Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

PVP Zone Types


Pathfinder Online

Goblin Squad Member

First, before I say anything else this is not discussing PvP zones in the context of theme-parks which are a flat on / off switch. The zones being discussed are most comparable (but not identical) to EVE zones.

What sets these zones apart is the ease with which someone unwilling to participate in PvP can be engaged.

Here is my proposed system:

Zone 1 (Safe-Zones) = This is exclusive to major NPC settlements and starter towns. Any PvP initiated in these settings (outside possible exceptions like a duel arena) will result in high reputation loss and summon NPC guards who kill the agressors, and if the defenders were killed, kill any looters, revive the defender and return their goods. The closer to the edge of a Zone 1 area, the weaker the guards, to the point they can be temporarily defeated by well organized group farther out. Zone 1 areas should be set up to primarily be used by newbs who are just learning the game. For anyone who's spent more than 24 hours in-game, they should generally be a poor place for finding PvE content and gathering resources.

Zone 2 (Patrolled Zones)= Zone 2 areas should generally be the areas right outside Zone 1's or sometimes on their own as minor NPC settlements. Zone 2's give 100% reputation loss from killing people, and SADs issued here only protect the issuer from reputation loss. The attacker flag and alignment loss still apply at 100% if you kill someone who doesn't comply. NPC guards may still be present on major roadways or near points of importance. They are not present by most PvE content. The PvE content and gathering offered here should cater mostly to players who have been playing 24-72 hours.

Zone 3 (Contested Zones)= These are zones that have no affiliation to an NPC faction (Unlike Zone 1-2) but where the reputation / alignment system still hold sway. The majority of PFO including all major road systems is Zone 3. There are no NPC guards outside ones spawned by player controlled structures. Most Zone 3 hexes are claimable. Reputation loss still exists at 100%. SADs can be issued for 0% rep loss, 50% alignment loss, and 50% length on the attacker flag if you kill someone who refuses to comply. The PvE / Gathering content offered in Zone 3s should be extensive and rewarding enough that entering Zone 4/5 areas is seen as optional.

Zone 4 (Wilderness)= These are areas with particularly good gathering / NPCs to kill. They are the Morias, Mirkwoods, and Mordors of Golarion. Reputation loss from killing is lowered to 10% here and the alignment impact of killing to 50%. SADs issued here carry 0 reputation penalty, 5% alignment shift for killing, and you are only flagged during the fight. It expires immediately afterward and does not work toward a murderer flag.

Zone 5 (No Man's Land)= These are incredibly dangerous, unclaimable hexes. They are home to powerful monsters that drop amazing rewards, incredibly good crafting materials, and content designed specifically for players to fight over such as unique crafting stations that can be used to give player crafted items keywords specific to that station. The is no penalties for killing anyone here. Period. These are the Mount Dooms of Golarion.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Andius, I like the deliniation of hex types. The disconnect I have is this: why does my LG Paladin of Ompyfratz get lowered rep and alignment hits for killing unflagged people in Zones 4 and 5? I don't get why the consequence rules can't apply to the whole map.

Also, are zone 4 areas claimable? I'd think that the line between wilderness and settlement/POI would simply be a claim. So once a company claimed territory (requiring a certain amount of influence), wilderness converts to claimed/contested. So zone 4 converts to zone 3. If that's the case, there could still be a drop in the number and type of NPC creatures.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I must say that I dislike the thought of Consequence-Free zones. They go against the very design principles that lured me. Though, I believe it has been stated by Ryan that they will exist. Zone 3 should remain 100% alignment loss and 100% attacker flag. Zones 4 and 5 are unnecessary in my eyes.

Also, I am of the opinion that crafter is meant to largely be a PvE experience as part of the desire to cater to multiple play-styles. Special crafting stations for non-combat specialized players in the most combat intensive areas seems like a punishment for being a crafter. Gatherers/Harvesters may be more likely to have to expect to go into dangerous zones as part of their job descriptions.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
Andius, I like the deliniation of hex types. The disconnect I have is this: why does my LG Paladin of Ompyfratz get lowered rep and alignment hits for killing unflagged people in Zones 4 and 5? I don't get why the consequence rules can't apply to the whole map.

