Desegregation - Breaking Through the "PvP Game" Myth


Pathfinder Online

151 to 192 of 192 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

@Nihimon

Apologies, I didn't get your intent. I agree with you 100%.

Goblin Squad Member

Papaver wrote:
What is meaningful and what is not meaningful?

I think the best answer to that question was hinted at in something Tork Shaw said.

... PvP behaviour that only has meaning for the killer and that meaning is more often than not the maniacal joy of killing.

In essence, it's "meaningful" when it's meaningful to both parties.

Goblin Squad Member

Summersnow wrote:
Morbis wrote:
But what I don't want to see is a character being able to completely avoid PvP for their entire character life and still be able to progress as quickly as someone who does risk their life and gear. And that is exactly what some people on the other extreme of the spectrum push for.

I am sorry but I think you will be sadly disappointed in this.

Progression is based on training, training is a function of time, not skill, risk or pvp prowess.

Progression is based on gear, the best of which is player created and will most likely be sold everywhere, including safe zones.

The only question will be merit badges and skills and if enough people truly wishes to avoid pvp or minimize it, and I suspect there will be more then enough, there will be people and organizations in game to make that available to them for a cost to allow them to do that.

The profit potential will be too great for there to not be.

I do not believe character skills are intended to be the challenging portion of character progression, but rather the accumulation of resources, social influence, and potentially land for those who want to be in the POI/Settlement management game.

A focused craftsman may never need to go out of town. And he might build his wealth pretty well by merely buying his materials and selling his wares. But that craftsman who is willing to travel to sell his wares abroad may make more profit by crafting his blades in a metals rich environment and selling them in a metals poor one. By taking the risk to transport his goods himself, rather than sell them to trade costers, he stands to reap larger profit percentages. Also, through travel he expands his customer base and social connections, and potentially is able to pick up cheaper resources for some of his other craftable items while abroad.

Also, after a couple of years of play if he is still in the game, he may find that beginning to work on gathering/refining skills such that he has the ability to operate at all levels of his pipeline will provide almost pure profit from his labors.

Both craftsmen will likely progress skills at the same rate. But the latter craftsman is likely to have deeper pockets and be much more well connected with associates who can 'get things done'.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

"How Does Pathfinder Online Achieve This Compromise?

Pathfinder Online offers many opportunities for "sanctioned" PvP designed to allow people to engage in positive PvP. There are war and feud systems designed to allow player factions to push forward their objectives through combat, a Stand and Deliver system to allow for banditry, factional warfare to let players who just want to fight engage in combat against similar players of opposing NPC factions, and outpost raids for resource competition and those looking for a high chance of player resistance.

Un-sanctioned PvP results in a lowered reputation. Unlike many other game's this isn't entirely preventing you from engaging in NPC outside what is considered sanctioned. The fact that there will be justifiable reasons for killing outside what the mechanics can measure is accounted for. But there shouldn't be a need to do so as frequently as someone killing for killings sake would, which is why lowering reputation comes with stronger and stronger penalties as it drops further and further."

I play two MMOs and am a dedicated Pathfinder fan. Your last paragraph is the key to the PvP issue: will the penalties be severe enough to prevent 'jerks' who just want to go around killing other players? All the posts on the boards, explaining why PvEers (like me) will like PFO PvP, are moot if the penalties aren't harsh enough to discourage the behavior. Maybe they will be. Based on the history of MMOs, I'm skeptical.

If PFO PvP doesn't end up being different enough to satisfy those who don't like PvP, then some people just won't play the game. No big deal for either side (I can keep playing other MMOs), as long as PFO's player base, without potential players like me, is big enough to sustain the game.

Goblin Squad Member

@Holmes

I would really like to see big PC towns in PFO that very rarely come to ruin. And if they do, the women and children are evacuated to a more peaceful settlement, perhaps an NPC one.

How well the reputation system works remains to be seen. I really hope it works like a cut diamond...


An example to explain my (I don't believe unique) concern. Age of Conan was the first MMO I did more than sample. I (unknowingly) signed up on a PvP server. The first 20 levels (Tortage) are essentially a tutorial, with no PvP. After level 20, you go out into the world. I was enjoying the game very much and finished up Tortage.

My first day "out there," I was walking along, doing a quest, when my ranger came across a spellcaster character. Dude jumped on me and killed me before I realized what was going on.

