Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I was poking around and found this article which goes into the difference between rules and restrictions in a FFA PvP Sandbox MMO.
I didn't see this particular article linked here in my search but I may have missed it. Even so, it's worth another read through.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Based on some of the terms being thrown out there about sheep and wolves and PvP as the primary content seems like it's a reasonably good chance he's actually talking about Pathfinder Online, or is at least somewhat familiar with it and the dialogue on these forums.
Also fairly safe to assume that if he is referring to PFO he hasn't read much on the reputation system because it basically does what he's demanding should be done.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Building settlements, stamping down Monster escalations, Dungeonruns, the trading-game: when these are all fun then the PvP should feel as if it has a point too, since all the PvE activities that I mention are somehow tied with Settlements and territory control.
You want to keep your thriving settlement that you built up, you want to hold those hexes with the cool dungeon in it, you want to stay a big player on the Raw Copper market that your controlled hexes are rich with.
Still a difficult balance: when things change hands constantly then people may stop to care about these activities and PvP will become somewhat pointless again. I agree that PvP just for the PvP belongs in an FPS.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Based on some of the terms being thrown out there about sheep and wolves and PvP as the primary content seems like it's a reasonably good chance he's actually talking about Pathfinder Online, or is at least somewhat familiar with it and the dialogue on these forums.
Also fairly safe to assume that if he is referring to PFO he hasn't read much on the reputation system because it basically does what he's demanding should be done.
Based on his first paragraph I don't think it's PFO. It sounds like he was in-game playing with an already nasty community.
Regardless, one of the reasons I posted this was because he does mention consequences for actions taken. GW is taking steps to make that happen in PFO and it's a good reminder. It's one of the big things that is separating PFO from the other FFA PvP Sandbox MMO's out there and if it's done right will help with player retention.
It's nice to see that GW is taking the progressive step forward in dealing with these issues that other game companies have neglected.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm totally cool with the PvP in EVE. I hope PFO will have something close to that but, here we will have the alignment, and that could make a diference because it might be not so profitable to kill without reason.
The paladin comes to mind. If a Paladin goes crazy and try to kill you for the loot, he might lost all his paladin special habilities, at least, the ones related to auras and spells.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
PFO is not moving towards being a FFA PvP MMO. Not only the proposed reputation system prevents it from being categorized as FFA, but the gear threading does as well.
The fact that the author mentions sheep and wolves has no relation to PFO. The use of those terms were not invented by us. He was also speaking of an alpha he was currently playing, and other MMOs like it.
Probably an MMO very similar or even perhaps Rust. Again, Rust has controls. You can create your own server and develop a community of your choosing. As the admin of the server you have godlike power to turn on or off PvP. You can set the server to private, by invitation only.
Like it or not, PFO will be competing with Rust and the other titles in the Survival MMO genre. Again, to be clear, PFO will not be like Rust. But, Rust might move towards being more like PFO and that is where they may both begin pulling from the same pool of available players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I suspect around that that time the article referred closely to Albion Online, though using that as a jumping off point for the broad discussion on FFA + MMO + Sandbox.
The writer, acknowledges that space + players = fight is a simple form of sandbox for indie devs to utilize that by-passes the need for big-budgets hence it's attraction. Not sure if he pointed out players are the best AI except when they malfunction and gank and grief... and therein lies the dilemma of using such powerful "AI"!
Hopefully along with EVE as tooper30 says, we'll see group content and other measures to harness this powerful form of "AI" technology in PFO.
I'd prefer to call PFO graduated Open-World pvp than 100% FFA pvp where "anything goes".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is rare that I read an article that I feel compelled to agree with so thoroughly as this one, and the one that he links to. Thank you for the article link, Ravenlute.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Basicaly if users of an internet application can do something, then they will do it. The only way that you can impose rules that have some effect is to tie those rules to real world consequences. For example if a player needs to invest significant real world $$ and real world time to build a character to the point where they can effectively do something within a game...then the consequences of having that character/account trashed actualy holds some consequence to many players.