The lowered reputation hit is because a player can comfortably enjoy 90% of the game content without ever entering a Zone 4 or 5 area. Players going there should be expecting a high probability of PvP. These are places where the more peaceful players such as Hobbs (No offense Hobbs) will likely never go. Reputation is a reflection of how much of a jerk you are, and you aren't really being a jerk when you kill people in an area designed to promote PvP. Especially Zone 5s. Zone 5's exist for no other purpose than to be fought over.

As far as alignment. I agree to a large extent. I have a distaste for the concept of alignment free PvP zones because good characters aren't going to start slaying one another in any location. This is mainly something being pushed by evil players and something Ryan had talked about, but its a point I'm willing to concede.

I actually do agree with the idea of lowered alignment loss in some areas though. Chalk it up to increased confusion in an unstable environment where mistakes are more forgivable. If you're in Mordor, you have good reason to believe everyone is an enemy. When you're in the Shire...

One thing I'd like to point out is that by current mechanics someone with a champion flag would lose it if they RPKed in a Zone 4 area. As someone planning to constantly wear a champ flag, I want it to stay that way.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
Also, I am of the opinion that crafter is meant to largely be a PvE experience as part of the desire to cater to multiple play-styles. Special crafting stations for non-combat specialized players in the most combat intensive areas seems like a punishment for being a crafter. Gatherers/Harvesters may be more likely to have to expect to go into dangerous zones as part of their job descriptions.

Think of it this way. PvPers will rely on crafters / harvesters for their gear. Crafters and harvesters can produce 90%+ of the items in demand in the safer Zone 3 areas where constant PvPer protection isn't really needed.

But to make that less than 10% or really awesome items they'll need heavy PvPer protection. This is something they can bypass and still fully enjoy the game, but it's there for the braver among them and carries a reward for the increased hassle.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius,

Your point about reduced rep and alignment sound fair for those zone 5 monster hexes. I think zero (or greatly reduced) rep loss in those areas makes a lot of sense from that perspective. I think moderate (like 50%) alignment hits could make sense, also, based on your reasoning, but I could be persuaded otherwise. And certainly flags would need to be reaxamined for those zone 5 areas.

If the difference between your zone 3 and zone 4 is just that there is an influence-backed claim in zone 3, then I think the normal reputation and alignment rules should extend into those zone 4 wilderness/unclaimed hexes.

Wars and feuds will still provide plenty of space for PvP.

Goblin Squad Member

Zone 1 Problem: Does not account for Assassination, Bounty, War or Feud.

The NPC Starter Cities would become a safe haven for those looking to avoid the Consequences of PVP.

General Problem: Nerfing the SAD system, while not addressing any other PVP Flag based activity. The SAD is a trade window / negotiation, and does not trigger the attacker flag.

Another Point: Alignment shifts are not a consequence, they are a reflection of your character's actions. You choose the alignment your character becomes, that is not a consequence, it is a benefit.

PFO should have zones, identical to EVE's, it is a great system and it is simple to understand.

Almost Safe = Lower Rewards

Not Safe = Moderate Rewards

Prepare to Die = Greatest Rewards

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

Zone 1 Problem: Does not account for Assassination, Bounty, War or Feud.

The NPC Starter Cities would become a safe haven for those looking to avoid the Consequences of PVP.

As I intended.

Andius wrote:
Zone 1 areas should be set up to primarily be used by newbs who are just learning the game. For anyone who's spent more than 24 hours in-game, they should generally be a poor place for finding PvE content and gathering resources.

Zone 1 areas do not offer rewards that are really worthwhile for anyone but the freshest newb. They are an area for ultra-newbs and socializing. Allowing wars, feuds etc. to take place there does not make sense from either a roleplay OR meta-game perspective. There is no reason the guards would sit back and let people slaughter eachother in the streets, and there is no reason anyone needs to be able to kill each-other in an area designed for first day newbs. I would expect that there might be a of slums area of Thornkeep considered Zone 2, but I can't think of a single good reason to allow wars in Fort Riverwatch and Inevitable.

Bluddwolf wrote:
General Problem: Nerfing the SAD system, while not addressing any other PVP Flag based activity. The SAD is a trade window / negotiation, and does not trigger the attacker flag.

This point is in direct contradiction with the next point that YOU make. The reason it should now effect alignment is because the idea that "Chaotic-evil is going to suck!" has been withdrawn and changed to "Low reputation is going to suck." There is still no effect to reputation and so there is no nerf.