Okay, I now understood I was in a PvP server. Fine. I went back to my tombstone and he was there and killed me again. Shortly after, in another part of the same area, he saw me and chased me. I managed to stealth and get away. I watched as he kept running around, looking for me.

While I very much liked that character, I deleted him and started a new one on a PvE server, going through the Tortage tutorial all over again.

THAT'S what I mean about penalties having to be severe enough to discourage that type of player. Graphically and combat wise, AoC is excellent and I'm playing my third alt. I'd like to play in the River Kingdoms, but not in an environment that puts me through that kind of experience again.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

@H&W

It's been awhile since I've seen you on these forums. It's good to see you back. I don't see the scenario you described happening for several reasons but only time will really tell. I really hope you'll come give us a shot once the game releases.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
I probably didn't express myself clearly enough. My point was that those two "commonly segregated camps" need to be integrated in PFO.

Do you mean "ideologically" or "Intellectually" integrated or do you mean geographically?

I'm all for promoting the understanding that PFO will not thrive, or even survive, without both PVP and PVE. However, I see PVE as playing a more support role to PVP which has been described as the "core" of the game. I'd be willing to accept the concept of that being a 55/45 split in focus, but I have a felling it might be more so.

I also feel that this desegregation needs to be geographic in nature as well. Both PVE and PVP content should be available everywhere. I recognize the limitations that there needs to be placed on PVP in the starter zones. There also needs to be an understanding on the part of PVE oriented players that traveling in certain zones is by default inviting the risk of PVP, whether they know the reason of the attack or not.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
I probably didn't express myself clearly enough. My point was that those two "commonly segregated camps" need to be integrated in PFO.
Do you mean "ideologically" or "Intellectually" integrated or do you mean geographically?

I mean that both camps will have to compromise a little, and that PFO should appeal to both camps.

Bluddwolf wrote:
Both PVE and PVP content should be available everywhere. I recognize the limitations that there needs to be placed on PVP in the starter zones. There also needs to be an understanding on the part of PVE oriented players that traveling in certain zones is by default inviting the risk of PVP, whether they know the reason of the attack or not.

DarkFall meets this criteria. DarkFall is one of the "murder simulators" that Ryan talks about. PFO is not going to be a "murder simulator".

Ultimately, some characters will be vulnerable to PvP even in the safe starter towns. Likewise, there will be limits on PvP even outside of those safe starter towns. That's the kind of compromise and integration I'm talking about.

CEO, Goblinworks

2 people marked this as a favorite.

@HolmsandWatson - the behavior you describe will happen in Pathfinder Online. Our objective is for it to happen substantially less often than it does in games that don't to try to limit that behavior. And for people who engage in that kind of behavior to find doing so increasingly less fun the more they do it.

For some people, the chance that it will happen at all is a deal breaker. I know, and accept that.

I'll also point out a couple of interesting things about your story.

1: There was no mechanical benefit for your griefer's behavior. He wasn't getting anything from the interaction but the thrill of the kill. Despite spending $50+ million on Age of Conan, the game offered him so little in the way of gameplay that he was willing to spend time griefing a challenge-less newbie. That says something about the game itself.

2: The game was marketed in a way likely to attract player killers. FunCom hyped the bloody nature of combat, and the "warlike" world of Hyboria. When you think of "Conan", you don't think about farmers, diplomats, spies, traders or teamsters. Conan had to suffer to be heroic - why shouldn't you?

3: You, and everyone like you, had an out. Go to a no-PvP server. That means the PvP servers are populated by people who prioritized PVP over the other option. Without your presence, or the presence of a mass of people who shared your values and objectives, the player killers had little social constraints. If you and people like you had not had the option to opt out, different balance would have been found within the servers. By providing a non-PvP server, FunCom significantly degraded the experience for both the player-killers and the people who didn't want any PvP. The sum of the whole would have been much higher than the value of the two halves kept separate.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
If you and people like you had not had the option to opt out, different balance would have been found within the servers. By providing a non-PvP server, FunCom significantly degraded the experience for both the player-killers and the people who didn't want any PvP. The sum of the whole would have been much higher than the value of the two halves kept separate.

And there's a perfect explanation of the importance of desegregation.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
If you and people like you had not had the option to opt out, different balance would have been found within the servers. By providing a non-PvP server, FunCom significantly degraded the experience for both the player-killers and the people who didn't want any PvP. The sum of the whole would have been much higher than the value of the two halves kept separate.
And there's a perfect explanation of the importance of desegregation.

