Goblinworks Blog: The Man in the Back Said "Everyone Attack!"


Pathfinder Online

101 to 150 of 254 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Meaningful rewards for winning are needed, I agree.
That's not at all what I meant. I don't know about Onishi.

It's roughly what I meant, but at the same time not. When a group wins a conflict and gains sway over an area I would like to see it have an effect. Not an effect like "Group A gets a 10% buff to health and group B gets -10%" but an effect on the entire area even people not involved in faction conflict.

Let's give an example. Hellknights has influence over a hex. There is a lowered rate of escaped slaves. Then the eagle knights come in and take it over. Now all of a sudden bands of eagle knight NPCs spawn and attack slave operations at random.

Another example Rovagug holds sway over a hex. Reputation loss for killing people there is lowered. Ragathiel takes control of that hex from Rovagug. Now attacker / criminal / heinous flags gained there last longer.

So you can see, there is no direct advantage given to faction members, but their victory or defeat changes circumstances for everyone living in that hex. Not so much that they can't continue to not opt in, but enough that more PvP inclined players will say "I've had it, these Rovagug cultists must die!" And really care about that cause. That your faction will say something about your vision for the game.

Goblin Squad Member

Eh? Isn't assassin a sort of anti-paladin I mean equivalent only for the other side that axis? Hence Evil vs Good?

Assassins are invariably despised in history for their underhand methods, right?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like the idea of effects that apply to everyone, instead of bonuses exclusive to the faction in question. They might even be enablers of things like slavery or staffing of certain buildings.

I would expect that the headquarters of a faction would be arbitraily unassailable, and have their faction effects always apply nearby.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Andius, I totally agree there should be a meaningful effect throughout the hex. I do not think there should be a meaningful reward for everyone in the Faction.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Meaningful rewards for winning are needed, I agree.
That's not at all what I meant. I don't know about Onishi.

It's roughly what I meant, but at the same time not. When a group wins a conflict and gains sway over an area I would like to see it have an effect. Not an effect like "Group A gets a 10% buff to health and group B gets -10%" but an effect on the entire area even people not involved in faction conflict.

Let's give an example. Hellknights has influence over a hex. There is a lowered rate of escaped slaves. Then the eagle knights come in and take it over. Now all of a sudden bands of eagle knight NPCs spawn and attack slave operations at random.

Another example Rovagug holds sway over a hex. Reputation loss for killing people there is lowered. Ragathiel takes control of that hex from Rovagug. Now attacker / criminal / heinous flags gained there last longer.

So you can see, there is no direct advantage given to faction members, but their victory or defeat changes circumstances for everyone living in that hex. Not so much that they can't continue to not opt in, but enough that more PvP inclined players will say "I've had it, these Rovagug cultists must die!" And really care about that cause. That your faction will say something about your vision for the game.

+1

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Onishi wrote:
... the main thing I have a problem with in the general concept of factions, isn't so much the lack of complexity, as the lack of a hypothetically obtainable end goal.

This is a really good point, and I think it lies at the heart of Andius's concerns as well. If the only result of "winning" is that you change the banners flying in a hex, or change the faces of the gods in a temple, then it's going to feel meaningless.

Based entirely on their track record, I'm comfortable trusting that Goblinworks will get this right, though.

It may be difficult to predict the array of player aspirations, but not that players aspire.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
Lifedragn wrote:
Imagine 5 groups of 15 declaring against one group of 40. The group of 40 is allied with another group of 35. While the number of those involved is the same, it is more expensive (from my understanding) for the 2 larger groups to defend against the 5 smaller groups. How would the victim of this feud ever be able to meaningfully defend itself against such a tactic?

Influence is gained over time, based on the accomplishment of members. So a group of 75 might not be able to degroup into 5 groups of 15 to launch such an attack. When they degroup, the core group likely loses a lot of accumulated Influence, because companies have a cap based on membership. The 4 splinter groups start with 0 (or really low) Influence and won't be able to attack until they've built up sufficient brass to declare a feud.

So to start, when Forty sees Group75 fracture, they have the option of declaring feud on any one of the splinters or the remainder in the core. If Group75 reforms, declare the feud at an end; Group75 now has much less Influence than when they started.

Now, if five autonomous groups of 15 declare feuds on Forty, then each is burning Influence as the feuds goes on. Forty can defend, of course, it's theoretically 75:40. One of the five group will likely be stronger than its allies, and ThirtyFive can help the most by attacking that group. So the feuds are now on paper 60:40 and 15:35, but effective power might be more like 55:40 and 20:35.

Note that the five groups of 15 are burning thru Influence, as is ThirtyFive. Everyone is getting wear on gear. When these 6 feuds lift... Forty hasn't burnt any Influence yet and if they have gear, someone will be a target.

Group75 never existed as one entity in game. Group 75 is a Meta-Entity. BigGuyz1, BigGuyz2, BigGuyz3, etc... all organize into BigGuyz on the Meta-Level, but there is no BigGuyz in game consolidated group.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:


Group75 never existed as one entity in game. Group 75 is a Meta-Entity. BigGuyz1, BigGuyz2, BigGuyz3, etc... all organize into BigGuyz on the Meta-Level, but there is no BigGuyz in game consolidated group.

Note: This is certainly likely to happen if being one big group without a settlement is offering severely diminishing turns on large groups and influence gain AND it is more expensive to declare against smaller enemies than it is bigger ones. There are certainly going to be groups out there crunching numbers to determine optimum company sizes before spinning off a new tightly allied affiliate.

Goblin Squad Member

I assume Tork is also crunching numbers, in part to assure that the five 15 man groups pay, collectively, at least as much as a 75 man group would pay to attack a 40 person group. (But there may be diminishing returns for a group larger than 50 people. Three groups of 15 and one group of 45 might pay the same amount to attack a group of 40.)

Lifedragn wrote:
BigGuyz1, BigGuyz2, BigGuyz3, etc... all organize into BigGuyz on the Meta-Level, but there is no BigGuyz in game consolidated group.

I think playing this particular meta-game might not work out so well when the tables are reversed. Look at the example of a Company of 45 vs. 3 companies of 15. (I'm staying below 50 because they've suggested diminishing returns above that point.)

So when the three 15-man companies declare feud, maybe with a couple of helpers, they're all paying Influence to jump in. What happens when the tables turn? The 45-man company declares feud against one of the 15s - and pays a higher cost. But the other two 15s get to sit and watch their buddy get beaten - or burn their own Influence to get involved.

There will be lots of such games played - and I think Tork has said he's working on those numbers. Once we see real numbers (maybe not until EE) then we'll really be able to help him find the flaws in his models :)

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Now that factions have entered the picture, the natural question is "Who are they?" I did some searching, and I couldn't find a list online of all the factions in the Pathfinder Society and the Faction Guide. Once I get home, I'll break out my copies of the respective guides and type up a list. I'll put it in a separate post, to avoid clogging this one with "Will Faction X be included in PFO?" questions.

Chances are, we won't get every faction in PFO, especially not during EE. Some factions are locally focused in areas far from the River Kingdoms. Others are just small and obscure. There are 10 or 12 factions insider the Pathfinder Society, 24 in the Faction Guide, and even more that have been suggested in various books, but not written up with faction statistics.

Come to think of it, The Seventh Veil does seem to fill a vacant spot in the official faction ecology. Having it, and possibly other PFO player organizations, show up in a future pen and paper Pathfinder product would be a fantastic accomplishment in crowdforging/cross-pollination between PnP Pathfinder and PFO.


Tork Shaw wrote:
the alignment/reputation systems are more robust than ever and all these systems (factions, sieges, wars, alignment, rep) are build TOGETHER to compliment one another and to drive meaningful interactions in game.