The outlaw flag as is currently outlined opens you up to PvP without any consequences 100% of the time. So the attacker flag isn't actually a nerf at all, and comes more from my desire to see killing outlaws still effect your good-evil alignment if they are not attacker flagged.

If you think about it for a second. This would completely prevent champions from hunting outlaws unless they have another flag or are chaotic-evil. Something I CAN currently do. It's a good thing for you, if you actually stick to a chaotic-neutral alignment.

Bluddwolf wrote:
Another Point: Alignment shifts are not a consequence, they are a reflection of your character's actions. You choose the alignment your character becomes, that is not a consequence, it is a benefit.

For you that's a valid point. For anyone trying to maintain a good alignment, it will be seen as a consequence. So really when I talk about "alignment consequences" it's something that can be ignored if you already have the alignment I'm saying it will slide you toward, or just don't care about your alignment.

Bluddwolf wrote:
PFO should have zones, identical to EVE's, it is a great system and it is simple to understand.

They also don't work. Any newb who joins a corporation is fully exposed to abuse by veteran griefers anywhere in the game because of a broken / ineffective war system

Low-sec is actually probably thee most dangerous space out there. It's absolutely filled with RPKs while in null sec there was nobody outside my alliance in system with me 90% of the time. If anything Low-sec should have the HIGHEST rewards because it's such a bloodbath.

In null sec your alignment is entirely meaningless, and that's the majority of the map! If PFO had a consequence free zone as large as null-sec then a paladin could walk up to absolutely anyone and gank them almost anywhere on the map. That's not not meaningful. It's not Pathfinder. And it will not be what we receive in Pathfinder Online.

[sidenote]
For those not keeping track that's 2 people who think my system favors PvPers too much, 1 who's upset that it restricts PvP too much.

Carry on. ;)
[/sidenote]

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lifedragn wrote:

I must say that I dislike the thought of Consequence-Free zones. They go against the very design principles that lured me. Though, I believe it has been stated by Ryan that they will exist. Zone 3 should remain 100% alignment loss and 100% attacker flag. Zones 4 and 5 are unnecessary in my eyes.

I agree with this totally. Even the oft quoted "Free-for-all-zones" reference by Ryan is open to both interpretation and redesign. I too feel not only are consequence free zones against the spirit of the game that attracted me, but they are against the spirit of Golarion...literally. One consequence, reputation, measures how well you play the game as intended...why would there be anywhere this is not encouraged? The other is a measure of how much the gods of Golarion approve of one's actions, again, why would there be places on Golarion they don't look? I just don't get it.

And again, I am not saying it should not be a PvP free-for-all...I have always argued for fulltime all one zone PvP...in fact I was an opponent of wardens and safety zones in NPC cities.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.
KitNyx wrote:
Lifedragn wrote:

I must say that I dislike the thought of Consequence-Free zones. They go against the very design principles that lured me. Though, I believe it has been stated by Ryan that they will exist. Zone 3 should remain 100% alignment loss and 100% attacker flag. Zones 4 and 5 are unnecessary in my eyes.

I agree with this totally. Even the oft quoted "Free-for-all-zones" reference by Ryan is open to both interpretation and redesign. I too feel not only are consequence free zones against the spirit of the game that attracted me, but they are against the spirit of Golarion...literally. One consequence, reputation, measures how well you play the game as intended...why would there be anywhere this is not encouraged? The other is a measure of how much the gods of Golarion approve of one's actions, again, why would there be places on Golarion they don't look? I just don't get it.

And again, I am not saying it should not be a PvP free-for-all...I have always argued for fulltime all one zone PvP...in fact I was an opponent of wardens and safety zones in NPC cities.

I generally agree and would like to add:

I would like the PvP hotspots to arise emergently from player action, not be static. Conditions like feuds and wars, large groups running flags in one area etc. can allow for congregation of PvPers. If valuable resources are found in one area, bandits will come and so will bounty hunters, crusaders, enforcers and more in their wake.

I would prefer one ruleset that is good and adaptible enough to allow PvP where and when it organically arises, not a forced, static, division into areas of lots of PvP / relative safety.

I think such a division into security zones (apart from different density of guards in different areas, which has been confirmed) is selling the reputation+flag systems short and taking away player choice.