The distinction may seem minimal, but I would prefer we focused more on integration rather than desegregation.

Desegregation will be inadequate. The challenge of integration is that those who have no tolerance for story and real meaning will still devalue story and real meaning while those on the alternative side who do integrate, who do enjoy story and plot will gradually come to understand that living in Golarion really does mean player versus player activity: they will gradually become adept at PvP and hopefully discover how it can be enjoyable.

The ideal outcome would see those who have no taste for story currently developing some taste for story and those who RP developing an appreciation of the appropriate place of PvP in their adventures.

I do know that, at least reading David Gross' novels, people did not travel in the River Kingdoms unprepared to defend themselves.

Project Manager

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Removed a post and responses. The Paizo boards have a strict, 100% no-exceptions policy against using the term "rape" to mean anything but actual sexual assault, and using it as a metaphor for victory or loss in a game is unacceptable here.


@Andius - Thanks. I do want to like PFO.

@RyanDancey - the behavior you describe will happen in Pathfinder Online. Our objective is for it to happen substantially less often than it does in games that don't to try to limit that behavior. And for people who engage in that kind of behavior to find doing so increasingly less fun the more they do it.

That. The extent to "substantially less" that it occurs will be a key for would be players like me to give it a try.

I get that if I choose to play PFO, I should expect some level of PvP: that decision was made. To do otherwise would be like playing Monopoly and complaining I have to keep track of money. That's the deal.

If I go to a Bengals-Steelers game in Cincinnati wearing black and gold, I'm going to get some grief and taunting. But if people in the stands are screaming expletives and throwing snowballs and beer at me (actually, I just described Browns fans), even if 99% of the fans around me are cool, that 1% is going to ruin the experience.

I'm just hoping that PFO's systems really do make things unpleasant enough for the 1% that they don't consistenly ruin my gaming experience. Or that the systems are strong enough that the 1% isn't really 5% or 10%.

And graphically, I hope it measures up to Age of Conan, which looks great even on my not so powerful rig.

Goblin Squad Member

I remember wishing that the Tortage experience ramped up into the higher game only gradually becoming open PvP. Tortuge was excellent. AoC actually has improved greatly from the early days (I had a beta slot: we were ignored). I recently recovered my old characters and only stopped when I hit something I could not accomplish solo (and nobody else was around interesting in helping).

Goblin Squad Member

To clarify my earlier statement, corpse camping is unlikely to be an issue because of the way gear works in PFO. You should never expect your gear to be there when you get back if you die in PvP, and even if it is, it's probably easier to replace it than deal with a corpse camper.

So unless they have access to your bind point you should be able to avoid being camped by simply not returning to the same place you were killed. And even spawn camping will hopefully be avoidable by picking secure bindpoints (For instance inside a friendly settlement.)

Once you transition over from the mindset where gear is your character and irreplaceable, to gear is a consumable and you should always have spare sets and never wear anything you aren't willing to lose, life gets really easy.

I realize that may sound intimidating but it's really like going swimming. Once you get past the shock of jumping in and adjust to the water temperature you'll have a lot of fun. Especially if you have people showing you how to swim and enjoying the experience together with you.

Goblin Squad Member

Summersnow wrote:
Morbis wrote:
But what I don't want to see is a character being able to completely avoid PvP for their entire character life and still be able to progress as quickly as someone who does risk their life and gear. And that is exactly what some people on the other extreme of the spectrum push for.

I am sorry but I think you will be sadly disappointed in this.

Progression is based on training, training is a function of time, not skill, risk or pvp prowess.

Progression is based on gear, the best of which is player created and will most likely be sold everywhere, including safe zones.

The only question will be merit badges and skills and if enough people truly wishes to avoid pvp or minimize it, and I suspect there will be more then enough, there will be people and organizations in game to make that available to them for a cost to allow them to do that.

The profit potential will be too great for there to not be.

I could be wrong but I think I read a while back that the higher tier or better trainers would only be in player settlements meaning in less safe areas of the game world or at least less safe in terms of NPC coverage.

Goblin Squad Member

HolmesandWatson wrote:
I'm just hoping that PFO's systems really do make things unpleasant enough for the 1% that they don't consistenly ruin my gaming experience.

My expectation - and I believe it's rational - is that you probably won't get killed by someone in PFO unless you have a pretty good idea of why.