Well I hope so and look forward to hearing about how that still is working...

I hope Factions/Feuds/War still 'care' about and impact upon Alignment in some way, or else it seem like people will just select whatever Alignment they wish for it's benefits, but basically be free to act contrary to that Alignment because Faction/Feud/War PVP absolves them of alignment repurcussions, and that is easy enough to be the vast majority of PVP (especially if you are in many factions).

I can see Faction being easy enough to tie into Alignment from the other end, i.e. in term of joining/maintaining Faction membership even though Faction PVP doesn't have Alignment repurcussions itself... And a Faction that is hostile to a Good Faction will likely be Evil, for example (or conflicting on Law/Chaos Axis). That might weaken the distinction between Law/Chaos vs. Good/Evil a bit (allowing to avoid ALL Alignment consequence for hostile PVP, rather than just the relevant/justified axis), but at least Alignment is still relevant... And I guess GW can even 'nudge' Faction required/compatable alignments in different directions based on the actions of the Faction members.

I guess I am more worried about the lack of connect between Alignment and Feuds/War especially given the greater accessibility of Feuds.

With a CE Settlement that doesn't join a faction, nobody can attack them (except immediately after they commit crimes/etc, or a bit longer with Murderer/Heinous) without suffering full C/E alignment consequences. Since they're CE, they don't actually care about the lack of Faction PVP Alignment protection (Rep may still matter to them, although they will presumably use SAD if that's the case). That is a case where Feud/War SHOULDN'T impose C/E alignment consequences (for attacking the C/E group), and I think the dynamic with only avoiding C/E consequences for killing them if you IMMEDIATELY respond to their crime/attack (or a bit longer if Murderer/Heinous applies) OR needing to give 'fair warning' via Feud/War is fine and good. Such CE groups will likely need to spread out their predations so as to not overly threaten any one group, triggering them to initiate a Feud, which seems logical enough.

But we don't know yet if/how there is any difference between that case and an officially "LG" settlement declaring Feud/War against some other LG settlement "just because" (they aren't really LG-motivated/acting, rather just milk that for it's benefits)... If there is no difference in term of alignment consequences between those cases, it just seems silly, and Alignment's link to action is broken if you pay the cost for Feud/War. Hopefully some sort of distinction remains there.

This isn't entirely new either, War previously absolved Alignment consequences which I disliked all along, the difference is just that Feuds and Faction PVP remove even more Alignment-consequence PVP from the game, so that one could possibly have substantially all PVP immunized from Alignment consequences. If Faction AREN'T tied to Alignment-pre-reqs I am even more leery of that, as "LG" Settlement/Company could just be attacking a wide variety of targets as long as immunized by Faction/Feud/War.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andius wrote:
Lots of cool stuff that makes sense!

You know this really has got me wondering what sort of subliminal messaging GW slipped into that last blog because for once it seems like everyone is almost on the same page!

I mean, hell, we're all at least in the same chapter now and that is leaps and bounds from where we were.

Goblin Squad Member

AvenaOats wrote:
Hobbs seems to be one of those people who stands a few feet forward of his fellows? *Offers Hobbs a fifth scone of the day and another ale to wash it down with* Not doing badly mind. ;)

Thank you for the compliment, though I'm not sure I warrant standing any further ahead than anyone else. As for the 5th scone, Hobs only looks like a Hobbit, though he wouldn't pass up second breakfast if offered. :)

Goblin Squad Member

Stephen Cheney wrote:


Not much has changed conceptually about Stand and Deliver other than moving it to a feat. Honestly, even without the flag changes, we would have probably had to move it to a feat just to make it easier to give you a button to press to initiate it. But moving it to a trained element allows us to maybe expand it into a whole set of cool outlawy things like Bluddwolf and a couple others have asked for ;) .

Thank you GW (Stephen Cheney) for streamlining the use of the SAD via keystroke.

I also very much appreciate your probable sifting through my rants and the posts of others, to pick out any ideas that have brought to your mind some of those "cool outlawy things."

On the issue of factions, obviously, our hopes are for the Outlaw Council to be one of the initial factions in PFO.

Goblin Squad Member

Fantastic blog! Lots of great info and I really like the evolution from alignment-based conflict to faction-based.

A couple thoughts:

First, it's implied (and assumed by most), but not explicitly stated that the members of a recipient of a declaration of war/feud can freely attack the members of organization declaring the conflict. This is a critically important detail, so please confirm this.

Next, I hope you would consider an option for a mutual declaration of conflict at reduced or no cost to either party (perhaps no ongoing upkeep cost, but still affects additional conflicts). That this sort of free, open-ended conflict is only allowed through NPC-controlled organizations seems short-sighted, to me. I would like to have always been at war with Eurasia.

There's mention of a refractory period for wars, but no mention of such for feuds. More importantly, however, there's no mention of a minimum duration for a conflict, which is necessary to allow retaliation without additional (and potentially prohibitive) cost. Both seem required to prevent griefing and to enable fair(ish) conflict. For conflict with potential geopolitical impact, such as wars, I'd like to see a minimum of two weeks. For feuds, anything shorter than 3 days has the distinct possibility of avoiding any sort of retribution.

Now, should there be a mechanism for mutual conflict, a mechanism for mutual ending of said conflict before the minimum length (and also bypassing a refractory period) becomes a possibility and allows for lots of interesting emergent gameplay (tournaments come to mind).

Another question that arose while pondering this blog that isn't directly conflict related, but will certainly impact warfare: Will there be a mechanism in place for settlements to ally in such a way as to function as a political State? Perhaps all run by the same company? There should be, else I fear this will be accomplished with alts in leadership positions, merely obfuscating things. Or do you have some plan to address such a circumstance?

Goblinworks Game Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KitNyx wrote:
Andius wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Meaningful rewards for winning are needed, I agree.
That's not at all what I meant. I don't know about Onishi.

It's roughly what I meant, but at the same time not. When a group wins a conflict and gains sway over an area I would like to see it have an effect. Not an effect like "Group A gets a 10% buff to health and group B gets -10%" but an effect on the entire area even people not involved in faction conflict.

Let's give an example. Hellknights has influence over a hex. There is a lowered rate of escaped slaves. Then the eagle knights come in and take it over. Now all of a sudden bands of eagle knight NPCs spawn and attack slave operations at random.

Another example Rovagug holds sway over a hex. Reputation loss for killing people there is lowered. Ragathiel takes control of that hex from Rovagug. Now attacker / criminal / heinous flags gained there last longer.

So you can see, there is no direct advantage given to faction members, but their victory or defeat changes circumstances for everyone living in that hex. Not so much that they can't continue to not opt in, but enough that more PvP inclined players will say "I've had it, these Rovagug cultists must die!" And really care about that cause. That your faction will say something about your vision for the game.

+1

The implications of faction loss and gain over time is currently under discussion! We have a number of ideas to make faction power important in much more complex ways than 'members all get a bonus to X'. In fact I'd say that was my least favourite approach, and faction membership bonuses (based on rank) will not be game changing and will, most likely, only be a benefit in very specific circumstances. Factional membership is about pursuing the goals of your factions (be it through PvPing, quest completion, and so on) not a goal in itself.

Dont forget that in this MMO the main actors in this story are settlements, companies, and players. Factions have an important role to play in the development of the Crusader Road area and an important role to play in the narrative of Golarion, but just like in a Pathfinder tabletop game it is the characters who drive the story and who have the most impact on the world. Yes we are excited about players deeply committing to the Pathfinders, or the League of the Wood, or the Church of Rovagug, but as with Pathfinder Society those organisations are held in check by the ongoing narrative of Golarion. You can influence their power on a local level, sure, but their scope is far beyond you or this region.

