Gobbo-blog: Ganking is Good (Part 1) by K. Joseph Davis


Pathfinder Online

51 to 100 of 141 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Are people really that fragile or am I too harsh?
You're quite harsh.

I think everyone is fragile

LOL

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
I dont understand why everyone is taking offense to everything... Are people really that fragile or am I too harsh?

Not meant as a personal attack: My grandpa once told me that if I get the same negative reaction from several people then the other people may not be the cause of the problem at hand.

But as there are also enough people who agree with how you get your points across it's up for you to decide. :)

Goblin Squad Member

Morbis wrote:
In a PvP environment there is very much a 'valid way' of playing the game. If I can kill you in under 30 seconds and you take over 5 minutes to kill me, I am playing the game in a more 'valid' way. You are free to play however you wish, but by a purely mechanical point of view my method is superior.

Since we both get the same results a.k.a. won the fight, no, your way is not superior.

Goblin Squad Member

Papaver wrote:
Morbis wrote:
In a PvP environment there is very much a 'valid way' of playing the game. If I can kill you in under 30 seconds and you take over 5 minutes to kill me, I am playing the game in a more 'valid' way. You are free to play however you wish, but by a purely mechanical point of view my method is superior.
Since we both get the same results a.k.a. won the fight, no, your way is not superior.

Ill stick with harsh... Or rather blunt and honest as I see it

No, actually his way is better, he got in, got the kill, and got out... If it takes you 5 minutes, then you may kill him, but his buddies have had enough time to catch you and kill you...

So in his (my) way he got the kill and survived, you got the kill and died.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
...am I too harsh?

I believe it's that your statements often are presented in the rhetorical style of fact, rather than using qualifying and mitigating words such as "in my opinion", "I believe", "in my experience". Others use "some players" instead of "everyone"; "maybe", "perhaps", and "it may be" instead of certainty; and "sometimes" or "often" instead of "always".

You may know, and be able to prove, that something is a fact, but if your reader's not ready and willing to accept it, then mitigate. You'll still be right, and you've got at least a chance of running a convincing argument.

Goblin Squad Member

Papaver wrote:
Morbis wrote:
In a PvP environment there is very much a 'valid way' of playing the game. If I can kill you in under 30 seconds and you take over 5 minutes to kill me, I am playing the game in a more 'valid' way. You are free to play however you wish, but by a purely mechanical point of view my method is superior.
Since we both get the same results a.k.a. won the fight, no, your way is not superior.

Except that these fights don't exist in a vacuum, and when they intersect one of the two will win out. If I take 30 seconds to kill you (by stacking the alpha, using aggressive positioning, catching you unaware, whatever it is that you aren't doing that is pushing you to five minutes) and you take 5 minutes to kill me then I am going to win every single encounter between the two of us. Worse, any encounter that I don't immediately win and that I do drag out to 5 minutes I can simply press the reset button by calling in allies. You don't have the same option when I am killing you faster than a local warp-in takes.

We may get the same result in the end, against two separate entities. But my result is 1) more repeatable by minimising outside influence, and 2) safer in the long term, again due to minimising outside influence.

In fact in my example we aren't getting the same result, we both don't win the fight. I win the fight with a good 4:30 left to spare on the clock (give 30 seconds to account for your increased tankiness, the only way I can see you taking that long to die.)

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
So in his (my) way he got the kill and survived, you got the kill and died.

But that is not what i'm talking about. I'm talking about winning a fight in 30 sec vs. winning a fight in 5 minutes. If you are going to include loosing a fight on my side of course your example will look better but that's simply spinning it in your favor and completely irrelevant to what I'm saying. So yeah there is no difference between winning in after 5 minutes and winning in 30 seconds.

Goblin Squad Member

I probably should not continue debating the validity of approaches to EvE combat and thus further derail this thread.

To come back to my original point: Sandbox MMORPG combat does not have to be lightning fast to not be boring.

Goblin Squad Member

Morbis wrote:
If I take 30 seconds to kill you... and you take 5 minutes to kill me then I am going to win every single encounter between the two of us.