If it turns out the rep+flag systems don't fully do their jobs, that they too heavily hamper 'legit' PvP from taking place OR create too much of a spillover of PvP into the 'wrong' areas, then I think something like this should be concidered but I still think that there can and will be areas of higher and lower PvP activity arising spontaneously in the world following players' choices and meaningful interactions without the kind of zones with different PvP rules that are being proposed here.

Goblin Squad Member

Hmmmm. I actually agree with you Wurner. There really isn't a need for PvP zones until EE releases and we get an idea of if people even need areas more prone to PvP.

The idea of slaughtering people free of consequence or alignment shift purely because of where they are has no basis in the lore.

I would say it's a fun > realism mechanic but you are right. It's a solution to a problem that may not even exist. It's better to see if people will create their own hotspots first.

Goblin Squad Member

Another reason against static 'PvP-areas' is that the people who don't really want PvP may think along the lines: "oh that is a PvP zone and I am not a PvPer, I will never set my foot there."

Having the same rules everywhere will counter player segregation issues and lower the threshold for some to explore more freely and leave the NPC guarded areas. This will promote a better mix of players of different playstyles and provide opportunities for those hesistant to PvP to 'dip their toes' and perhaps learn to embrace that side of the game as well.

Such players may read in chat that there is a lot of PvP activity in "Mirkwood" today and thus decide to go adventure in "Moria" instead, knowing that they are at least not going to be considered free prey. There very well may be player aggression against them in Moria too but if there is it follows the same rules that they are used to from the other parts of the world, thus not "locking them out" (as they may percieve it) from exploring all of the world.

Maybe a group of good-aligned PvEers come across a fight between a few champions and a few (whatever the evil counterpart of champion is) and say to themselves: "If we jump in we can turn the tide so good can prevail!". A good introduction to PvP that they may never have experienced if they would have stayed within sight of the walls of an NPC settlement their entire time.

Goblin Squad Member

Just turn them into "harsher death penalty" hexes? I think that's really what some ultra-pvp'ers are really after?

Goblin Squad Member

AvenaOats wrote:
...turn them into "harsher death penalty" hexes?

We've not yet had, if I remember, a workable suggestion on how to alert folks they've gone "too far" in a game we hope has as minimal a HUD as we can get away with. I prefer, as others have laid out above, one Golarion, with one set of "how it works"; they might make the display one tiny bit simpler.

Goblin Squad Member

It just has to be maybe a couple of hexes where "the gates of hell" have opened or some other thematic anomaly, in one corner of the map, up for Evil/Chaotic players (with low rep) who enjoy that content theme with harsh gameplay. I mean if there are x3 NPC hexes for each of the major towns then there should be a mirror x3 hexes of hell, why not just bunched elsewhere?

I sort of fudge together high pvp'ers and the CEs together in that suggestion. They want their characters to really pay which means the player is more likely to really get higher stress from the gameplay in pvp, which is their pay-load?

Goblin Squad Member

... my opinion about the matter.

Zone 1: No pvp allowed. A haven. Players can't attack each other. Major NPC towns.

Zone 2: NPC guard zone. around major citys. also in pc towns when pvp window closed. guards skills(level) and stations could vary indefinitely according to different indefinite things.

Zone 3: There is no zone 3 (so the rest of the world, that is everywhere else). All alignment and reputation changes apply everywhere(the gods see everything). PVP flags of course still work(there has to something for the meta gamers :P).

Goblin Squad Member

Wurner wrote:


I generally agree and would like to add:
I would like the PvP hotspots to arise emergently from player action, not be static. Conditions like feuds and wars, large groups running flags in one area etc. can allow for congregation of PvPers. If valuable resources are found in one area, bandits will come and so will bounty hunters, crusaders, enforcers and more in their wake.

Very much this! I would actually favor roaming hot spots over static ones. If rare resources can be exhausted and then 'can be found' in other hexes, it keeps explorers and scouts actively engaged. It also requires maintaining good communication channels so that the brave and the bold know where to go while the more casual folks will know where to avoid. Poor communication could mean getting lost and going where you don't want to go - which I would find fairly meaningful.

The other thing to remember is that the Risk/Reward scenarios SHOULD automatically turn the richest reward areas into the most dangerous, even if they move around. Given equal penalties, the target carrying a load of adamantine should be drawing MUCH more attention than a similar target carrying a load of iron. As such, it makes more sense for bandits to congregate around these richer areas.