You won't be safe enough that you can taunt someone and expect to be protected from them. But you'll probably be safe enough if you're minding your own business and not doing anything too risky - such as carrying lots of treasure or snooping around where you don't belong.

Goblin Squad Member

Before anyone pounces on that, I believe what you are saying is someone not placing themselves into situations that invite PvP will probably not die during a regular play-session. Not that they won't die ever, correct?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andius wrote:
Before anyone pounces on that, I believe what you are saying is someone not placing themselves into situations that invite PvP will probably not die during a regular play-session. Not that they won't die ever, correct?

Yes.

I think that most players will probably get killed at some point in time for no apparent reason. But I don't think it will happen often enough to produce the same kind of disgust it produces (for those who don't embrace it) in your average murder simulator.


People need to understand that PvP does not equal griefing. You can have open PvP with very little in the way of penalties BUT STILL give very harsh and severe penalties for behaviors like corpse camping.

Goblin Squad Member

Qallz wrote:
People need to understand that PvP does not equal griefing.

"People" in general? Or "people" taking part in this conversation?

I don't think anyone here thinks that all PvP is griefing, or even that all non-consensual PvP is griefing, or even that all Unsanctioned PvP is griefing.

Goblin Squad Member

Even one-off kills just for the lulz is enough to make a lot of people, including myself, shiver at the thought of consequence free PvP. I won't call it griefing, but I will call it not fun.

Goblin Squad Member

Qallz wrote:
People need to understand that PvP does not equal griefing. You can have open PvP with very little in the way of penalties BUT STILL give very harsh and severe penalties for behaviors like corpse camping.

while I agree to some extent its a bit like politics its the not the middlegrounds people that are the problem but the extremists.

On the PvP side those that think since the game has PvP it should be done wherever whenever. (and believe me from my brief 2 months I think it was in Mortal those people do exist they think that if a game has PvP it should be done with no other reason then to PvP)

On the other hand yes not every instance of getting killed by someone is an act of someone trying to grief you. (although I think stand and deliver might alleviate some of that)

Goblinworks Executive Founder

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
Qallz wrote:
People need to understand that PvP does not equal griefing.

"People" in general? Or "people" taking part in this conversation?

I don't think anyone here thinks that all PvP is griefing, or even that all non-consensual PvP is griefing, or even that all Unsanctioned PvP is griefing.

Nor the converse: Not all griefing is Unsanctioned PvP, nor even non-consensual PvP, nor ever PvP combat.

There is no doubt that PFO would be best off if zero people chose to grief. Since it is a fact about the universe that there exist people who grief, one question is 'How do we minimize the total effectiveness of people who attempt to grief without introducing worse side effects?'

CEO, Goblinworks

4 people marked this as a favorite.

There are a lot of people who want to be player-killers. Especially if they can kill players who don't want to be killed. That's a pathological response to a game environment where I cannot come to your house and punch you in the face if you persist in being an a@#@@#!.

The industry responded to that problem by deciding not to permit PvP outside of opt-in environments, I think that was a mistake. EVE proves you can have a success and not restrict PvP. The challenge is to have multiple effective feedback loops that retain people player-killing for a meaningful reason, and exclude people who just want to be a*+%@+*s.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Chess is PvP. Chutes and Ladders is PvP. PvP is not the problem. The abuse of people is the problem.


HolmesandWatson wrote:

I play two MMOs and am a dedicated Pathfinder fan. Your last paragraph is the key to the PvP issue: will the penalties be severe enough to prevent 'jerks' who just want to go around killing other players? All the posts on the boards, explaining why PvEers (like me) will like PFO PvP, are moot if the penalties aren't harsh enough to discourage the behavior. Maybe they will be. Based on the history of MMOs, I'm skeptical.

If PFO PvP doesn't end up being different enough to satisfy those who don't like PvP, then some people just won't play the game. No big deal for either side (I can keep playing other MMOs), as long as PFO's player base, without potential players like me, is big enough to sustain the game.

Thank you, I've been trying to find a way to phrase this for the past hour while reading the thread.

It all comes down to the jerks. To go back over a decade, the "PKs". As long as they're allowed to run free, PVE vs PVP is and will remain a zero-sum game. There will remain a subset of players who specifically make it their hobby, mission statement, and religion to ruin the fun of anyone who wants to do anything other than play the game their way. As long as that's gumming up the works, PFO can't appeal to the crowd who doesn't like PVP, because of why they don't like it.

