split between PvE and PvP, but chose not to.
Which, as I mentioned, is their choice to make. I'm sure they realized from early on that not everyone would be thrilled with that decision.
Actually, many MUDs in days gone by did succeed at open PvP. It all depends on the maturity of the player base and how people react to griefers and the like. EVE is also another game I would nominate as having pretty much worked.
That's the thing, isn't it. Open-world PvP builds on the rather naive notion that people will self-regulate and won't be jerks about it. I've yet to see that actually happen in a game with any significant player base though.
As for EVE. Heh. I once started a brand new character, took him in his starter ship to to 0.0 space (yeah, that took a lot of tries) and played exclusively there. I'm not sure what your definition of "success" is. :P
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Been looking through the thread, wondering weather or no to support Pathfinder Online or not.
I see the PvE people ask if there could be a separate server just for PvE so they can enjoy the game too.
I see the PvP people say play it our way or go away.Then there is the middle people, I found the post by some of these to be the worst out of the lot. very rude.
Video: PaizoCon Pathfinder Online Presentation
I see the same thing but in a very different light and so conclude very different expectations. I see maybe 1 or 2 examples where people presented their position on this topic as a debate instead of a discussion (from both sides). The problem is when a position is not explained and middle ground is not offered when someone offers their opinion; then "it looks like" they might be making a statement of fact and that leads to further debating and naturally some curtness of responses (from both sides).
So you see: a) Differences can be represented much more as differences than they really are b) It just takes one person to stand up from the discussion table to make everyone else seated feel perhaps it has not gone so well - when real progress might have been made. :) I think there's been a lot of good progress in the discussion, personally - and it's up to individuals to explore for themselves the middlegrounds, if that has been offered (which it has).
Mostly people require information that can be agreed is applicable first. That takes time to process and consider and divulge, before developing an opinion further towards an informed decision*. Additionally, it's always worth pausing to consider that the people designing the mmorpg have probably had many of these discussions and a wealth of real experience on these topics. So a productive line of enquiry I could suggest:
Q:"Given mmorpgs have either failed to integrate pvp with pve or have avoided it to appeal to more players because of the associated problems with pvp and it's disproportionate influence to disrupt for other players, how have you designed PfO to overcome that problem, why did you feel it was necessary to take on this problem and how successful do you think you will be at solving this problem?"
Some good answers will naturally produce data to back up conclusions - and answers, likely to be multi-faceted as reality is not stuck in 2 dimensions of graphs or tables. Ryan Dancey presented some interesting sub graphs for "population dynamics" of players in mmorpgs in the presentation, that perhaps people who question the decision of pvp+pve might wish to refer to first and then develop further questions... the information is available: Make use of it I say!
--
*Apologies if this sounds like hectoring about straight-thinking: Just building the idea that mostly people discussing do have aligned interests: The best result for Pathfinder Online.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd call "put(ing) you down *personally*" to be death by assassination...
Ok, so "assassination" is if someone targets you especially, not by chance because you are the one who is now travelling this road, alone, pockets full of precious Kryptonite to steal, but rather because it is you.
What you must realize is that "assassination" is a rather boring act. I have to wait for you and only you. Have to plan things, stalk you, map out your routine. It is not something done lightly. Someone is putting a lot of effort into it.
Do you think this will happen even once in your career?
Berik's post on page 3 is an EXCELLENT summation of the issue for many of us. It was too long to fully quote, but his last statement works for me:
I wish the game the best of success regardless. I just think there are a lot of Pathfinder fans like me who would love to be able to actually explore Golarion, but who don't enjoy non-consensual PvP.
Best "concern" post I've seen yet.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You can't affect a rhetorical situation by going "Nu-uh!"
PFO as a sandbox, single-server game with player conflict reflects a lot of thought and clarity about trends in the industry, and a specific business model to leverage those trends.
So if you say something like "Why can't you just have a PVE server for us? What skin is it off your nose?" you're actually telling GW something like "Why don't you take a quarter of your develop capital and burn it/throw it out the window for us? What skin is it off your nose?" Consistently badgering someone else to do something strongly against their interests, "because you want it," isn't likely to get much traction.