If you want power you will have to build it yourself. If you want to significantly change the sociopolitical landscape in PFO you will have to build a settlement, forge alliances, and aim for a player nation. Shifts in factional power may affect that nation or settlement too, and you will need to weather such changes, but just like in the tabletop Golarion such shifts will act as a call to action for heroes and villains, rather than as the story itself.

Goblinworks Game Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Urman wrote:

I assume Tork is also crunching numbers, in part to assure that the five 15 man groups pay, collectively, at least as much as a 75 man group would pay to attack a 40 person group. (But there may be diminishing returns for a group larger than 50 people. Three groups of 15 and one group of 45 might pay the same amount to attack a group of 40.)

Lifedragn wrote:
BigGuyz1, BigGuyz2, BigGuyz3, etc... all organize into BigGuyz on the Meta-Level, but there is no BigGuyz in game consolidated group.

I think playing this particular meta-game might not work out so well when the tables are reversed. Look at the example of a Company of 45 vs. 3 companies of 15. (I'm staying below 50 because they've suggested diminishing returns above that point.)

So when the three 15-man companies declare feud, maybe with a couple of helpers, they're all paying Influence to jump in. What happens when the tables turn? The 45-man company declares feud against one of the 15s - and pays a higher cost. But the other two 15s get to sit and watch their buddy get beaten - or burn their own Influence to get involved.

There will be lots of such games played - and I think Tork has said he's working on those numbers. Once we see real numbers (maybe not until EE) then we'll really be able to help him find the flaws in his models :)

I am very much crunching :)

This will all become a bit clearer when we get the mathematics finalised and I can do an Influence blog. The principals are as described by all your sharp-minded posting, however. Smaller companies will struggle with the influence costs to mount a feud on a settlement and even those that can will only be able to do so for very short periods. It MAY be possible for a large number of small companies to gang up on a settlement but only for a very short burst. Its extremely unlikely that they will even make a dent in the settlement's walls in this time, let alone raise it to the ground. They are going to have to think pretty hard about what they are even going to raise it to the ground with since siege weaponry is going to be way outside of their reach.

The ability for small-ER groups to band together against a larger foe is a critical part of the system. We want that kind of behaviour, and that kind of threat to the status quo. There is a balance, however, and I hope I've managed to strike it. As Urman points out you can all tear my numbers apart in EE and I'll cry quietly into my keyboard ;)

Goblin Squad Member

It perhaps leads to the question of what if any influence (I should start using specific definitions in their place only?) / reverberations (lol - that'll do) from OUTSIDE the map to INSIDE and vica-versa as determined by GW? Even to the point of you guys running a "simulation" on the side for what happens outside the map for Factions. You could extend this idea to the role of deities too... . In terms of the effects and if the players slant the simulation via their positive contributions or negative per faction? It need only be a minor change or contribution or the trigger for escalation types and so on? Anyway more of a raw idea than a serious feature creep for you devs.

Tork Shaw wrote:
Dont forget that in this MMO the main actors in this story are settlements, companies, and players. Factions have an important role to play in the development of the Crusader Road area and an important role to play in the narrative of Golarion, but just like in a Pathfinder tabletop game it is the characters who drive the story and who have the most impact on the world.

Tenet of PFO right here.

Goblinworks Game Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quandary wrote:
Tork Shaw wrote:
the alignment/reputation systems are more robust than ever and all these systems (factions, sieges, wars, alignment, rep) are build TOGETHER to compliment one another and to drive meaningful interactions in game.

Well I hope so and look forward to hearing about how that still is working...

I hope Factions/Feuds/War still 'care' about and impact upon Alignment in some way, or else it seem like people will just select whatever Alignment they wish for it's benefits, but basically be free to act contrary to that Alignment because Faction/Feud/War PVP absolves them of alignment repurcussions, and that is easy enough to be the vast majority of PVP (especially if you are in many factions).

I can see Faction being easy enough to tie into Alignment from the other end, i.e. in term of joining/maintaining Faction membership even though Faction PVP doesn't have Alignment repurcussions itself... And a Faction that is hostile to a Good Faction will likely be Evil, for example (or conflicting on Law/Chaos Axis). That might weaken the distinction between Law/Chaos vs. Good/Evil a bit (allowing to avoid ALL Alignment consequence for hostile PVP, rather than just the relevant/justified axis), but at least Alignment is still relevant... And I guess GW can even 'nudge' Faction required/compatable alignments in different directions based on the actions of the Faction members.

I guess I am more worried about the lack of connect between Alignment and Feuds/War especially given the greater accessibility of Feuds.

With a CE Settlement that doesn't join a faction, nobody can attack them (except immediately after they commit crimes/etc, or a bit longer with Murderer/Heinous) without suffering full C/E alignment consequences. Since they're CE, they don't actually care about the lack of Faction PVP Alignment protection (Rep may still matter to them, although they will presumably use SAD if that's the case). That is a case where Feud/War SHOULDN'T impose C/E alignment consequences (for...

Ok - this is a tough one to answer right now because we just havnt given you enough information yet.

War is ambiguous. Even if you are a good settlement going to war against an evil settlement your actions are not necessarily good. In Golarion there are solutions to this quandary and wars are regularly fought by good organisations against evil OUTSIDERS or UNDEAD - the destruction of which is less ambiguous. This is the problem with alignment and why yes it will remain a critical game element but no, it is not an appropriate metric for the determination of 'good' or 'just' warfare.

Philosophy aside, alignment is still critical in PFO. As I mentioned you'll need to wait a wee bit for the next alignment post to see where its all feeding in. I will say, however, that almost ALL currently intended factions have an alignment restriction, so that membership is dependent on maintaining a certain alignment (or number of alignments). You will only be able to take on factional enemies that make sense (from an alignment or narrative perspective).

I dont think I'm giving too much away (but note this is still all stuff we are working on so might change) by saying that the Pathfinder Society and Aspis Consortium will probably have extremely lax alignment restrictions. The Hellknights and Red Mantis, however, will have extreme alignment restrictions.

Goblinworks Game Designer

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Onishi wrote:
Stephen Cheney wrote:

Hitting a couple of these questions. Tork will probably get more in the morning.

There should hopefully be more complexity to our factions than Horde vs Alliance. Importantly, you can mix and match them. So someone who's Pathfinders + Church of Iomedae + Eagle Knights is going to have an interesting confrontation when running into someone who's Pathfinders + Hellknights + Church of Asmodeus and someone who's Aspis Consortium + League of the Wood + Church of Desna.

Well I may be in the minority here, but the main thing I have a problem with in the general concept of factions, isn't so much the lack of complexity, as the lack of a hypothetically obtainable end goal. IE in horde vs alliance, at least in my view the issue wasn't that there's only 2, but that it delves into "bob is alliance, he is my enemy, he is and will always be my enemy".

The idea of X and Y, being at permenant conflict, with no possibility of changing, no chance of swing, no logical expectation of a truce or any goals to be worked for, flat out turns me off to the concepts of the game as a whole. Namely because I do want to have heavy meaningful PVP...

Faction membership is optional. If you are interested in PvP for PvP's sake or interested in choosing your foes then your best bet is to form a company or settlement and declare feuds or wars as and when. The factional system is an ADDITIONAL source of PvP.

The fact is that the church of Iomadae and the Church of Rovagug are enemies. They will be enemies till the end of time and beyond. If you want to fight for Iomadae then you will probably be asked to fight Rovagug's minions. You dont have to, but then why join her church?

Factional relationships are determined by the lore of Golarion and while there may be some room for shifts, truces, or alliances between some of the non-ideological factions there is no way that the Aspis Consortium will ever be friends with the Pathfinders. These are central tenants of the world of Golarion, if you like, and so we will carry them into PFO.