Further, if you are dealing with very rare resources you tend to want to grab all you can at once. This makes players dealing with these rare resources find PvP flags that increase carry capacity or form caravans much more appealing. The harvester out gathering enough of a rare resource to make a single weapon and high-tailing it out of there is thus a lesser target than a harvester attempting to secure a solid load of material for his company/settlement.

I think it balances beautifully without changing penalties. And if the load carry / caravan flags are set up right, any serious gatherer is going to flag up. The guys who won't flag are going to be single project sorts who are looking for just enough to do something. They may still be targets, but less appealing than the big operators.

Goblin Squad Member

@Wurner, that's quite a change in your Avatar. There have been a number of changes by regular posters over the last several months, but I think yours is right up there with Sadurian's in how drastically they changed :)

Given that Ryan is clearly considering some kind of consequence-free PvP areas, I think our best option would be to try to help him find a good balance for them.

One of the rationalizations I use for the Reputation hits is that the Common Folk (whom we don't really see) are basically everywhere, and even when you think you're killing that other player where there are no witnesses, there really is a Common Folk woodcutter or whatever who happened to see it and spread the news back in the village.

Perhaps Escalations can reach a point where the hex becomes a consequence-free PvP zone. If the Escalation has succeeded in driving out all the Common Folk, it makes sense that there aren't any Common Folk witnesses. Ideally, the Escalation would have to be manipulated by players into growing to this particular stage.

I strongly prefer this to the idea of statically defined FFA zones.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:


The other thing to remember is that the Risk/Reward scenarios SHOULD automatically turn the richest reward areas into the most dangerous, even if they move around. Given equal penalties, the target carrying a load of adamantine should be drawing MUCH more attention than a similar target carrying a load of iron. As such, it makes more sense for bandits to congregate around these richer areas.

Or vice versa, if ore extraction requires a mine to be set up and run, the longer it runs, the more rare ores a mine would produce...and the more dangerous a hex should become. But I still do not see why this requires stopping alignment/reputation movement (of any sort, penalty or reward).

Nihimon wrote:


Perhaps Escalations can reach a point where the hex becomes a consequence-free PvP zone. If the Escalation has succeeded in driving out all the Common Folk, it makes sense that there aren't any Common Folk witnesses. Ideally, the Escalation would have to be manipulated by players into growing to this particular stage.

I strongly prefer this to the idea of statically defined FFA zones.

Except reputation is really a metagame metric that has nothing to do with how the "common person" would rate you. A successful SAD is playing as intended, so raises rep. I guarantee you a woodcutter observing a "Stealing at Daggerpoint" would note the bandit as such and then have a lower opinion of them socially. And of course, Alignment is based off the view of the gods, which deep woods or even war would not blind (some gods would even be more present in those situations).

And to be clear, I do like the idea of the "roaming hotspots" as long as they are player action driven and do not remove PvP meaningfulness. I am not sure what else it would mean except perhaps more dangerous mobs and increased chance to acquire rare materials?

Goblin Squad Member

how about we let GW create the zone types first, then discuss them...

They know how they are going to implement, we just need to wait for the blog.

Goblin Squad Member

Because that begs the question. What do they need these separate zones for?

Goblin Squad Member

RP

Your smart enough to take it from there.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I would add area 0- no attacks happen here. The EvE equivalent would be in-station, but there's no reason it has to be that limited.

Players who never leave area 0 would be playing a different game than the one designed. There's nothing wrong with that.

I'd also keep the alignment effects constant. The gods know everything that you do that they are interested in.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
@Wurner, that's quite a change in your Avatar.

I think the avatar colours the tone of the posts and I didn't want to come across as unnecessarily hostile. That's why I swapped out the barbarian avatar to something friendlier.

Goblin Squad Member

Wurner wrote:
I think the avatar colours the tone of the posts and I didn't want to come across as unnecessarily hostile. That's why I swapped out the barbarian avatar to something friendlier.

Well reasoned. I picked this avatar because my character goals will be half-formed until the game mechanics are completed and used. I hadn't thought of how an avatar colors other people's views of my postings.

I thought Wurner's bit here was also very solid:

Wurner wrote:
I would like the PvP hotspots to arise emergently from player action, not be static. Conditions like feuds and wars, large groups running flags in one area etc. can allow for congregation of PvPers. If valuable resources are found in one area, bandits will come and so will bounty hunters, crusaders, enforcers and more in their wake.