So if you want to do anything other than a) carp b) flounce, you need to account for the reasons and constraints of the other side. If GW's analysis of the market is correct, if PFOs core design principles aren't arbitrary, then how do you propose getting what you want without GW committing economic suicide (and screwing us out of a game most of us desperately want to play)?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Open-world PvP builds on the rather naive notion that people will self-regulate and won't be jerks about it. I've yet to see that actually happen in a game with any significant player base though.
Most games come out with a pretty bare bones alignment system, and when it fails to accomplish anything say "Eh.... We tried."
GoblinWorks will be giving an alignment system where alignment is still important even if you never step foot in a starter town after your first time in game. They will be doing this by making some abilities for players hinge on alignment. Many settlement options hinge on alignment. Your ability to join/remain part of some clans hinges on alignment. It isn't like EVE, Darkfall, or Mortal where you move in to your clan's territory and your alignment never matters to you again.
Also none of these games make a major effort to deal with griefing. The developers consider griefing a valid playstyle and even applaud the creativity of griefers at times. The community picks up on this and considers it valid as well.
Ryan is the only developer I have EVER seen that really, truly, cares about stopping griefing.
I'd call "put(ing) you down *personally*" to be death by assassination...Ok, so "assassination" is if someone targets you especially, not by chance because you are the one who is now travelling this road, alone, pockets full of precious Kryptonite to steal, but rather because it is you.
What you must realize is that "assassination" is a rather boring act. I have to wait for you and only you. Have to plan things, stalk you, map out your routine. It is not something done lightly. Someone is putting a lot of effort into it.
Do you think this will happen even once in your career?
Two things.
First, going back to your previous post: "This takes a lot of subterfuge and preparation and is usually part of one large guild trying to best another large guild and not some personal thing". In this case, yes, I could certainly see myself as an assassin's target: I tend to end up in leadership positions, and if you want to draw my guild into a war, I - the non-PvPer - would be a much easier assessination target than, say, ConanthePvPGod.
Second, you're still missing the emotional component of the thing for non-PvPers like me. Even if it's not likely, it's a possibility, and as I don't like the loss of control over risk management to begin with, it looms larger as a negative than the things I can control. It's not a rational stance, but there you have it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also none of these games make a major effort to deal with griefing. The developers consider griefing a valid playstyle and even applaud the creativity of griefers at times. The community picks up on this and considers it valid as well.
Ryan is the only developer I have EVER seen that really, truly, cares about stopping griefing.
Honest question: If you lie in wait every day for a month, and kill me on sight (just the once per day, but every day), is that griefing? Because, you see, to me (the non-PvPer) it is. You're deliberately trying to kill me every time I log on. But if you're only doing it once per log-on, is it griefing to you? To GoblinWorks?
"Griefing" tends to mean different things to PvPers and non-PvPers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If someone is specifically setting out to kill you every day, I think that probably falls under harassment. It's not playing the game, it's deliberately setting out to disrupt your gameplay experience all the time.
I'm not a fan of non consensual pvp in general, I don't find it exciting to be attacked out of nowhere, I just find it irritating, particularly since flight generally isn't an option. But I also see that in some systems, such as this one, it IS the most viable option for their vision of the world. I do have my concerns over the mechanics to prevent griefing working, but this thread and a few others on the subject have gone a long way to allay many of my concerns for now. We'll see when there's more game developed how well it works.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I see the PvE people ask if there could be a separate server just for PvE so they can enjoy the game too.
I see the PvP people say play it our way or go away.
I hope I am not being counted in this. I want the vision of the game as expressed in the blogs to come to life. This means that the Anti-PvP people who want a version of the game that does not include PvP are working against the vision of the game. I don't want this people to go away, but I do want them to understand that the game will not work without PvP being in the mix. Maybe I have not done my best to convince then to give it a chance, I will work on that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also none of these games make a major effort to deal with griefing. The developers consider griefing a valid playstyle and even applaud the creativity of griefers at times. The community picks up on this and considers it valid as well.
Ryan is the only developer I have EVER seen that really, truly, cares about stopping griefing.
Honest question: If you lie in wait every day for a month, and kill me on sight (just the once per day, but every day), is that griefing? Because, you see, to me (the non-PvPer) it is. You're deliberately trying to kill me every time I log on. But if you're only doing it once per log-on, is it griefing to you? To GoblinWorks?