I think the argument is that it usually takes you 30 seconds to kill someone, but Papaver may be able to evade your normal tactics, drag the fight out, and eventually kill you after 5 minutes or so.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Ill stick with harsh... Or rather blunt and honest as I see it

You've seen your current rhetorical style often fails to bring people who didn't already share it around to your viewpoint. If you choose not to adapt, alter, or update your presentation, then I'm guessing convincing a broad audience of the value of your points isn't your goal?

Goblin Squad Member

Papaver wrote:


To come back to my original point: Sandbox MMORPG combat does not have to be lightning fast to not be boring.

I will agree with that. And I agree, I don't think we are going to agree on the EvE situation, so I will also drop it, at least within this thread.

So, instead, a quick definition of what I see as 'ganking'. A gank is an aggressive action made by a individual, or a group of individuals, that exploits a particular advantage such that their target is faced with overwhelming odds. I feel that that is a nice, broad definition that sufficiently fits a wide range of situations.

Say that PFO does have a TTK (time-to-kill) of ~5 minutes in a one on one situation. Personally, I see that as exceeding unlikely, but I will entertain the idea for the sake of this example. Now shift the number of attackers such that it is a two on one situation: The TTK does not drop to 2 minutes 30 seconds. It is more likely to drop to ~2 minutes due to increased CC, increased positional advantage, and the added confusion that fighting against unfair odds presses onto an opponent. So now, with a 2:1 ratio we have over halved the predicted TTK.

Now double the number of attackers again up to 4. For the sake of ease, we will just say that this halves the TTK again, though it would likely push the same disadvantages onto the opponent as I suggested above. This means that we now have a TTK ~1 minute. Still within the acceptable range, I would say.

Now double the number of attackers up to 8. We have a TTK of ~30 seconds. Almost certainly less. Are we approaching numbers that make you uncomfortable yet? Double it again up to 16. Our TTK is now ~15 seconds. That is fast enough that you can almost certainly not react sufficient to do any reasonable damage to your attackers. Double it again to 32. Our TTK is now low enough that it doesn't really bare measuring.

Note that 32 attackers is not an outrageous number for someone to bring to bear. In my time playing MMOs I have very regularly been involved in ad-hoc groups an order of magnitude larger, put together for the sole purpose of finding legitimate targets (which in PFO would probably be Stand and Deliver targets).

In my opinion this is where having an overly high TTK makes a game less than exciting. It makes overwhelming odds an incredibly beneficial tactic. It promotes zerging in the worst possible way. Say that the TTK on an enemy is, instead, 15 seconds. Less if you focus on maxing your alpha burst. Our poor defender in the above example now actually has a chance to do worthwhile damage to the enemy. He might, through luck, bring one of the 16 people wailing on him down before they get the killing blow. This is impossible when you have 5 minute TTKs.

Goblin Squad Member

Jazzlvraz wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Ill stick with harsh... Or rather blunt and honest as I see it
You've seen your current rhetorical style often fails to bring people who didn't already share it around to your viewpoint. If you choose not to adapt, alter, or update your presentation, then I'm guessing convincing a broad audience of the value of your points isn't your goal?

In all honesty, you can change the opinion of people for a short time, but rarely does it stay changed.

My goal is not to change peoples minds for them, but to give them more info to think about... If I do not do this in a convincing manner then oh well. Its their failure to learn from my experience.

Goblin Squad Member

Good Example Morbis

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
That might teach a griefer a lesson...
It seems to me that as soon as you target the player behind the keyboard by wanting to "teach them a lesson", you're probably crossing the line.
ISnt that what Reputation does? Or banning them?
Those actions are taken by Goblinworks, not by other players.

@ Nihimon,

So you are opposed to the use of Bounties, Assassins, Death Curses, Feuds and Wars then?

I was specific to only list methods that we as players have at our disposal. I included above, all of the GW ones, short of banning.

But, if you are against any player retaliation for griefing, isn't that more pro-griefer than anything I have ever written?

Or is it that you trust that GW will handle it?

I can assure you, they won't, because they can't and they acknowledged that point on several occasions. Ryan Dancey's vision notwithstanding, the reality of Open World PVP MMOs will prove his vision (to a certain extent) naive.