Goblin Squad Member

It has been the way of it for thirty years (or more). It is unlikely to go away by itself. Maybe GW has a handle on a solution: at least they recognize the need and are working on the supply.

Goblin Squad Member

That will be true for some people. Any PvP = deal breaker. However I think a lot of people will be able to deal with PvP if the abuses they fear aren't playing out over and over on a regular basis.

My great hope for PFO is that it will try as hard as possible to curtail the abuse while preserving the vast majority of meaningful PvP. I think the current plan as I understand it has a good chance to do that if implemented well and adjusted as needed.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
There are a lot of people who want to be player-killers. Especially if they can kill players who don't want to be killed. That's a pathological response to a game environment where I cannot come to your house and punch you in the face if you persist in being an a%~!*%&.

I do so love the way you talk :)

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
Chess is PvP. Chutes and Ladders is PvP. PvP is not the problem. The abuse of people is the problem.

Well said, sir. Very well said.


Qallz wrote:
FFA PvP in Wilderness and Monster hexes. PvP safety in NPC hexes. At the discretion of each settlement in settlement hexes. Problem solved.

I agree with this except for two things:

1.) Settlements shouldn't have control over PvP being enabled/disabled otherwise every single one will prevent it and, honestly, it seems ridiculous that they could magically prevent someone from fighting without force. They should be able to make laws restricting it, have guards that automatically engage the attacker, and put into place any and all restrictions they deem necessary to prevent people who WILL PvP from gaining access to their settlement. But they shouldn't be able to say "you can't attack us no matter what because we say so".

Unless... you just mean "PvP safety" as in the laws are against it and there are guards instead of "PvP is disabled".

2.) It should depend on the NPC hex in question. The starter ones should be PvP protected obviously. Other NPC hexes are potentially based on faction warfare and should allow the players to be attacked IMO.

Unless, once again, you just mean laws/NPCs protecting players from being attacked instead of disabling PvP.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Being wrote:
Chess is PvP. Chutes and Ladders is PvP.

Economics is PVP. I've been trying to figure out why no one's afraid/upset/worried about being taken advantage of by those crafty crafters; the money game is going to be vicious here, and there's been minimal discussion so far, compared with the the hit-by-pointed-sticks topic that keeps coming around.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jazzlvraz wrote:
... the money game is going to be vicious here, and there's been minimal discussion so far, compared with the the hit-by-pointed-sticks topic that keeps coming around.

People intuitively understand and accept being attacked in the money game - it makes sense to them. It's the "senseless" slaughter that most rational people avoid.


Xeen wrote:

Good post Morbis.

Ganking noobs is pointless. I am a heavy PVP advocate in case you didnt notice. Open PVP in player controlled areas to me is the only real way to have it.

You want law and order in your territory? Then you make it happen. This is a sandbox game, there is not need for a system that tries to persuade you away from PVP.

You want to choke the market in an enemy territory? Then you make it happen. There is no need for a system that penalizes you for fighting your enemy. Also, in player areas there is no real need for a system in place that allows you to fight each other... This is a sandbox game, Enemies are at war when they say they are at war, not after some mechanic declares it such.

Want a frienemy? You can do that to. You fight each other during the boring times to keep each other on your toes. But if someone moves in and tries to mess with either one of you, You both gang up on them. No war mechanic, no penalties, just defense of your territories.

High consequences in NPC/Noob territory.
Moderate consequences in NPC non Noob territory.
No consequences in PC territory.

I think this is an important point to make. A well developed sandbox not only gives other players the ability to affect you... it gives you the control over how you are affected. If you don't want players doing certain things, you have the tools to prevent it in the first place. You don't need the game to physically limit others in order to protect yourself and those of a similar view. This works in the game for the same reason that lawful societies function in reality. Those who want peace and order are the majority and they develop the tools to maintain this.

DeciusBrutus wrote:

Nor the converse: Not all griefing is Unsanctioned PvP, nor even non-consensual PvP, nor ever PvP combat.

There is no doubt that PFO would be best off if zero people chose to grief. Since it is a fact about the universe that there exist people who grief, one question is 'How do we minimize the total effectiveness of people who attempt to grief without introducing worse side effects?'

I believe that it is THE question to be answered, in fact. All of these discussions revolve around that very question.