"Griefing" tends to mean different things to PvPers and non-PvPers.
If I lie in wait for you once a day every day, and you don't pick up on it / find a way to avoid it.....
Well I suppose that is slightly besides the point. As an anti-griefer I would say yes that is griefing unless you have given them some good reason to do so. We would probably deal with your problem for you if we couldn't just solve it by letting you take one of our basic Open World PVP survival courses.
I however don't think this case would be severe enough / a clear enough case or griefing to warrant the devs bringing out the banhammer. But if the banhammer could solve everything then things would be pretty boring for us.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The PvP people say it can't happen that way.And so does GW.
Of course it can happen. Hundreds of games have managed it, so it's not like it's some sort of impossible pipe dream. GW have said that they aren't going to make it happen, which is their prerogative.
Some people are disappointed in that decision.
Personally, I'll wait and see how it plays out in practice, even if I'm not particular hopeful. No one else has managed an "open PvP" system that actually works as intended, so I'm not expecting GW to pull a miracle.
But hey, I hope they will prove me wrong.
I might be a fool, but I do think they will pull this off. Some of the ideas here have not been tried in a Fantasy game before. I hope that you are surprised by its success.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I totally get that I'll be able to wander around the secure towns and be pretty well protected. But I'd still like to feel like an adventurer in the game. It doesn't seem as if this is designed to let you be adventurous without indulging in PvP. I'm sure some think I just want to avoid danger but that isn't the case. I don't mind if the wilderness is ful of dangerous beasts to battle. Maybe I'll run into monsters I can't beat and be killed, or forced to run away, or come across some other players and team up. That sort of interaction maintains danger and is fun, but I'm much happier being hunted by an emotionless collection of pixels than a fellow human who thinks killing anyone wandering around is funny.
This sums up my concern quite well. I totally get how the concept of the game is supposed to work and respect that if achieved, will make for a very interesting game. But, I fear the human element. There will be folks in the game who's sole mission will be to make life difficult for other players. And while I know this isn't PnP Pathfinder, but can you imagine a campaign where there were only these pillars of civilization and instant death awaited you if you stepped outside of them? Yes, I know it is a different thing to be an MMO, but if you do not account for those that want to do the above, you are going to lose a large portion of the community and the game will turn into faction vs. faction.
If the game does not account for some reasonable expectation that you can wander about, then it may lose me. And, if that is to be the case and the game is heading in that direction, ok, I accept that it may not be for me. I can accept the 'non-consensual PvP' and respect that this aspect of the game will be interesting, as long as the consequences are appropriate. But, I also want the chance to 'see the world' and I need some ability to do so, without the feeling of complete dread in the attempt. Stealth, Invisibility, Speed, Flight...something I can do to break glass in case of emergency when the world at large imposes its will upon me. If I go down, fine, as long as I feel I had a fighting chance. If I am ganked at every step...not sure I will be able to keep with the game.
There is not always going to be the opportunity to travel in groups. And how many is enough? Perhaps I need to shift my mindset. In any case, I am in for the short term at least and I am very interested to see how this plays out.
As someone said before, I just want to be sure these concerns are considered now in the design, and not patched in later.
--Bart
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the other thing for me is that while I may not be particularly interested in pvp myself, I AM interested in a world that is shaped in this manner. Maybe eventually I will want to take part, or maybe I'll find a non combat role, such as a diplomat or politician. I think there is great potential in this game, despite my misgivings.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The relevant point to me is that GW are not aiming to prevent griefing by making it more difficult (ie challenging), but by letting it have consequences.
I'm cautiously optimistic that between the system, other players and devs, we can make a game where repeated griefing makes your character effectively unplayable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Whenever you decide to create an MMO that isn't based on minority interest (forced PVP), let me know. Forced PVP, particularly with lost items, has been a tired concept since the days of MUD. There are a minority of extremely competitive players that enjoy that. Most mature players do not. We have very limited amounts of time to game and need to make the most of those times... even if what we're doing is repetitive (resource gathering)... it is enjoyable. Unlike having some snot-nosed kid who has more time to play the game kill you for no truly relevant reason.
This is exactly why I didn't Kickstart the first time around. I had a sneaking suspicion that what was being built was relying heavily on concepts that felt 20 years outdated... today's post confirms that.