To allow people to react and converge on PvP hotspots (or to flee the vicinity) things like resource discoveries have to last a while. If a mother lode of metal can be mined out in 24 straight hours it's not going to be a huge draw. If it lasts for several weeks then it might draw a lot of people in.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
...how an avatar colors other people's views of my postings.

I had originally chosen an avatar based solely on sorting the list of availables by what was least used and picking something colourful. When a system glitch changed me to a mouse instead, I found incentive to hunt deeper.

This avatar's grown on me to such extent that I'm starting to think of this as being my appearance in EE.

Goblin Squad Member

Jazzlvraz wrote:
This avatar's grown on me to such extent that I'm starting to think of this as being.

I haven't a bird perched on mine, tyvm. Or is that... NO. The unicorn has impaled a giant slug!

Goblin Squad Member

Jazzlvraz wrote:
Urman wrote:
...how an avatar colors other people's views of my postings.

I had originally chosen an avatar based solely on sorting the list of availables by what was least used and picking something colourful. When a system glitch changed me to a mouse instead, I found incentive to hunt deeper.

This avatar's grown on me to such extent that I'm starting to think of this as my appearance in EE.

EDIT: removed a word to avoid attracting attention away from the poster above :-p

Goblin Squad Member

...hmm... I shall have to exert greater stealth: Jazz has grown crafty!

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Being wrote:
I haven't a bird perched on mine, tyvm. Or is that... NO. The unicorn has impaled a giant slug!

It's a pear.

It deserved to die. Long story.

Goblin Squad Member

Wurner wrote:

It's a pear.

It deserved to die. Long story.

Okay, that was perfect :-).

Goblin Squad Member

We'll be showing at the Sands next weekend.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
I would add area 0- no attacks happen here. The EvE equivalent would be in-station, but there's no reason it has to be that limited.

I don't think it's appropriate to have areas where everyone is perfectly safe from attack. I do think it's perfectly reasonable to create areas where new players are perfectly safe from attack. But Assassins should be able to get to experienced players wherever they are.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
I would add area 0- no attacks happen here. The EvE equivalent would be in-station, but there's no reason it has to be that limited.
I don't think it's appropriate to have areas where everyone is perfectly safe from attack. I do think it's perfectly reasonable to create areas where new players are perfectly safe from attack. But Assassins should be able to get to experienced players wherever they are.

Agreed, but with additions of Bounties, Wars and Feuds.

As Ryan Dancey said, "No Opt Outs of PvP."

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
I would add area 0- no attacks happen here. The EvE equivalent would be in-station, but there's no reason it has to be that limited.
I don't think it's appropriate to have areas where everyone is perfectly safe from attack. I do think it's perfectly reasonable to create areas where new players are perfectly safe from attack. But Assassins should be able to get to experienced players wherever they are.

If they did provide such an area, it should have significant limitations. Maybe the user could chat or write in-game books (if a granted feature). But for any mechanical purposes of the game, they should be considered "logged off" (I sure hope assassins cannot reach you there!). Such zones would probably best be served through some structure unique to NPC settlements as well. I could see room for them to exist. Especially as a way to provide for socializing, which you could do out of game anyways if you really wanted to but I do not see any reason it would break the game. If you had the choice of having a group of folks hanging out chatting in your game vs. doing so in vent, I would imagine you'd like them in your game.

As for priority of implementation - I would say pretty low.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

There's already a simple way to become nearly immune to assassination: Be somewhere else, or be logged off. The downside of that is that your character is unable to participate.

The downside of being assassinated, then, needs to be no worse than the downside of not participating.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:

There's already a simple way to become nearly immune to assassination: Be somewhere else, or be logged off. The downside of that is that your character is unable to participate.

The downside of being assassinated, then, needs to be no worse than the downside of not participating.

As far as what has been said, an Assassination contract lasts until it is completed, unlike a Bounty contract. So if you chose to log out, I guess you may have a very long wait.

Also, the downside for being assassinated includes have thread(s) severed and an impact on your settlement DI.

A question: Why should the consequences of being assassinated equal that if the target choosing to log off?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:

There's already a simple way to become nearly immune to assassination: Be somewhere else, or be logged off. The downside of that is that your character is unable to participate.

The downside of being assassinated, then, needs to be no worse than the downside of not participating.