As I mentioned a couple of posts up - the heroes and protagonists of PFO are YOU and your company/settlement/allies. The really exciting conflicts will be between you and other humans (I mean that out of game. Well, I assume the majority will be out of game humans...) Thats the beauty of an MMO. You are not just fighting with the game world you are fighting with the real world. I understand your concern about red vs. blue, but just like ignoring factional membership in any other MMO you are welcome to ignore factional membership in PFO and instead engage in the kind of combat that has meaning for you.

Goblinworks Game Designer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
deisum wrote:

Fantastic blog! Lots of great info and I really like the evolution from alignment-based conflict to faction-based.

A couple thoughts:

First, it's implied (and assumed by most), but not explicitly stated that the members of a recipient of a declaration of war/feud can freely attack the members of organization declaring the conflict. This is a critically important detail, so please confirm this.

Next, I hope you would consider an option for a mutual declaration of conflict at reduced or no cost to either party (perhaps no ongoing upkeep cost, but still affects additional conflicts). That this sort of free, open-ended conflict is only allowed through NPC-controlled organizations seems short-sighted, to me. I would like to have always been at war with Eurasia.

There's mention of a refractory period for wars, but no mention of such for feuds. More importantly, however, there's no mention of a minimum duration for a conflict, which is necessary to allow retaliation without additional (and potentially prohibitive) cost. Both seem required to prevent griefing and to enable fair(ish) conflict. For conflict with potential geopolitical impact, such as wars, I'd like to see a minimum of two weeks. For feuds, anything shorter than 3 days has the distinct possibility of avoiding any sort of retribution.

Now, should there be a mechanism for mutual conflict, a mechanism for mutual ending of said conflict before the minimum length (and also bypassing a refractory period) becomes a possibility and allows for lots of interesting emergent gameplay (tournaments come to mind).

Another question that arose while pondering this blog that isn't directly conflict related, but will certainly impact warfare: Will there be a mechanism in place for settlements to ally in such a way as to function as a political State? Perhaps all run by the same company? There should be, else I fear this will be accomplished with alts in...

Ok so all of this is going to have to be another blog post, as you might imagine. The process of war and feuding is sort of complex, unfortunately, and needs its own space.

I will just say, however, that there is unlikely to be a way for settlements to function as a political state under one company. There are myriad reasons for this which I'm sure are obvious to you but as for the difficulty of alts and such we are aware of this and have a few tricks yet to prevent this becoming too much of an issue. Its worth noting though that including a system that allows settlements to be run by one company does nothing to remove the prevalence of alts. Settlement management is complex and will require a large number of individuals. Player nation management even more so. This requires trust and friendship and relationships that exist out of game, OR this requires alts, and there will be some alts, I'm sure of it. We have a number of systems in place that ensure that alts are the least efficient way of doing things, however, and once you install a number of them in a number of positions you will see an aggregate drop in efficiency that is significant.

Goblin Squad Member

Lhan wrote:

2) Does anyone have any recommended reading for learning about the factions of Golarion and more specifically the River Kingdoms? My knowledge is poor, and it's something I really need to rectify.

The guide to the river kingdoms is an obvious one , but you should really have the pathfinder wiki (http://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Pathfinder_Wiki) bookmarked.

Goblin Squad Member

Tork Shaw wrote:
As I mentioned a couple of posts up - the heroes and protagonists of PFO are YOU and your company/settlement/allies. The really exciting conflicts will be between you and other humans (I mean that out of game. Well, I assume the majority will be out of game humans...) Thats the beauty of an MMO. You are not just fighting with the game world you are fighting with the real world. I understand your concern about red vs. blue, but just like ignoring factional membership in any other MMO you are welcome to ignore factional membership in PFO and instead engage in the kind of combat that has meaning for you.

As I mentioned, there are ways that it can be implimented that I like the idea of. Namely if faction conflicts actually have specific goals, issues, end goals etc...

The overall fear I have of the idea of factions, and the dev's more or less stating that PVP is moving to more of an opt in, is that they are also implying harsher consiquences etc... on other PVP. Feuds I suppose I have to see to understand better. Wars are being designed to be costly, so that a settlement that is constantly at war, is one that is going to advance significantly slower than others.

The fear I have (which may very well be unjustified until we have greater details on factions etc...) is the moving of the mindset of "well if they actually wanted to legitimately PVP, he'd have joined a faction and let the faction pick who his enemies are, and keep in a constant state of conflict with people he never had any reason to be at conflict with, since he didn't, well his character or settlement should suck because he's a worthless griefer". Where to me, in my view, killing someone just because they are in a rival faction, in a scenario where the kill has no impact on the rivalry whatsoever, is closer to griefing.

As mentioned, if faction's are set up in a way where the player actions actually change the faction relations, that is a considerably different animal (and one I could actually like) than if faction relations are either permanently set, or changed without regards to what the players are doing.


Tork Shaw wrote:
Quandary wrote:
I hope Factions/Feuds/War still 'care' about and impact upon Alignment in some way, or else it seem like people will just select whatever Alignment they wish for it's benefits, but basically be free to act contrary to that Alignment because Faction/Feud/War PVP absolves them of alignment repurcussions, and that is easy enough to be the vast majority of PVP (especially if you are in many factions). (...)

(...) I will say, however, that almost ALL currently intended factions have an alignment restriction, so that membership is dependent on maintaining a certain alignment (or number of alignments). You will only be able to take on factional enemies that make sense (from an alignment or narrative perspective).

I don't think I'm giving too much away (but note this is still all stuff we are working on so might change) by saying that the Pathfinder Society and Aspis Consortium will probably have extremely lax alignment restrictions. The Hellknights and Red Mantis, however, will have extreme alignment restrictions.

Good to hear about the Faction alignment thing, I'm glad Alignment definitely plays a part there. I think that actually opens door for more nuance about Alignment than previously... I had phrased it as potentially 'blurring the lines between the Alignment Axes' or something along those lines (since Alignment as a whole is absolved, rather than appraising the validity/immunity of each Axis), but at the same time it opens up more contextual application of Alignment than just one crude universal rule for all PVP interactions.

At least with Factions, it sounds like what may happen is the 'nexus of Alignment moral choice/consequence' may just be shifted away from one specific encounter but towards a critical threshold of the larger story giving meaning to that encounter. I don't see why the 'Alignment correlation' of each Faction couldn't even shift over time depending on both pure PvE progression and the Factions' interactions with each other, including what they have NOT accomplished or are not actively pursuing. Faction Ranks sounds like an accretive sort of thing, i.e. you get it and never lose it for the most part, but a rating which cares more about "what have you done recently" seems like a way to gage 'current moment' orientation, both on a single player basis, and seeing what the Faction as a whole is doing (i.e. is the whole Faction doing well progressing towards a Faction goal? Are they not really pursuing that goal and just resting on their laurels? Which of several goals are they progressing or possibly regressing on? (if they are losing vs. another Faction, for example.)) It is not just about killing PVP or even PVE enemies of the Faction, but achieving other Deeds or objective goal posts as defined by the faction: this could be "prevent X type of harvesting camp in N region".

Besides Alignment "requirements" (which could be instituted on a Alignment SCORE specific basis, not just category, and on a Faction Rank-differentiated basis), I could very well see some sort of impact of Faction membership on the Alignment Drift system: Faction PVP may be absolved from Alignment/Rep consequences but there very well could be some other mechanic for Alignment consequences. Even Criminal/Murderer and Heinous could get mixed into Faction relevancy... And hopefully these Factions are involved in Monster escalations as well. (might there not be 'Good' Monsters and Escalations too? although 'Evil' groups may well not like these Monsters and vice versa)

Quote:
War is ambiguous. Even if you are a good settlement going to war against an evil settlement your actions are not necessarily good. In Golarion there are solutions to this quandary and wars are regularly fought by good organisations against evil OUTSIDERS or UNDEAD - the destruction of which is less ambiguous. This is the problem with alignment and why yes it will remain a critical game element but no, it is not an appropriate metric for the determination of 'good' or 'just' warfare.