PFO will be no different than any of the others out there in that respect. The Devs and Producers of PFO would pray to the PC Gaming Gods if they could have EvE Online's success, even if they had to accept EvE Online's culture.... They'd do it in a heart beat, or they'd be fools not to.

10 years (120 months)x 300,000+ subscribers x $15.00 = 450 million, not including box sales, Plex Sales, merchandising, etc...

Well over a half billion $ in revenue.

Goblin Squad Member

Dont forget character transfers too, the Character Bazaar in Eve is full of action and they charge $20 per character transfer... or 2 PLEX that cost $19.99 each

PLEX sales easily matches subscription revenues... EASILY

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:

Dont forget character transfers too, the Character Bazaar in Eve is full of action and they charge $20 per character transfer... or 2 PLEX that cost $19.99 each

PLEX sales easily matches subscription revenues... EASILY

Yes I know, I'm low balling it, on purpose so that the argument against can't be made that I over stated anything.

Goblin Squad Member

Although he'll drop in one second against those 16 people, especially if, as you said, they maximise their use of CC's. He shouldn't even get an attack out before dying.

Assuming the "half TTK when doubled attackers" that you used, the defender has 0.9375 seconds to kill someone before he dies. This would basically mean if he can get in some crazy nova damage with a single skill, before the enemy can CC him, he can drop one guy 100% to 0% with that attack. As I understand it, dropping someone from 100% to 0% with one attack is not going to be possible (unless maybe you have a well trained, well geared toon hitting a naked just-made alt, but that's not a very realistic scenario for our purposes, or I hope it isn't).

So basically, killing any one of your 16 attackers is effectively impossible with 15 second TTK's, just as impossible as the 5 minute TTK's. And to be honest, if 16 people are attacking the same target I hope they can kill him faster than he can kill anyone. It just makes sense. This isn't a kung-fu movie where the lone merchant plays the protagonist and takes on a horde of bandits, disabling each with a single attack. This is a game where he's assumed to be equal in power to one of those 16 guys, if not a little weaker than their average because bandits tend to be more combat focused than merchants.

If he can one-hit-kill the bandits, then they can one-hit-kill him, and this game simply becomes who has the best stealth skills, latency, and/or pure numbers, which I don't think is the idea for combat. I don't think it's legitimate to say "the one guy can focus on maximizing his burst damage for a chance at a kill", because the bandits can do exactly what he's doing, only have 16x as much of it. It's basically assuming the bandits are not going to be building toward their job, and aren't going to be prepared for resistance to their SAD's. I think these are unfair assumptions.

-----------------------

In my opinion, a good TTK would lie somewhere in between the two extremes given (5 minutes and 15 seconds). Say, maybe 30 seconds (or a bit less) for someone fully optimised for damage against Mr. Joe Schmoe fighter guy, but more like 1 minute 30 seconds for an average fight of equal power.

Edit: My argument is directed at Morbis. This is what I get for not previewing a second time before posting. >_>

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

@ Nihimon,

So you are...

I am disinclined to acquiesce to your invitation to quibble over definitions.

Goblin Squad Member

Yeah, they have made a massive amount of money for a game that isnt so over populated that they need a crap ton of servers. Then of course there are people still playing from day 1.

Either way, back on point. You are correct, there is no way they can remove griefing on the smaller levels. People will complain they have been griefed when someone winks at them. If GW spent full resources on that alone to try and remove it from the game completely, they will be spending more money then they make just to do it.

Talking OE not EE

Goblin Squad Member

Shane Gifford wrote:

In my opinion, a good TTK would lie somewhere in between the two extremes given (5 minutes and 15 seconds). Say, maybe 30 seconds (or a bit less) for someone fully optimised for damage against Mr. Joe Schmoe fighter guy, but more like 1 minute 30 seconds for an average fight of equal power.

Edit: My argument is directed at Morbis. This is what I get for not previewing a second time before posting. >_>

Should be directed at Papaver and myself as well, LOL.

1 min 30 seconds for a straight up fight 1v1 is a good time to me. I would look for closer to 1 minute, but 1.5 is acceptable.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

@ Nihimon,

So you are...

I am disinclined to acquiesce to your invitation to quibble over definitions.

Um... LOL?

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Should be directed at Papaver and myself as well, LOL.