However if a player can create a character under a F2P model for no investment of time or $$$ and PvP even semi-effectively against other new/low-level characters then the idea of rules and consequences pretty much flies out the window since the player can void all that simply be creating another character/account ad infinitem. They get to do an end run around the only consequences they might care about....which is something alot of Developers simply don't get.
Even with $$$ and time investment to lose, you still have some people who are willing to invest that simply to mess up someone elses day. So there is a risk there.
Frankly what PFO is attempting to do is pretty risky. It'll be interesting to see if it works. Almost ALL Developers of FFA PvP games have historicaly set out with the exact same design goals surrounding PvP that GW has....and almost ALL of those Developers have completely failed to meet those goals. Not saying it can't be done....but the historical track record has not been good, as the article points out.
Again, it'll be interesting to see how things work out. GW certainly has the drive and talent to make it work if anyone does, but it's a tall order.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ GrumpyMel
That is pretty much how I see it too. It is really easy to attract "bad actors" and probably "good actors" that are really into PVP. You will slowly lose those "good actors" if the situation is out of control and the content is mostly meaningless. As for a wider draw of the player market, that is the difficult part. They need some really well designed "atmosphere" (through culture AND mechanics) so that the wider market will try PfO and stay for a bit.
Endless hordes of viable FTP toons will not help much, unless their play is consequential (to themselves) and their effect can still be fun for them but of limited significant impact on the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
it makes sense to me and brings up some good points. sandboxes need a certain amount of FFA pvp, however ffa pvp needs to be balanced with appropriate consequences otherwise it ends up being a bunch of people running around killing for the lulz, not to accomplish objectives.
this is what im hoping GW will be able to do is provide consequences to actions so that people have to evaluate risk and make choices that will have an impact on the character.
leperkhaun +1
I think that's exactly what they intend
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is rare that I read an article that I feel compelled to agree with so thoroughly as this one, and the one that he links to. Thank you for the article link, Ravenlute.
I think the writer of the article makes a great point in that there have been quite a few developers to try this approach and all of them except EVE have failed to have any real success, with EVE still having the great majority of it's players in more protected space.
If GW is going to have any chance making this succeed, they need to tune out the voices calling for the same ol' crap and seriously listen to the people saying "I don't generally play FFA PvP games but I might give this one a go because ______ and if _______." Beyond that both GW and the community need to be making a consistent effort to inform players who generally say "I would never play FFA PvP game" that the experiences they've had in the past will not be nearly as commonplace in PFO.
Bringing those voices into the mix will be the key to having this game not be just another Darkfall or a less successful EVE rip off. But if we try the same old things again, we'll get the same old results.
The culture that wants to teach everyone to be more alert by scamming and griefing them and driving off anyone they deem as too weak or too uptight for their purist view of a "FFA PvP" game are the universal enemies of everyone who want's to see this game succeed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thing with World PvP and the 'sole server' plan for Pathfinder Online?
People who run around saving people are going to be treated like kings and local heroes, for in a World-PvP sandbox, somebody who sees you bleeding out, runs over and heals you and then helps you get back to town is going to be a person everybody wants in their Company, or at least on their friends list, while the people who run around slaughtering everything that twitches will become the server's pinata, hunted down day after day, week after week, until they abandon their character and roll a new one ... with years of grinding ahead of them to reach the power they once had, while their victims keep on chugging along, well ahead of them now.
Who're you gonna trust? Fantasy-World Superman or Fantasy-World Joker? My money's on the guy who sees me weak and helpless and doesn't immediately run over and turkey-slap me to death.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thing with World PvP and the 'sole server' plan for Pathfinder Online?
People who run around saving people are going to be treated like kings and local heroes, for in a World-PvP sandbox, somebody who sees you bleeding out, runs over and heals you and then helps you get back to town is going to be a person everybody wants in their Company, or at least on their friends list, while the people who run around slaughtering everything that twitches will become the server's pinata, hunted down day after day, week after week, until they abandon their character and roll a new one ... with years of grinding ahead of them to reach the power they once had, while their victims keep on chugging along, well ahead of them now.
Who're you gonna trust? Fantasy-World Superman or Fantasy-World Joker? My money's on the guy who sees me weak and helpless and doesn't immediately run over and turkey-slap me to death.