I think what I'm hoping for is some of the nuances tossed around re: Faction Alignment relevancy to work similarly for Feuds/Wars... Perhaps it could also come down to shifting the nexus of Alignment relevancy, a 'Good' war/feud may well have different objectives/limitations than an 'Evil' war/feud, for example, and how both sides prosecute the conflict can affect the objectives/limitation for both sides. The Alignment of each side could still play some role in determining Alignment consequences, but the picture could be bigger than that... I don't know if that's too ambitious or not. Looking forward to hear your update on Alignment :-)

Previous to this, I had been hoping to hear more about how the actual Alignment Rating (as opposed to the trinary Good/Neutral/Evil, Law/Neutral/Chaos categories) might affect things... The categories themselves can certainly have an effect (meaning shifting alignment 1 point across the category 'lines' is significant), but it seems like moving your alignment from e.g. 1 point past the N/G border all the way to the 'max' Good should have some further effect - I mentioned how it might make sense in terms of Alignment-linked Faction Tiers, but also in availability/effectiveness of 'Class Role' abilities, Settlement Improvements/Indexes, etc. Settlements may have their 'official' base Alignment with varying rules on membership in relation to that (1-step, or other schemes), but the actual status of all of their members' Alignment seems like it should also make a difference: e.g. a TN Settlement using the 1-step rule but with 90% TN members (and/or who are all very very close to actual 0 Alignment Rating) vs. a TN Settlement allowing everybody but Good alignment but with 60% NE and 30% CN members.

Anyhow, I think I'll wind this up before I get too carried away...

Looking forward to the next update... and PRETTY PICTURES! :-)

Goblin Squad Member

Tork Shaw wrote:
Dont forget that in this MMO the main actors in this story are settlements, companies, and players. Factions have an important role to play in the development of the Crusader Road area and an important role to play in the narrative of Golarion, but just like in a Pathfinder tabletop game it is the characters who drive the story and who have the most impact on the world.

Oh I fully understand that, and I don't want to undermine that at all. Obviously if a player group has control of a hex, that should have the deepest and most meaningful effects on that hex.

I think there is room for that to happen, and to allow factional conflict to have some lesser but still meaningful effects as well. I would urge you guys to put some serious consideration into this because when a post by me that's favorited by Nihimon is also favorited by Bluddwolf and Areks, stars have aligned. It seems like it would be an immensely popular move.

After all, if players fight for the factions then which factions hold sway will be largely player driven.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andius wrote:
Tork Shaw wrote:
The implications of faction loss and gain over time is currently under discussion! We have a number of ideas to make faction power important in much more complex ways than 'members all get a bonus to X'. (...) Factions have an important role to play in the development of the Crusader Road area and an important role to play in the narrative of Golarion, but just like in a Pathfinder tabletop game it is the characters who drive the story and who have the most impact on the world.

Oh I fully understand that, and I don't want to undermine that at all. Obviously if a player group has control of a hex, that should have the deepest and most meaningful effects on that hex.

I think there is room for that to happen, and to allow factional conflict to have some lesser but still meaningful effects as well.

I think Faction success/failure could well be modeled after Monster Escalations and the like, or at least have similar scope in effect on game play to them (not necessarily limited to Monster Hexes).

A previous idea I posted here once was that helping some Murder Cult Faction meet it's goals might strengthen the Faction to the point that it gains new Cult Hide-Outs (mechanically modelled after Rogue Hide-Outs) which may pop up inside Settlement Hexes (with Faction Members being able to enter/access these as appropriate, perhaps bypassing normal Settlement entrance guards, and facilitating Assassinations?).

Fighting back against the Faction would of course be a way to counter this, but if they aren't countered it isn't going to be the same as taking over the Settlement, because the Faction doesn't really have that goal, they may just be crazy Murder Cultists and that's that. Of course, like a Monster Escalation, that could have effects on Settlements to the point it also affects other Settlement PVP issues, but that is just part of the whole mix and churn of the game.

Depending on if/how Settlements themselves (as a whole) may affiliate with Factions could impact how Factions focus their actions in the world, and how opposing Factions focus their fight against their enemy Faction. There may not just be 'blind' Faction vs. Faction war, but focused 'achieve this objective vs. this target', aware of Companies/Settlements aligned to each Faction, relevant resources tied to Faction plots, etc.

Goblin Squad Member

Does it boil down to this:

1. Let's take the most anti-Factions: X vs Y
2. It's right and proper that both gain factional pts with their own when they meet the other and slay them: "Opt-in PvP".
3. - Because it's advancing their cause and pegging back their nemesis' cause atst, in the River Kingdoms (RK) and it's pvp that makes sense in the lore and it's pvp that some players revel in for the enjoyment of the activity unto itself.
4. However: Because death is temporary so to then is the 'advancing cause' by this pvp. It's temporary change in who has the upper hand.

So the question is:

5. What makes the change in Factional power more impactful, aside from Factional standing which provides "boons" per level upwards 1-4+ is mentioned in the blog?

Options:

6. If a factional representation falls below a certain level in the RK then factional pts cannot grow above 3 pts for a time?
7. To sustain the boons of factional pts above say 4 a certain number of slain opposite faction Y are needed per period of time?
8. If a settlement has enough members of X of >4 Faction pts they can access specialized building Z?
9. Trigger Escalation in establishing a strong foothold in the RK Faction X sends further reinforcements to be advised on where to enter the map and "invade" hated enemy Y. A good time to declare war with reinforcements to "the cause" in attendance.
10. Prevent any of the preceding by keeping the other faction in check.


Onishi wrote:
The overall fear I have of the idea of factions, and the dev's more or less stating that PVP is moving to more of an opt in, is that they are also implying harsher consiquences etc... on other PVP. Feuds I suppose I have to see to understand better. Wars are being designed to be costly, so that a settlement that is constantly at war, is one that is going to advance significantly slower than others.

Also consider the follow on consequences. Rather than deal with the costs/repurcussions of engaging a Feud/War yourself, you can fund mercenaries and Factions who already have the inclination to do so, or immunization from the consequences. The cost of engaging war yourself has a nebulous relation to paying off others to do so. The lowest Rep CE groups of course having their niche in all of this.

Quote:
The fear I have (which may very well be unjustified until we have greater details on factions etc...) is the moving of the mindset of "well if they actually wanted to legitimately PVP, he'd have joined a faction and let the faction pick who his enemies are, and keep in a constant state of conflict with people he never had any reason to be at conflict with, since he didn't, well his character or settlement should suck because he's a worthless griefer". Where to me, in my view, killing someone just because they are in a rival faction, in a scenario where the kill has no impact on the rivalry whatsoever, is closer to griefing.

I'm just looking it as choosing a Faction will happen with awareness of what that Factions' enemies are, thus you are choosing your own enemies by your choice of Faction, nothing is being forced on you. If you no longer want to be in that Faction and implicated against it's enemies, you quit the Faction.

Question: Would Faction-wide Chat Channels (Rank Specific?) be a likely thing? Would organized mass actions of Factions be a likely thing?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tork Shaw wrote:
As Urman points out you can all tear my numbers apart in EE and I'll cry quietly into my keyboard ;)

I'm confident that Nightdrifter and DeciusBrutus will be all over those numbers as soon as they're released :)

Goblinworks Game Designer

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Onishi wrote:
Tork Shaw wrote:
As I mentioned a couple of posts up - the heroes and protagonists of PFO are YOU and your company/settlement/allies. The really exciting conflicts will be between you and other humans (I mean that out of game. Well, I assume the majority will be out of game humans...) Thats the beauty of an MMO. You are not just fighting with the game world you are fighting with the real world. I understand your concern about red vs. blue, but just like ignoring factional membership in any other MMO you are welcome to ignore factional membership in PFO and instead engage in the kind of combat that has meaning for you.