Indeed!

Bluddwolf wrote:

I can assure you, they won't, because they can't and they acknowledged that point on several occasions. Ryan Dancey's vision notwithstanding, the reality of Open World PVP MMOs will prove his vision (to a certain extent) naive.

PFO will be no different than any of the others out there in that respect. The Devs and Producers of PFO would pray to the PC Gaming Gods if they could have EvE Online's success, even if they had to accept EvE Online's culture.... They'd do it in a heart beat, or they'd be fools not to.

If PFOs devs are about to replicate EvE's culture and approach to PvP because of it's success they are already doomed to the same fate as all the devs tying to replicate WoW's culture and approach to PvE.

Goblin Squad Member

Papaver wrote:
If PFOs devs are about to replicate EvE's culture and approach to PvP because of it's success they are already doomed to the same fate as all the devs tying to replicate WoW's culture and approach to PvE.

I'll have to assume you don't know enough about EVE ONline, to have made that statement.

Goblin Squad Member

Papaver wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Should be directed at Papaver and myself as well, LOL.

Indeed!

Bluddwolf wrote:

I can assure you, they won't, because they can't and they acknowledged that point on several occasions. Ryan Dancey's vision notwithstanding, the reality of Open World PVP MMOs will prove his vision (to a certain extent) naive.

PFO will be no different than any of the others out there in that respect. The Devs and Producers of PFO would pray to the PC Gaming Gods if they could have EvE Online's success, even if they had to accept EvE Online's culture.... They'd do it in a heart beat, or they'd be fools not to.

If PFOs devs are about to replicate EvE's culture and approach to PvP because of it's success they are already doomed to the same fate as all the devs tying to replicate WoW's culture and approach to PvE.

I think you missed the perspective...

He is saying, if they could have that success with the negatives that go with it, they would take it in a heart beat. Dont let any rhetoric tell you differently.

They wont copy Eve, but if they did, to compare it to the WOW replications is nonsense. WOW has been done so many times its ridiculous, even SWTOR is a clone. Eve on the other hand has only been done by Eve, and a PFO done like Eve would succeed better then any WoW clone could ever hope to.

In fact, PFO done like Eve would not be a clone...

There is NO Medieval version of Eve, Eve uses ships not characters, etc etc We could go on all day with the differences.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
I'll have to assume you don't know enough about EVE ONline, to have made that statement.

First, that assumption is wrong.

Second, how is my knowledge of eve relevant to that statement?

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
I think you missed the perspective...

That's possible.

Xeen wrote:

He is saying, if they could have that success with the negatives that go with it, they would take it in a heart beat. Dont let any rhetoric tell you differently.

They wont copy Eve, but if they did, to compare it to the WOW replications is nonsense. WOW has been done so many times its ridiculous, even SWTOR is a clone. Eve on the other hand has only been done by Eve, and a PFO done like Eve would succeed better then any WoW clone could ever hope to.

In fact, PFO done like Eve would not be a clone...

There is NO Medieval version of Eve, Eve uses ships not characters, etc etc We could go on all day with the differences.

See, it's always this "this will be different then any WoW clone" rhetoric that gives away the following failure.

To be successful PFO's devs should make PFO and not Medieval character based EvE.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

@ Nihimon,

So you are...

I am disinclined to acquiesce to your invitation to quibble over definitions.

There are no definitions required, player tools to retaliate or "teach griefers a lesson" are:

1. Bounties
2. Assassination
3. Death Curses
4. Feuds
5. War

Which of these do you feel we may have a different definition?

It appears you might want to just leave your comment that I'm pro griefer out there, and not acknowledge the fact that you mischaracterized my stance on griefers.

I wish to use player tools to punish them, because I know that GW's ability to do so will be inadequate. They know it as well, which is why they have hedged their bets on saying they will be effective against griefing.

Goblin Squad Member

Papaver wrote:

See it's always this "this will be different then any WoW clone" rhetoric that gives away the following failure.

To be successful PFO's devs should make PFO and not Medieval character based EvE. (ninja edit)

?

Are you saying PFO is an Eve clone or a WoW clone? Neither?