Figure out how to make this a PVE game and I assure you that you'll capture the majority not the minority. If you want a commmon sense check, just count the number of WoW servers - pvp and not.
@Slaunyeh, Chiassa: Could you explain how GW will make any money if they were to make this a PVE game?
I don't recall asking that it be made so. I do recall having said that I will let my investment ride, and will be in the beta.
My interest in this discussion is in moving toward an understanding that may help GoblinWorks attract, and keep, players like me who are willing to take manageable risks but who have had bad experiences with PvP elsewhere. I at least am very interested in the possibilities for RP, social interaction, and exploration; I just don't want to feel I can't progress without griefing (a loaded term).
Hence my analysis above of death in the world (manageable), death by bounty (avoidable), and death by assassination (worrisome). And also my question to Andius, which I need to respond to. Sorry this is a bit choppy; I'm working as well, and popping back and forth as time permits.
I can accept non-consensual PvP.
What I dislike is not be able to defend myself.
If someone choses to attack me on his term, for whatever reason, that's perfectly fine. But I want a chance to strike back. not later, but now.
If I lose because I'm ill-equiped, inexperienced in duels, or I stumble on my keyboard, that's ok. If I lose because you put me in a situation where I mechanicaly cannot win, there's no reason to play.
Will I face this kind of situation in PFO ?
(The only open pvp I tried was in Aion. Being ganked by a bus while I was alone farming crystals actually made me stop playing the game)
If I lie in wait for you once a day every day, and you don't pick up on it / find a way to avoid it.....
Here's the thing. If I do pick up on it, my choices - as a really, REALLY bad PvPer - seem to be (1) not logging in, (2) logging in, fighting and dying, and going about my business, (3) going somewhere else, or (4) hoping someone's around I can ask for help, and that they'll be as willing to help on day 5, or 10, or 30. In three of those cases, you (not you specifically, just as an example) you have, from my perspective, made my game experience worse. It's the sort of thing that drives people who aren't really PvPers away. The last option is the community-based one... but if you were my guildmate, wouldn't you get awfully tired of riding to the rescue? I'd certainly get tired of asking!
Well I suppose that is slightly besides the point. As an anti-griefer I would say yes that is griefing unless you have given them some good reason to do so. We would probably deal with your problem for you if we couldn't just solve it by letting you take one of our basic Open World PVP survival courses.
Which is very kind of you. I should note here that I've played MMORPGs since 1995 (AOL's Neverwinter Nights), and given PvP an honest try in all of them. I am simply BAD at it, so I'm not sure how much good a survival course would be. To the extent that risk is manageable (see my post above), and griefing isn't tolerated, I'm willing to give it another try, though. And figuring out what an open-PvP game would consider to be griefing is part of that - as is trying to explain what sort of reaction that brings out in a non-PvPer.
I however don't think this case would be severe enough / a clear enough case or griefing to warrant the devs bringing out the banhammer. But if the banhammer could solve everything then things would be pretty boring for us.
Not necessarily the banhammer. Would it warrant administrative warning (i.e., "you should really knock that off now")?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Slaunyeh, Chiassa: Could you explain how GW will make any money if they were to make this a PVE game?
Uhm. Box sales? Subscriptions? Micro-transactions? You know, the same way every other video game ever made has managed to make money? The same way it will make money as a PvP game or an Airbus flight sim.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...and death by assassination (worrisome)...
First, if you can't stand the chance that your PC will be attacked now and then by other players because they want to take the precious things that you just farmed or whatnot, then you might find enjoyment in PFO by being a trader or a crafter, never leaving the save settlements, simply buying things from other players. You would miss out on a lot of things but you would be totally save.
Second, if you want to venture into the wild wide open, then there are some things to mind:
1. The world is huge, you won't trip over other players 24/7
2. Anyone attacking you outside of a declared guild war can be branded a criminal which means he can be attacked without repercussions and may, based on the level of severity, not be able to enter some settlements at all.
3. You may even put a bounty on said PCs head enabling bounty hunters to use their skills and track down the offender which might enable these hunters to bring back your stuff.
All in all I say these are pretty drastic measures to prevent people from mindlessy attacking other players.