The mechanical rules and consequences still need to be present though. One server merely means that all of the groups will be bigger in one place instead of spread out. Unlike the movies, the Fantasy-World Jokers actually work together and team up against the rest of the populace in an effective manner. The problem with pure player-policed behavior is that it becomes a nasty feedback cycle. What usually happens is that the Supermen are not populated enough to save all of the people. And so the people join with the Jokers to end their personal suffering.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh, agreed.
But imagine if Paizo and Goblin Works can institute their PvP 'rules' in the manner that they wish, in a mechanically-sound method the encourages declarations of war and 'agreed-to' PvP in 'civilised' Hexes, and punishes the 'kill everything that's not me' mindset that the /Chan/ crowd/mindset with slower, or gimped, leveling of skills and being outright banned from most NPC and PC settlements.
What's the point of sitting on hundreds of gold's worth of gear if you can't do jack s+&% with it? All you're doing is stockpiling loot for the Bounty Hunters/Assassins to cash in when you eventually become a big enough of a pest that people will finally decide to do more than pimp-slap your Criminally-flagged ass and put official bounties out on your head.
People who go around slaughtering other players are suddenly fighting against everything in the game, rules, leveling, npcs and pcs alike.
Good-aligned Escalations also offer a nice way to bend such players over the proverbial barrel. We are near an area where there's a heap of Crusaders running around, after all.
If they can pull that off, I think that Pathfinder Online will kick the trend of 'FFA MMO' Sandboxes and PvP will only be initiated if you're A) a career bandit or B) going to war against other Settlements/Companies over resources, territory or control of some other prize.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Settlement warfare will be the major gear drain. This is what I want to see be encouraged. This is what I want to see be discouraged.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's the rich role play experience we're all looking for!Give it to your character on another account?
What's the point of sitting on hundreds of gold's worth of gear if you can't do jack s*~+ with it?
So true. While there may be exceptions, my new hypothesis about alts is:
Alts are mainly used to bypass meaningful human interaction or in-game consequences of decisions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope EE brings a ton of people that are good at breaking the rules.
And that they will do it a lot.
I am going to stun the usual suspects on these forums and respond to this....
"I don't hope there are a lot of "rule breakers", if you mean that in the way I'm taking it.
It is one thing to take a reputation hit for the betterment of your settlement, to dish out punishment to a betrayer or to rob that mother load of a score. These I hope are rare exceptions, which will by virtue if that rarity, will give the action taken more meaning.
Meaningful reasons for PvP are more important to me than meaningful consequences for PvP. That is an ideological difference that I will never concede on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope EE brings a ton of people that are good at breaking the rules.
And that they will do it a lot.I am going to stun the usual suspects on these forums and respond to this....
"I don't hope there are a lot of "rule breakers", if you mean that in the way I'm taking it.
It is one thing to take a reputation hit for the betterment of your settlement, to dish out punishment to a betrayer or to rob that mother load of a score. These I hope are rare exceptions, which will by virtue if that rarity, will give the action taken more meaning.
Meaningful reasons for PvP are more important to me than meaningful consequences for PvP. That is an ideological difference that I will never concede on.
I don't know how you took my meaning on rule breakers.
But, don't tell me you wouldn't consider having a bunch of low rep alts to do the really dirty work for your little band.
Sure, they wont be able to go many places, most likely not even to your own settlement (if you get one)
But they will have the full back up of your mains and thereby access to trading they normally wouldn't have.
The next step would be to use your other accounts to boost your main accounts rep, makimg it possible for them to take some "meaningful" hits there.
I have no doubts that things will stop there for your band either.
You will come up with countless ways of making things just a little bit easier for yourselves, just by having another account.
And if you wont do it (which I doubt) someone else will.I hope you do it in EE and as soon as possible though.
And a lot.
I would rather have the mechanics tested out in the early stages, so we can see what works and what doesn't
Assuming 6 friends have two different accounts one that is High Rep, one that is completely Low Rep CE doesn't stand to reason that the High Rep accounts would be in a better position to get better gear in the first place?