What Im saying is... You cannot make PFO an Eve Clone. It just doesnt work out that way. Now you can follow the concepts, which PFO is doing... Read the early dev blogs.

Oh yeah, and Ganking, there will be ganking.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

And another thread derail... bleah...

Goblin Squad Member

Psyblade wrote:
And another thread derail... bleah...

Shhhh, Im hunting wabbits

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

sorry, that is how my super is called when I am dropping it on innocent bystanders...

carry on...

Goblin Squad Member

Psyblade wrote:

sorry, that is how my super is called when I am dropping it on innocent bystanders...

carry on...

LOL

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Oh yeah, and Ganking, there will be ganking.

Hopefully not.

Goblin Squad Member

Are you understanding what ganking is? It is not griefing.

When 10 characters run accross 1 character and attack. That is a gank, it will happen, there is not way to avoid it, there is no way to remove it from the game, hoping it doesnt happen will just leave you disappointed

Goblin Squad Member

Papaver wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Oh yeah, and Ganking, there will be ganking.
Hopefully not.

Wait, what? How on earth do you expect them to remove ganking from a game that will have open world PvP? Literally the only possible way to remove ganking is to only have pre-agreed duels that only match equal numbered opponents against each other.

Is that what you are expecting PFO to implement?

Goblin Squad Member

One of the biggest factors where ganking is concerned is how much force can be brought to bear on a single target. Can you bring 32 archers and focus fire on a target? How about melee? Can 32 swordsmen attack a single target? How about mixed groups? If a target is engaged in melee, can an archer effectively contribute? What is the chance of friendly fire? How effective are ranged attacks when the attacker is forced into a melee situation?

In EVE there's no such thing as line of sight, and in order to have friendly fire you must actively target the friendly ship (or use bombs). Because of this it's trivial to scale focused fire to absurd levels. If I recall correctly things like Line of Sight/Effect and incidental friendly fire will be possible in PFO, though I could be off-base here.

Goblin Squad Member

Morbis wrote:
How on earth do you expect them to remove ganking from a game that will have open world PvP?

Mostly by changing the culture so that players just plain don't kill other characters willy-nilly. Goblinworks will do this by creating lots of sanctioned ways to engage in PvP with other willing targets.

It won't completely eliminate "ganking", but I expect it will significantly reduce it relative to other Open World PvP games.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Morbis wrote:
How on earth do you expect them to remove ganking from a game that will have open world PvP?

Mostly by changing the culture so that players just plain don't kill other characters willy-nilly. Goblinworks will do this by creating lots of sanctioned ways to engage in PvP with other willing targets.

It won't completely eliminate "ganking", but I expect it will significantly reduce it relative to other Open World PvP games.

@ Nihimon - How would you articulate 20 (faction A) vs 3 (faction B)?

Would that not be by definition sanctioned ganking?

EDIT: Or do you see a difference between ganking and sanctioned ganking?

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Morbis wrote:
How on earth do you expect them to remove ganking from a game that will have open world PvP?

Mostly by changing the culture so that players just plain don't kill other characters willy-nilly. Goblinworks will do this by creating lots of sanctioned ways to engage in PvP with other willing targets.

It won't completely eliminate "ganking", but I expect it will significantly reduce it relative to other Open World PvP games.

Do you really think having sanctioned PVP is going to prevent ganking?

That does nothing to prevent ganking... So let me restate my post from above with the PFO Faction PVP in place.

10 Hellknights run across 1 Bandit and attack him... etc etc

Goblin Squad Member

"Ganking is good" - sounds like something I read in the novel 1984. :p

Of course ganking can work wonders. It's clever decision-making and planning eg an ambush. But the dose needs to be right. The eg of lvl 60 vs newb as per other mmorpgs as bread and butter ganking is turning the mmorpg into a murder simulator than a rationale fantasy world where conditions of evolution balance things up both so that they are imperceptible but inextricably extant.

Goblin Squad Member

Sintaqx wrote:

One of the biggest factors where ganking is concerned is how much force can be brought to bear on a single target. Can you bring 32 archers and focus fire on a target? How about melee? Can 32 swordsmen attack a single target? How about mixed groups? If a target is engaged in melee, can an archer effectively contribute? What is the chance of friendly fire? How effective are ranged attacks when the attacker is forced into a melee situation?