So, no, you don't need to fear being attacked every minute of your online life, but you surely will be attacked every now and then.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Rafkin
You make a great point. Perhaps the more you hunt down others -- when you finally become the hunted, more of your gear is subject to looting.
Perhaps this would lessen the desire for people to run around and kill people for the 'fun of it'.
@Chiassa
The game world is going to be huge (especially for the amount of players it is being designed for to start), I think that for the amount of 'griefers' I expect, they will not be able to cover near enough ground to be consistently bothering individual people. I think your argument has merit though, I would prefer a system where you have at least some control, ie your manageable and avoidable remarks verses worrisome.
I like what you are bringing into the discussion, as it is important to understand the non-PVP mindset, to ensure that the developers get a feel for all segments of the game population.
This game will have open PVP, as its in GW's core assumption. This does not mean that they cannot ensure to make it fun for everyone - and its anti-griefing policies should ensure that most of your concerns are followed up on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Berik's post on page 3 is an EXCELLENT summation of the issue for many of us. It was too long to fully quote, but his last statement works for me:
I wish the game the best of success regardless. I just think there are a lot of Pathfinder fans like me who would love to be able to actually explore Golarion, but who don't enjoy non-consensual PvP.
Best "concern" post I've seen yet.
I, too, want to explore Golarion! But this is a game built on the foundation of meaningful player interaction. It isn't intended to be a single-player game. The only way to make a high-quality game, whether player-interaction oriented, or single-player, is to build the game from the ground up with that foundation.
So the issue for these discussions must start from the basis of meaningful player-interaction, and then proceed from there. Thankfully a number of the discussions and design ideas are dealing appropriately with how to strengthen the basic foundation of meaningful player interaction.
Mic, I'm getting an overtone of condescension from your post; you may not intend it, but phrasing is important, and when I read something like "if you can't stand the chance..." or "the precious things...", it sounds rather... harsh. I think we both would like to see PFO succeed, and given that PvP is a component, the only way to include interested non-PvPers like me (and I assume GoblinWorks would like to do so) is if we are comfortable being honest about our concerns, which include an emotional component. Condescension from others isn't helpful in moving that discussion forward.
To address your points:
...and death by assassination (worrisome)...First, if you can't stand the chance that your PC will be attacked now and then by other players because they want to take the precious things that you just farmed or whatnot, then you might find enjoyment in PFO by being a trader or a crafter, never leaving the save settlements, simply buying things from other players. You would miss out on a lot of things but you would be totally save.
You snipped out one-third of the scenarios I outlined, and responded only to that as if I can't stand ever being attacked. The difference here is, in two of the three cases - those you didn't address - I know my risks, and I can manage them. Not erase them, but manage them, by choosing when I go somewhere, who I'm with, how much I'm carrying on me, etc. I cannot manage the risk for the third - except, possibly, by being a complete nonentity within the game, which isn't in my personality to do - and it is that - the inability to assess risk and proactively mitigate (but not erase) it - that is a concern. The only way to address that concern is by honest discussion, not simply a recommendation that I sit safely (and boringly) in a settlement. There must be other options?
Second, if you want to venture into the wild wide open, then there are some things to mind:
1. The world is huge, you won't trip over other players 24/7
2. Anyone attacking you outside of a declared guild war can be branded a criminal which means he can be attacked without repercussions and may, based on the level of severity, not be able to enter some settlements at all.
3. You may even put a bounty on said PCs head enabling bounty hunters to use their skills and track down the offender which might enable these hunters to bring back your stuff.All in all I say these are pretty drastic measures to prevent people from mindlessy attacking other players.
All of these are part of the calculation of risk I tried to address in earlier posts. If I thought the game would involve people "mindlessly attacking other players," I'd not be having this discussion.
So, no, you don't need to fear being attacked every minute of your online life, but you surely will be attacked every now and then.
Understood. It's getting to an understanding of the options involved that's my intent in this discussion. I'm trying to do so now, rather than later in development, and the only way to do that is to ask questions, and engage in some back-and-forth on the issue.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
-snip- Figure out how to make this a PVE game and I assure you that you'll capture the majority not the minority. If you want a commmon sense check, just count the number of WoW servers - pvp and not.
You may find this of interest*: Guild Wars 2 Is Disappointing
*note GW2 has a lot of merit (& is fun) as a themepark mmorpg.