As far as what has been said, an Assassination contract lasts until it is completed, unlike a Bounty contract. So if you chose to log out, I guess you may have a very long wait.

Also, the downside for being assassinated includes have thread(s) severed and an impact on your settlement DI.

A question: Why should the consequences of being assassinated equal that if the target choosing to log off?

I'm aware of the stated ideas for penalties for being assassinated.

To respond to your question: They shouldn't. If the penalty for being assassinated was truly equal to the penalty for remaining logged off, then players would be ambivalent about logging off to avoid an assassin.

My though was that the mechanical effects that were neutralized by assassination should also be neutralized by logging off, or by hiding in the sewers of Brevoy. I could see that done by providing key characters with special abilities or the like, with local range, that cease to function for a long time (week? Day?) if they are successfully assassinated.

Generals, engineers, and others who actively participate in siege battles have obvious implementations. Artisans and others that passively change DI have less of an obvious solution; it doesn't make much sense for the settlement to function better if a certain character is online, but if logging out doesn't have the negative effects of assassination, then being assassinated is not strictly less bad than logging out to avoid assassination; that means it is at least situationally worse to be assassinated (even if that situation is contrived and unlikely).

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:

how about we let GW create the zone types first, then discuss them...

They know how they are going to implement, we just need to wait for the blog.

Xeen,

You could say that very thing about pretty much every thread your mate Bluddwolf has posted in the last few weeks....dissecting systems that do not yet exist. Seems a bit premature to me.

But I have also posted some things that are conjecture, or just discussing ideas so perhaps Ryan and company might get a little spark of an idea. Good to know they are reading the threads. Just not sure how much real value there is in picking apart a not yet existent PvP system.

Goblin Squad Member

Hardin Steele wrote:
Just not sure how much real value there is in picking apart a not yet existent PvP system.

I agree wholeheartedly, and was thinking of starting a new thread to say it but I suppose I'll say it here: the whole point to this early participation is to think up ways to make the game better for all involved. Yet, at the same time we are not the developers. Our goal should be to come up with ideas, and refine them into something presentable and exciting, and then say "look here GW, consider doing this". Our goal shouldn't be to pick apart every idea put up on the boards. It's understandable when you are against the fundamental idea being discussed, or if you foresee some sort of exploit or consequence that could NOT be easily resolved, but to nitpick little details of a seedling idea until the conversation trails of into tangents doesn't really help anyone get anywhere (not pointing any fingers; many people have done it). We should focus more on improving ideas and using positive criticisms. Sorry for the rant, but I feel like if the community would do more working together and less bickering, more could be accomplished toward making PFO the best game it can be. :)

Goblin Squad Member

@Shane Gifford I do actually think some of the most productive threads were early on, where people discussed pvp, exploits, griefing, etc, in basically a vacuum for a couple of long threads. I think it informed the devs, even without some refined idea.

I actually wonder if we're already past the point of refined ideas; if they already have a pretty good idea (like 95-97+%) of what will be in EE. I wonder if we should be looking for things they haven't already discussed, and laying out thoughts and ideas there, rather than picking at systems that have already been built but not tested in play.

Goblin Squad Member

Hardin Steele wrote:
Xeen wrote:

how about we let GW create the zone types first, then discuss them...

They know how they are going to implement, we just need to wait for the blog.

Xeen,

You could say that very thing about pretty much every thread your mate Bluddwolf has posted in the last few weeks....dissecting systems that do not yet exist. Seems a bit premature to me.

But I have also posted some things that are conjecture, or just discussing ideas so perhaps Ryan and company might get a little spark of an idea. Good to know they are reading the threads. Just not sure how much real value there is in picking apart a not yet existent PvP system.

I know

Goblin Squad Member

Hardin Steele wrote:
...Just not sure how much real value there is in picking apart a not yet existent PvP system.

Hopefully there is real value in our doing so.

Even if the hypothetical system we think we are discussing is wide of the mark and very different from what they are building we are presenting use-case scenarios that should at least in part apply, and many of those will present points of view they might not have come up with.

You have very generic systems, such as PvP. The details of what they are actually intending to field and the speculative details of what we imagine may vary, but the basic nature of PvP applies to each. In our speculation we present ideas and attitudes that will apply to PvP regardless of the details as they are finally expressed.

Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Paizo Licensed Products / Pathfinder Online / PVP Zone Types All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.