As I mentioned, there are ways that it can be implimented that I like the idea of. Namely if faction conflicts actually have specific goals, issues, end goals etc...

The fear I have (which may very well be unjustified until we have greater details on factions etc...) is the moving of the mindset of "well if they actually wanted to legitimately PVP, he'd have joined a faction and let the faction pick who his enemies are, and keep in a constant state of conflict with people he never had any reason to be at conflict with, since he didn't, well his character or settlement should suck because he's a worthless griefer". Where to me, in my view, killing someone just because they are in a rival faction, in a scenario where the kill has no impact on the rivalry whatsoever, is closer to griefing.

As mentioned, if faction's are set up in a way where the player actions actually change the faction relations, that is a considerably different animal (and one I could actually like) than if...

I admit I'm struggling a bit to understand your concern here... who are you quoting there with the "well if they actually wanted to legitimately PvP..."? Is that what the devs might say?

I think you might be focussing too hard on the individual parts here (but as I say, Im not sure I understand so apologies if this is wrong!). If you want to PvP without consequence in PFO you will have to do it in one of the following ways;

1) Catch a flagged character (criminal, heinous, etc).
2) Start a feud, literally giving you the chance to choose which enemies are meaningful to you.
3) Start a war, again giving you the chance to choose with whom to fight.
4) Join one or more factions in order to take on one or more enemy factions.
5) Stand and Deliver (within its limitations).
6) Assassination (again, within its limitations. More on that another time!)
7) Pick up some bounties.
8) Take ownership/management of one or more elements of a PoI and defend them from attackers (who have initiated an attack).

Any other PvP is griefing [[ edit - too dogmatic/incendiary a term - its not 'griefing' but its PvP behaviour that only has meaning for the killer and that meaning is more often than not the maniacal joy of killing. Sometimes its for looting a player, and in such instances the benefits of potential loot should be weighed against the loss of rep/alignment. There is an appropriate trade off]]. Attacking a player without provocation or sanctions will result in reputation and alignment loss. It's basically murder. Players who engage in a lot of this behaviour will find their reputation is adversely affected, and so is the reputation of their company or settlement. Eventually their company or settlement will suck.

If you want to engage in PvP in PFO without incurring negative rep then choose one of the myriad options above. The ONLY kind of PvP that is not sanctioned is jumping players who have no quarrel with you at all and who have deliberately avoided flagging themselves for PvP. That kind of PvP is completely open to you, but it will cost you reputation and alignment. Just as it would in the Pathfinder universe, and it is afterall Golarion that we are simulating in PFO.

As I mentioned in another reply the business of changing who factions are allied with or opposed to is certainly a potential feature, but much more likely is that as faction's powers ebb and flow there will an impact in the game world of one kind or another. Faction relations are GOLARION WIDE - the effects in the River Kingdoms are local at best.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tork Shaw wrote:

If you want to PvP without consequence in PFO you will have to do it in one of the following ways;

1) Catch a flagged character (criminal, heinous, etc).
2) Start a feud, literally giving you the chance to choose which enemies are meaningful to you.
3) Start a war, again giving you the chance to choose with whom to fight.
4) Join one or more factions in order to take on one or more enemy factions.
5) Stand and Deliver (within its limitations).
6) Assassination (again, within its limitations. More on that another time!)
7) Pick up some bounties.
8) Take ownership/management of one or more elements of a PoI and defend them from attackers (who have initiated an attack).

Any other PvP is griefing [[ edit - too dogmatic/incendiary a term - its not 'griefing' but its PvP behaviour that only has meaning for the killer and that meaning is more often than not the maniacal joy of killing. Sometimes its for looting a player, and in such instances the benefits of potential loot should be weighed against the loss of rep/alignment. There is an appropriate trade off]]. Attacking a player without provocation or sanctions will result in reputation and alignment loss. It's basically murder. Players who engage in a lot of this behaviour will find their reputation is adversely affected, and so is the reputation of their company or settlement. Eventually their company or settlement will suck.

Thank you so much for laying this out so clearly, and in a way that doesn't leave a bunch of loopholes. I think this will go a long way towards making everyone more comfortable.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This could mean that as the lore of the RK evolves (e.g., the opening of new areas; the entry of factions, deities, roles and races not available before OE; etc.) the relations (ebb and flow of power) between factions could also evolve. I can see the evolution of factions as one possible gateway for lore based explanations of ongoing changes in PFO game mechanic.

Goblin Squad Member

Tork Shaw wrote:


I admit I'm struggling a bit to understand your concern here... who are you quoting there with the "well if they actually wanted to legitimately PvP..."? Is that what the devs might say?

I think you might be focussing too hard on the individual parts here (but as I say, Im not sure I understand so apologies if this is wrong!). If you want to PvP without consequence in PFO you will have to do it in one of the following ways;

More or less yes, the overall statements have taken a pretty huge step from outside in the world PVP is going to be a everlooming threat to be ready for. If you want to avoid PVP, stick to the starter areas.

To what is sounding like a stance of, PVP is a feature of the game that you can opt into. Anyone you meet who isn't on a faction that is at war with yours, is going to be an opponent who is at a severe disadvantage to you, unless you are the first person they've ever attacked.

Admitted maybe this is just a slight movement of the mark, the bulk of PVP is now moved to very low information things that we really have very few details about.

Tork Shaw wrote:


1) Catch a flagged character (criminal, heinous, etc).

Something that is likely not to pose much of a challange. People who do actions that are likely to give them bad flags... are the low rep players who did not stick to the thin box of rules.

Quote:


2) Start a feud, literally giving you the chance to choose which enemies are meaningful to you.

Potential, but losely defined, as well the influence cost of it, could make it prohibitive. of course without the specifics, or a more solid understanding of the numbers, we have absolutely no way to even estimate the value, cost etc... This is the part with the best potential, but we have the least understanding of the cost.

Quote:


3) Start a war, again giving you the chance to choose with whom to fight.

Again, costs... which depending on how it is done, could make the factions who actually bother to declare war, the worse ones at it (as I said not necessarily, but it is a possibility that concerns me

Quote:


4) Join one or more factions in order to take on one or more enemy factions.

This would give potential for even matched opponents. The issue is we lack enough definition to know if we actually have a reason to be killing eachother, or just permission.

Quote:


5) Stand and Deliver (within its limitations).
6) Assassination (again, within its limitations. More on that another time!)

These have potential, we'd need to see a bit about them in their redefined status to really judge

Quote:


7) Pick up some bounties.

See 1.

Quote:


8) Take ownership/management of one or more elements of a PoI and defend them from attackers (who have initiated an attack).

Again depends on the cost of initiation. IE without actual statistics. it could be that groups that spend the cost to initiate. could be driving themselves backwards... leading to few initiators.

As I've mentioned a few times, this isn't an absolute loss. It is just that everything that was fairly certain, has been moved into a "this is being redefined our plans will come later" area. The surface being treaded is what I would consider treacherous is all. Things that I considered sure bets on being fun are now in the things I have no idea whether it is going to be decent or bad, category.

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi, if I'm interpreting you correctly, it sounds as if you expect all these costs, definitions, and other details to be laid out already? We're a year from Alpha, so I have trouble seeing any specifics as being delayed...yet.

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:
More or less yes, the overall statements have taken a pretty huge step from outside in the world PVP is going to be a everlooming threat to be ready for. If you want to avoid PVP, stick to the starter areas.