I can accept non-consensual PvP.
What I dislike is not be able to defend myself.
If someone choses to attack me on his term, for whatever reason, that's perfectly fine. But I want a chance to strike back. not later, but now.
If I lose because I'm ill-equiped, inexperienced in duels, or I stumble on my keyboard, that's ok. If I lose because you put me in a situation where I mechanicaly cannot win, there's no reason to play.
Will I face this kind of situation in PFO ?(The only open pvp I tried was in Aion. Being ganked by a bus while I was alone farming crystals actually made me stop playing the game)
Short Answer: No. :)
Longer Answer: The power curve between players is not intended to be nearly as steep as themepark mmorpgs, it's intended to be a mixture: level, player skill, gear, numbers, circumstance, chance etc... which sounds great to me. It definitely intended that groups = more safety = more social. That's the design objective intention more or less.
@Rafkin
You make a great point. Perhaps the more you hunt down others -- when you finally become the hunted, more of your gear is subject to looting.
Perhaps this would lessen the desire for people to run around and kill people for the 'fun of it'.
@Chiassa
The game world is going to be huge (especially for the amount of players it is being designed for to start), I think that for the amount of 'griefers' I expect, they will not be able to cover near enough ground to be consistently bothering individual people. I think your argument has merit though, I would prefer a system where you have at least some control, ie your manageable and avoidable remarks verses worrisome.
I like what you are bringing into the discussion, as it is important to understand the non-PVP mindset, to ensure that the developers get a feel for all segments of the game population.
This game will have open PVP, as its in GW's core assumption. This does not mean that they cannot ensure to make it fun for everyone - and its anti-griefing policies should ensure that most of your concerns are followed up on.
Thank you. I think it will be possible for me to both enjoy PFO, and contribute meaningfully to it. It's just in my nature to pick away at things so I have a very clear understanding of the situation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But this is a game built on the foundation of meaningful player interaction. It isn't intended to be a single-player game.
I don't really mind the PvP focus of PFO. It might be slightly disappointing, but whatever. I can cope. But comments like the above really bake my noodle.
You're using 'meaningful player interaction' like some kind of gospel, while heavily implying that the alternative to 'meaningful player interaction' is 'single-player games'.
Give me a friggin break. Since when has 'meaningful player interaction' ever been synonym with 'gleefully stabbing you to death'? You certainly can have 'meaningful player interact' that doesn't involve your sword. And I can certainly have a game where I'm not stabbing you with my sword, without that game automatically being labelled a single player game.
Here's the skinny: I don't want to be your crafting bunny. I want to play a cool warrior who slay dragons or go spelunking in dark, long-forgotten ruins. The only thing PvP bring to the table, is to making everything I want to do in the game slightly more inconvenient, or take slightly longer to accomplish. You know, from randomly dying ever so often.
If the game is good enough, I can live with the inconvenience.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have one question for all the "anti-PvP" folks: Have you ever been tempted to go into a PvP battleground or whatever in a game like WoW?
I know a lot of players who would never dream of rolling up on a PvP server, but who actually had a lot of fun doing a battleground once in a while - or who thought it might be fun, but were too unsure of their abilities to participate.
I was that person for a very long time. I'd had utterly detestable experiences on PvP Servers: walking out the gates of Felwithe in EverQuest as a level 4 Mage and being killed a dozen times in a row by a level 10 Mage whom I had no chance whatsoever of beating; trying to level up in Stranglethorn Vale on World of Warcraft in my low 30's and being killed a dozen times in a row by a level 50 whom I had no chance whatsoever of beating; etc. A pattern emerged.
What I would encourage all of you to do is read over Ryan's explanations of why PvP is a necessity in PFO with an open mind. It might require to let go (briefly at least) of a very strongly held belief that "there's no reason they can't just add a PvE server". But I believe that you will find that Ryan has given this a lot of thought, and from a perspective that few of us really have.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think Ryan is correct in thinking that most of the cause of the concern is what has come before in regards to PvP in MMOs.
What Ryan is planning for PFO is nothing like the PvP in existing or previous MMOs. If you've had bad experiences in the past with PvP, I understand and have as well. However, please keep in mind that PFO PvP will be nothing like what you are accustomed to, for many reasons.
|
If GW's analysis of the market is correct
It's not, but I still think a game like Pathfinder Online is very much needed.