Goblin Squad Member

Jazzlvraz wrote:
Being wrote:
Chess is PvP. Chutes and Ladders is PvP.
Economics is PVP. I've been trying to figure out why no one's afraid/upset/worried about being taken advantage of by those crafty crafters; the money game is going to be vicious here, and there's been minimal discussion so far, compared with the the hit-by-pointed-sticks topic that keeps coming around.

YOU LEAVE POINTY STICKS OUT OF THIS!!! They're just being who they are man and you have no right to judge. Now I will have to cultivate my industrial might to pursue the goal of crushing you with Goblin Balls.

(As non-forum-regulars can attest right now, context is everything)

Goblin Squad Member

Perhaps we should avoid putting those Pointy Sticks next to Goblin Balls... Might leave the wrong impression...

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Perhaps we should avoid putting those Pointy Sticks next to Goblin Balls... Might leave the wrong impression...

thats... just... I'ma go and leave you 2 alone now

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Perhaps we should avoid putting those Pointy Sticks next to Goblin Balls... Might leave the wrong impression...

Nah man! Continue. I'm just gonna put on some Barry White and bring out the Jello shots.


Alarox wrote:
Qallz wrote:
FFA PvP in Wilderness and Monster hexes. PvP safety in NPC hexes. At the discretion of each settlement in settlement hexes. Problem solved.

I agree with this except for two things:

1.) Settlements shouldn't have control over PvP being enabled/disabled otherwise every single one will prevent it and, honestly, it seems ridiculous that they could magically prevent someone from fighting without force. They should be able to make laws restricting it, have guards that automatically engage the attacker, and put into place any and all restrictions they deem necessary to prevent people who WILL PvP from gaining access to their settlement. But they shouldn't be able to say "you can't attack us no matter what because we say so".

Unless... you just mean "PvP safety" as in the laws are against it and there are guards instead of "PvP is disabled".

2.) It should depend on the NPC hex in question. The starter ones should be PvP protected obviously. Other NPC hexes are potentially based on faction warfare and should allow the players to be attacked IMO.

Unless, once again, you just mean laws/NPCs protecting players from being attacked instead of disabling PvP.

Good post. Yea, what I meant is they could have guards preventing it, and also give normal reputation losses and make it a crime, but not disable it completely.

As far as your second point, as I understand all the NPC hexes will be "starter zones", though I could be mistaken. If they are, I wouldn't really mind if PvP was completely shut off in these zones tbh.

The system would work if, as stated above, there were still severe penalties for behaviors like Corpse Camping

Goblin Squad Member

Alarox wrote:
Qallz wrote:
FFA PvP in Wilderness and Monster hexes. PvP safety in NPC hexes. At the discretion of each settlement in settlement hexes. Problem solved.

I agree with this except for two things:

1.) Settlements shouldn't have control over PvP being enabled/disabled otherwise every single one will prevent it and, honestly, it seems ridiculous that they could magically prevent someone from fighting without force. They should be able to make laws restricting it, have guards that automatically engage the attacker, and put into place any and all restrictions they deem necessary to prevent people who WILL PvP from gaining access to their settlement. But they shouldn't be able to say "you can't attack us no matter what because we say so".

Unless... you just mean "PvP safety" as in the laws are against it and there are guards instead of "PvP is disabled".

As currently envisioned, Settlements will be able to establish laws regarding PvP. Breaking these laws produces a Criminal Flag which makes you a Sanctioned target for PvP in that settlement's territory for some amount of time (currently measured in minutes). Rapid, repeat offenses may provide a longer term flag (measured in hours).

Settlements will also have PvP Windows. During these windows, NPC guard presence is reduced but laws and consequences are still in effect. The idea is that assaulting the settlement is best done during these times of reduced guard presence. Participating in singular PvP that is against the laws is likely safer during this window as well. The current plan is to put caps on Settlement Development Indexes (A form of currency for supporting and maintaining various settlement structures, trainers, and activities such as war) based on the length of the windows. A settlement with a tiny window is going to stay tiny. A settlement with the pvp window open all the time will be able to reach the pinnacle of settlement size - if properly managed and conditions are right. This is to allow small and new settlements to get a foothold and minimize risk. As they grow larger, they must increase risk to maintain themselves.

When a PvP window is closed, expect many more and much stronger guards to be present. I do not believe they will be auto-kill guards like NPC settlements might get, but I do not believe that has been discussed much yet.

151 to 192 of 192 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Desegregation - Breaking Through the "PvP Game" Myth All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Online