Onishi, it sounds like you're saying the original vision promised a much higher level of PvP risk, and that these latest statements from the devs have significantly reduced that. Was that your intent?

Goblin Squad Member

Aren't the take homes:

1) Faction PvP: Increase your predilection for pvp upwards. IE you're playing PFO to be fighting a lot/living to fight. It also sorts out the alignment lore difference ie CE scum die!
2) Increase penalties for deviation for "breaking flags". I think this is right. If you're pvp'ing unsanctioned and being penalized severely just go to 1) and join a Faction otherwise you're gimping yourself badly & quickly and for a longer time, is how I read this. How does this affect CE's I'm wondering, this might lead to a better deal for them so long as they're not low reputation??

3) No change: Wars/Feuds are normal economic activities of player groups. The Feud seems to have come in because they changed settlements to be amalgamations of different groups with varying interests all cooperating.

Is there a disadvantage to that? I always thought you'd need stiff penalties for "breaking flags" - If Factions is one solution it seems alright at first glance? I mean if none choose factions then the it means players being cautious in pvp more unless it's economic as per 3). Alternatively if the player population all swallow Factions en masse then it's going to be higher pvp opportunism, perhaps.

Goblin Squad Member

Jazzlvraz wrote:
Onishi, if I'm interpreting you correctly, it sounds as if you expect all these costs, definitions, and other details to be laid out already? We're a year from Alpha, so I have trouble seeing any specifics as being delayed...yet.

No I'm not saying I expect them to be layed out, or even close planned out. I'm saying what I may or may like in PVP has moved to become more or less entirely dependant on those numbers, so I no longer can actually make any assesment at all as to whether the game will be like.

Nihimon wrote:


Onishi, it sounds like you're saying the original vision promised a much higher level of PvP risk, and that these latest statements from the devs have significantly reduced that. Was that your intent?

more or less yes. It is a bit jarring to hear the shift from the old mantra of those who do not risk PVP, can expect the slowest gains for their time, into "and this is where we have chosen to refocus the world for opt-in PvP".

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay. I guess it's easier on me because this is all very much in line with what I've expected from the beginning. I mean, the details have changed, but the overarching principles seem exactly the same.

For example, "the old mantra of those who do not risk PVP, can expect the slowest gains for their time" seems very much still in effect to me. They haven't changed the fact that you're going to be exposed to the risk of PvP as soon as you set foot out of the Marshal-controlled areas, and you're not likely to advance very far inside those Marshal-controlled areas.

It seems to me that the only things they've really done with this blog are:

1. Reaffirmed that "unsanctioned" PvP will have significant consequences with respect to Alignment and Reputation;
2. Reaffirmed that having a Chaotic Evil Alignment and/or a Low Reputation will suck;
3. Redirected the folks who were most interested in PvP'ing based on their Alignment into PvP'ing based on their Faction(s).

Items 1 & 2 seem entirely consistent with pretty much everything that's ever been said about PvP in PFO. The only real change I see is item 3, and that seems perfectly reasonable to me as a way of getting people to quit wanting to play Chaotic Evil as an RP choice so that Goblinworks could follow through on their plans to make it suck to be Chaotic Evil.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Items 1 & 2 seem entirely consistent with pretty much everything that's ever been said about PvP in PFO. The only real change I see is item 3, and that seems perfectly reasonable to me as a way of getting people to quit wanting to play Chaotic Evil as an RP choice so that Goblinworks could follow through on their plans to make it suck to be Chaotic Evil.

I really hope this isn't the case. We've talked this over and over, I really hope GW treats all players desired playstyles equally. Again, the drow of Menzoberranzan are a perfect example of how CE works as a progressive playstyle to the point to where they were cohesive enough and powerful enough to strike a debilitating blow at Mithril Hall. I know that is Faerun and this is Golarian. Bregan D'aerthe is a cohesive group of backstabbers that maintain functionality despite chaos.

Again, I've got no problem with CE sucking so long as those that want to play it progressively are not handicapped because griefers default to CE. I've mentioned before how the progression of CE tied to that very chaos, could foster the CE vs CE backstabbing that many, including myself, believe there should be and go beyond a simple alignment handicap because it's CE and actually give CE advancement meaning.

Not trying to derail this, just wanted to reiterate what I had said previously.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Onishi wrote:
Tork Shaw wrote:


1) Catch a flagged character (criminal, heinous, etc).
Something that is likely not to pose much of a challange. People who do actions that are likely to give them bad flags... are the low rep players who did not stick to the thin box of rules.

I take it you mean the characters whose actions result in one corner of the action/consequence matrix dictated and foreseen by the game system? But you point would be that this is a small group or something?

For one, I don't see anything to say there is less total PVP than before. There may well be more, it's just been corralled within the rubric of Faction PVP and Feud PVP and it may very well be the same PVP that otherwise would have occurred.

Secondly, I think you are turning things too much into black or white dichotomies. Remember that Alignment and Res are not tri-nary states, but continuuums. There may be some characters who continually stay within the range of CE/Low Rep. There may be some characters who continually stay within the range of CE/High Rep via Faction/Feud/War and SAD PVP, but take Low Rep actions from time to time. The Alignment drift systems allows a certain amount of that with no real effect after all, and in a real game characters don't need to maintain some 100% ideal perfect status ALL the time. Likewise, differing Alignment: CN, LE, TN, LN, even Good Alignment component characters can take a certain amount of Chaotic/Evil actions without causing a problem: consider somebody with maximal Good rating: the amount of Evil actions they can take before turning NEUTRAL is the same amount it take somebody on the maximally Good end of Neutral can take before turning Evil.

Besides Class Role/Settlement specific Alignment restrictions, the entire concept of some Alignments/Reps being more desirable than others was simply that Low Rep hurts Settlement Upkeep Costs, and so does Chaotic, but having 1/3 of Good/Lawful/HighRep is supposed to be workable without being at significant penalty. So the more components of those you have, the more 'fortified' you are against needing to worry about any one of those aspects, thus many more character than preferred C/E/LowRep characters can engage in a decent amount of 'random PVP'. And remember that the Alignment consequence of actions scales depending on each party's own Alignment rating, 'random PVP'ing' player in a region that predominate towards Chaos and Neutral will result in much less Chaotic shift, likewise when 'random PVPing' predominantly Evil and Neutral characters.

Rather than grouping every player into a wholly binary role of 'no PVP', 'structured PVP', 'random PVP', there's an awful lot of room for many players to include some amount of 'random PVP'. The idea of large numbers of players consisting primarily on 'random PVP' just seems implausible to me in the first place, to be effective and strong in the game you will need to organize your actions somehow, and that was really the case previously, even if there weren't Faction/Feud structures to organize around.

Also remember that any group not wanting to to engage in direct hostilities itself, either to not draw attention or create a reputation for itself, or for Alignment/Reputation/Faction/Settlement related reasons, can hire 3rd party mercenaries who don't care about the particular consequences. These can be CE/LowRep groups, turning their Alignment/Rep 'stigma' into a business opportunity with relatively less competition for the role and thus higher prices, or these can be Faction/Company/Settlements already oriented to conflict with said group and getting paid just focuses their activities. One Guild is supposed to be a LN Mercenary group, a good amount of their work may be thru Bounties i.e. immunized from Chaos/LowRep, but their general Lawful standing and access to HighRep PVP means they can also accept Chaotic/LowRep jobs at a higher frequency without causing problem for their Settlement DI/Upkeep... Similar for CG 'mercenary vigilante' Settlements. If there is a desire for PVP conflict outside the scope of the given Alignment/Reputation-immunized structures, it will likely find a way to happen, either directly between the parties or indirectly via mercenaries and the like.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:

3. Redirected the folks who were most interested in PvP'ing based on their Alignment into PvP'ing based on their Faction(s).