The era of the theme park isn't over. The market is just too saturated with them. Those developers that treat their game as a service and provide frequent quality updates can continue to do well. Consider Rift, its population has been growing since February(one month after SWTOR came out) and it's had twelve major content updates in less than two years with a thirteenth update that should hit next week or at least before Christmas.
I've been following this thread, and I think I've come to the conclusion that this is definitely a game that I want to wait and see on, and not jump in feet first.
Not because I'm anti-PvP (My Bartle Score is Primary Killer, strong Achiver/Explorer, low social... Or, a Club with Diamond/Spade tendencies and not much Heart if you use Suits)
Instead, I'm not sure that anyone, including the devs, actually have a grasp of how PvP is going to work. There's some ideas, but they're very nebulous right now.
I'm very interested in how well a solo 'evil' character can play in this game. I'm very concerned with what happens when there's a Goonswarm that decides to run a Burn Jita maneuver. I'm very interested in what protections there will be. Getting the balance set up properly where griefing is limited but we still have people being content for us and having it be fun is the trick.
I can envision a pipe-dream world where a guild caravan of rare goods is ambushed by a hired squad of mercenaries who are tasked with killing the caravan leader and claiming some key resources to take back to the individual that hired them. I can see that being a great battle, balanced, tense, losses on both sides.
However, I think it's much more likely that the bandits will be an overwhelming force and it's a slaughter.
I also haven't seen how the game will handle the issues of 'I'm fighting a monster PvE in the wilds, and you sit around waiting and then jump in while I'm hurt and finish us both off, stealing my kill and looting my body'.
So, I think I need to wait and see. I'm very, very interested in how all this will work, but at this point I think it makes the most sense to wait and see it once the game is released.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I keep seeing "Meaningful player interaction" mentioned here.
Meaningful player interaction does not inherently involve a sword.
Meaningful player interaction does not mean Player VS Player.
(NOTE: it's called 'role playing game,' not 'kill other characters game')
I know that there are lots of other elements to PFO involving players, but many of these posts equate meaningful player interaction being PvP (not as a server designation, but as player fights) and I'm discussing that.
If Goblinworks:
A - builds a game where meaningful interaction lets a player enjoy the MMO;
B - without being randomly/consistently killed/robbed, or spending copious amounts of time playing in a way to avoid being killed/robbed (like cowering in NPC settlements or adventuring with bodyguards);
C- then THAT will succeed in meaningful player interaction for a large group of the current Pathfinder fan base.
Relying on self-regulation of MMOers is about as feasible as waiting for Santa Clause to bring your presents.
Goblinworks has talked about the mechanics to punish the kind of PvP behavior that plagues MMOs. The degree to which they succeed at this, I think, will play a HUGE role in whether or not PFO survives.
Because PFO has chosen to build a system that focuses mostly on punishing, rather than preventing, this behavior, many PF players who aren't PvP oriented are voicing their opionins because they are skeptical they will enjoy this type of setup.
I love Robert E. Howard. It's what led me to play Age of Conan. I love Golarion. Adventuring in the River Kingdoms appeals to me. A subscription based MMO needs continually strong membership. Current PF players are the most likely first buyers. So, assuring non-PvP fans that they will enjoy this game, in SPITE of it being mostly PvP, is (I think) important.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Whenever you decide to create an MMO that isn't based on minority interest (forced PVP), let me know. Forced PVP, particularly with lost items, has been a tired concept since the days of MUD. There are a minority of extremely competitive players that enjoy that...
...Figure out how to make this a PVE game and I assure you that you'll capture the majority not the minority. If you want a commmon sense check, just count the number of WoW servers - pvp and not.
If I wanted to be playing WoW... I would be playing WoW. If you want a common sense check, check the TOR / LOTRO servers and notice how much they are charging these days.
The way to make a successful MMO isn't to pander to the demands of a niche that is already well catered to. It's to cater to a niche that has been ignored. It's to create something new and innovative.
GW doesn't need / shouldn't aim this game at the majority of players. If they make their target niche very happy, a minority though we may be, we'll take care of them. If you need proof of this, check the EVE server and how much they're charging these days. Now think about the cost to develop and launch each of those three MMOs.