In EVE there's no such thing as line of sight, and in order to have friendly fire you must actively target the friendly ship (or use bombs). Because of this it's trivial to scale focused fire to absurd levels. If I recall correctly things like Line of Sight/Effect and incidental friendly fire will be possible in PFO, though I could be off-base here.

Yeah, they have mentioned Friendly Fire but have stated nothing other then Spells so far... We shall see.

Goblin Squad Member

If three characters are killed trying to defend a Fort against an onslaught of 60 characters, I don't consider that a gank.

If three characters are walking around minding their own business and get jumped by 60 characters, that's probably a gank. If that group of 60 doesn't continue on to do something meaningful, like attack a POI or something, then it was a meaningless gank.

My expectation is that players will have better things to do in PFO than meaninglessly gank others. I also have an expectation that the most frequent types of ganking seen in other Open World PvP games will be largely absent from PFO because of the cost in Reputation.

Goblin Squad Member

Not only is ganking fine, not only is ganking necessary, ganking is essential. If we are all fighting "fair" we may as well give up and go and do arenas in Wow. Warfare is, and always has been, "getting there the firstest with the mostest" to misquote Nathan Bedford Forrest. I do think that people may be overstating the case when they suggest an alpha strike by 16 or 32 characters; PfO is not EvE and simple restrictions of working in 2 dimensions (essentially) and h-t-h combatants taking up space may make that an impossibility. That said, if you only fight when the odds are fair, you are going to die. A lot.

@ Bluddwolf

You included people who had griefed you on the list of those who you considered acceptable targets for repeated killing. I took this to mean that you would grief the griefer. If this was not the case, I apologise and withdraw the comment.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Yeah, they have mentioned Friendly Fire but have stated nothing other then Spells so far... We shall see.

And even then, it's only Area Effect spells.

Goblin Squad Member

Morbis wrote:
Is that what you are expecting PFO to implement?

No, I'm not.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

If three characters are walking around minding their own business and get jumped by 60 characters, that's probably a gank. If that group of 60 doesn't continue on to do something meaningful, like attack a POI or something, then it was a meaningless gank.

Regardless of faction relations?

Goblin Squad Member

Lhan wrote:


@ Bluddwolf

You included people who had griefed you on the list of those who you considered acceptable targets for repeated killing. I took this to mean that you would grief the griefer. If this was not the case, I apologise and withdraw the comment.

If I wanted to kill them repeatedly, I would do so, but through the use of the Feud or the War mechanics. Or I could repeatedly kill / have them killed through each of the other tools:

1. Bounty = Kill
2. Assassination = Kill #2
3. Death Curse = Kill #3

If I get respawn camped, I can never get corpse camped, then I would use every tool available to have my revenge.

* I can't get corpse camped because I would never be so stupid as to return to my corpse and expect not to get killed again.

"Only carry what you can afford to lose".

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

Goblinworks will do this by creating lots of sanctioned ways to engage in PvP with other willing targets.

It won't completely eliminate "ganking", but I expect it will significantly reduce it relative to other Open World PvP games.

Will merchants hauling their "mother loads" ever be willing targets? I think not....

Perhaps part of the culture that needs changing is the merchant / hauler / trader / harvesters that think they should get a free ride, if they proclaim they prefer not to participate in PVP.

Goblin Squad Member

The individual, passionate views on this subject could fill a dozen blogs or more.

Just sayin :)

Goblin Squad Member

Just putting this out here, I don't think that merchants should be free from PvP. However, I will work in game, and in game politics, to reduce as much as possible the amount of PvP I myself as a merchant am subjected to. To do otherwise doesn't make any sense. Why would I not try to protect myself and my goods from people who want to take them away? Why would I work toward losing more of my goods unwillingly?

It's obvious at this point in the design that PvP is not something you can easily be exempt from, so anybody who has said they want a free ride if they don't want to participate in PvP isn't looking at the right game. I'm not sure which people you are seeing who expect a free ride. Perhaps you are mischaracterizing?

51 to 100 of 141 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Gobbo-blog: Ganking is Good (Part 1) by K. Joseph Davis All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.