I believe in the past there has also been talk that there should be a lot more conflict between and within the various evil alignments. When conflict is mostly alignment based, evils might focus against goods, goods against evil, and lawfuls might or might not focus efforts on chaotics.

With factions, there are good reasons for an ambitious CE to kill some LEs and for LEs to kill CE. And maybe some of those fence-sitting NEs, too. And that repeats itself across the alignment matrix. Except the LGs - they might just wound each other.


Also, I don't see any reason to believe that the mooted 'Free For All (Alignment/Rep immunized) PVP Zones' will not continue to exist in certain areas.


Urman wrote:
I believe in the past there has also been talk that there should be a lot more conflict between and within the various evil alignments. (...) With factions, there are good reasons for an ambitious CE to kill some LEs and for LEs to kill CE. And maybe some of those fence-sitting NEs, too. And that repeats itself across the alignment matrix. Except the LGs - they might just wound each other.

And plenty of CE Factions may be fighting against other CE Factions as well, likewise with many other 'similar' Aligned Factions. I'm not sure why CE/LE charactes would not have good reasons to kill CE+LE/CE respectively, even under the 'new' system without Alignment "Champion" PVP Flag (Enforcer, etc), there is relatively little Chaotic shift when LE characters attack CE characters due to scaling of repurcussions (amount of shift) based on the victim's Law/Chaos axis, Good/Evil axis, and Hi/Lo Rep axis...

Pretty much anybody can 'random PVP' CE/LowRep characters with much less worry about repurcussions (with other CE/LowRep characters of course having no inhibitions vs. 'random PVP'ing anybody, CE LG or LE). Likewise, CG characters can 'random PVP' LE characters with relatively little worry: Reputation may suffer, but remember only 1/3 of Law/Good/Rep is supposed to be viable for a normal Settlement. Conversely, LE characters can more easily 'random PVP' those same CG/LowRep characters without overly impacting their own Lawful/HighRep status (and they really only need one of those in decent standing anyways).

Beside the mechanical/optimization-based "disincentive" for certain types of PVP (depending on each character's desired Alignment/Rep status), there of course is just the 'natural' consequences stemming from in-game dynamics, characters or groups organizing vengeance or alliances in responce, that sort of thing.

Goblin Squad Member

Areks wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Items 1 & 2 seem entirely consistent with pretty much everything that's ever been said about PvP in PFO. The only real change I see is item 3, and that seems perfectly reasonable to me as a way of getting people to quit wanting to play Chaotic Evil as an RP choice so that Goblinworks could follow through on their plans to make it suck to be Chaotic Evil.
I really hope this isn't the case. We've talked this over and over, I really hope GW treats all players desired playstyles equally.

There may be subtle nuances in my wording that conveyed unintentional meaning. I think Tork Shaw's words can stand alone, and clearly convey Goblinworks' ongoing commitment to this utterly consistent message.

Attacking a player without provocation or sanctions will result in reputation and alignment loss. It's basically murder. Players who engage in a lot of this behaviour will find their reputation is adversely affected, and so is the reputation of their company or settlement. Eventually their company or settlement will suck.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What I get from this with regard to those who elect to not participate in any of the 'sanctioned' PVP routes, but who still elect to venture out of the safer areas are in no way, shape, or form any safer from PVP than anyone else. If anything they will be even more at risk since they won't have any factional associates to help them, and would be a valid target for everyone, despite the alignment/reputation hits their attackers will suffer.

I would hope that those who participate in sanctioned PVP have plenty of avenues for positive reputation and alignment adjustments, more than enough to cover the occasional murder that may be 'required'.

Goblin Squad Member

Sintaqx wrote:
... those who elect to not participate in any of the 'sanctioned' PVP routes, but who still elect to venture out of the safer areas are in no way, shape, or form any safer from PVP than anyone else.

Completely agree.

Sintaqx wrote:
I would hope that those who participate in sanctioned PVP have plenty of avenues for positive reputation and alignment adjustments, more than enough to cover the occasional murder that may be 'required'.

I completely agree that it should be possible to recover from these kinds of evil acts, but I also agree with Ryan that it should not be "easy".


Sintaqx wrote:
What I get from this with regard to those who elect to not participate in any of the 'sanctioned' PVP routes, but who still elect to venture out of the safer areas are in no way, shape, or form any safer from PVP than anyone else. If anything they will be even more at risk since they won't have any factional associates to help them, and would be a valid target for everyone, despite the alignment/reputation hits their attackers will suffer.

Good point, I can even see Factions organizing some "truce" because both sides may be facing other conflicts vs. other Factions, or prefer to focus on fulfilling the PVE aspect/goals of the Faction, or fulfilling their PVP obligations of other Factions/Companies/Settlements... even though they continue to be rival Factions with any PVP immunized from Alignment. For example, Settlement X has alot of mutual membership in Faction Y, and Settlement X prefers to focus on their Feud PVP with Settlement Z rather than PVP with Enemy Faction Q that is unrelated to Settlement Z, so they will arrange a truce between Enemy Faction Q and at least the Settlement X portion of Faction Y.

There can and will certainly be other reasons to avoid such PVP, simple natural consequences and in-game power relations is just as strong an impetus.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sintaqx wrote:
What I get from this with regard to those who elect to not participate in any of the 'sanctioned' PVP routes, but who still elect to venture out of the safer areas are in no way, shape, or form any safer from PVP than anyone else. If anything they will be even more at risk since they won't have any factional associates to help them, and would be a valid target for everyone, despite the alignment/reputation hits their attackers will suffer.

This just means the attacked will have to decide if the cost is worth the potential gain, whether the gain is in fun, revenge, sport, competition or any other type of personal reward. since there is a cost, many "casual RPKers" if there is such a thing, will have to make that decision each time. As the negatives pile on, eventually he might say "Not worth it this time." and resist the urge.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Areks wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Items 1 & 2 seem entirely consistent with pretty much everything that's ever been said about PvP in PFO. The only real change I see is item 3, and that seems perfectly reasonable to me as a way of getting people to quit wanting to play Chaotic Evil as an RP choice so that Goblinworks could follow through on their plans to make it suck to be Chaotic Evil.
I really hope this isn't the case. We've talked this over and over, I really hope GW treats all players desired playstyles equally.

There may be subtle nuances in my wording that conveyed unintentional meaning. I think Tork Shaw's words can stand alone, and clearly convey Goblinworks' ongoing commitment to this utterly consistent message.

Attacking a player without provocation or sanctions will result in reputation and alignment loss. It's basically murder. Players who engage in a lot of this behaviour will find their reputation is adversely affected, and so is the reputation of their company or settlement. Eventually their company or settlement will suck.

See, I totally interpreted this as CE will be fine as long as they aren't a bunch of griefers. I greatly appreciate the clarification Nihimon! I'm sure GW is will land it somewhere between our opinions that we both find suitable.

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:
...As mentioned, if faction's are set up in a way where the player actions actually change the faction relations, that is a considerably different animal (and one I could actually like) than if...

I hope you will not lose sight of this idea, Onishi, as it sounds intriguing, especially coupled with Quandary's thought:

Quandary wrote:
I think Faction success/failure could well be modeled after Monster Escalations and the like, or at least have similar scope in effect on game play to them (not necessarily limited to Monster Hexes).

I also grasp Torks point the these major factions have continental or even global political bases and are unlikely to be swayed other than locally... and that some will be irreconcilable, but it should be possible to influence at least some of them to some degree, just as they will influence us.

101 to 150 of 254 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Goblinworks Blog: The Man in the Back Said "Everyone Attack!" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.