The low rep 6 finding, and attacking players will end up only getting un-threaded gear and gear that has taken damage from that encounter as well as what ever damage that they took before the fight. It will more than likely NOT be a 6 on 6 fight as the low rep ambushes will be looking for easy wins, and as the training, and equipment of their targets out pace the low rep accounts it will be harder and harder for them to find profitable wins.
The premise is an easy answer but I don't think it will hold water for long. Sure they can stick to new players for easy picking, but that will just make it easier for Lawful players to intervene in their activities. New players will generally be in the same locations hence easy pickings. That will just give those lawful players content to get positive reputation as well as PvP badges.
Their are several people on these boards that have every intention to spend time supporting new players. That will include killing those low rep players that are looking for easy kills.
As far as other cheats, giving yourself PvP kills with alt accounts for badges what have you that is just ummm... well in the military they use a phrase "Stolen Valor" (which might be a bit stronger than I need) and if that is the only way you can advance the High Rep account then I don't expect those people will ever be any good at PvP for real. People will do what they will... I prefer to earn my trophies.
Anyway, I don't think the CE account is going to be some sort of cash cow for the High rep account. Joining an in game community and building something will be far more rewarding, and fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't know how you took my meaning on rule breakers.
But, don't tell me you wouldn't consider having a bunch of low rep alts to do the really dirty work for your little band.
Sure, they wont be able to go many places, most likely not even to your own settlement (if you get one)
But they will have the full back up of your mains and thereby access to trading they normally wouldn't have.
The next step would be to use your other accounts to boost your main accounts rep, makimg it possible for them to take some "meaningful" hits there.
I have no doubts that things will stop there for your band either.
You will come up with countless ways of making things just a little bit easier for yourselves, just by having another account.
And if you wont do it (which I doubt) someone else will.I hope you do it in EE and as soon as possible though.
And a lot.
I would rather have the mechanics tested out in the early stages, so we can see what works and what doesn't
I don't have an issue with you idea in theory, just in quantity and frequency of use.
There is little doubt I will test the waters of CE and Low Rep during the earlier part of EE. Maybe the first week or so, then I'd wipe that character.
I may start another, but use him far more sparingly,and only under certain circumstances.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meaningful reasons for PvP are more important to me than meaningful consequences for PvP. That is an ideological difference that I will never concede on.
I would love to go that route if participation in meaningful PvP excluded participation in meaningless PvP. For example I believe if we want more settlements to adopt NRDS style policies we should give them reasons to do so because NRDS and NBSI are mutually exclusive ideologies. You can't have both at the same time.
The problem is that is not how meaningful vs. meaningless PvP works. EVE and Darkfall are both games packed full of meaningful PvP. There are some really interesting wars and interactions that go on there. There is enough content to keep you going for years and years should you never choose to engage in any random ganking at all.
EVE and Darkfall are also packed full of meaningless PvP. The players of those games trample anyone in their path even if they are not the war targets they're seeking and there is no good reason to kill them. Low lifes and scrubs who aren't up to the challenges of meaningful PvP and derive a sense of power from making others suffer resort to griefing tactics such as can flipping despite the presence of null-sec sovereignty warfare, low sec piracy, bounty hunting and mercenary work, and faction warfare.
There is only one reasonable conclusion which can be drawn once the evidence is reviewed. Penalties for meaningless PvP must play a major part in any system which is to succeed. The mere presence of more rewarding meaningful PvP just isn't enough. In fact I would go so far to say that it accomplishes nothing own it's own in terms of reducing toxic PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Andius, are you suggesting that NBSI is meaningless PvP, whereas NRDS is meaningful?
No. I'm simply using them as an example where you can disincentive one behavior by rewarding the opposing behavior as opposed to penalizing the behavior you don't want to see.
NBSI can be meaningful in some situations. Though I do believe it will be incredibly harmful to this game if it is very prevalent.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Andius, are you suggesting that NBSI is meaningless PvP, whereas NRDS is meaningful?No. I'm simply using them as an example where you can disincentive one behavior by rewarding the opposing behavior as opposed to penalizing the behavior you don't want to see.
NBSI can be meaningful in some situations. Though I do believe it will be incredibly harmful to this game if it is very prevalent.
The prevelence of NBSI will be based mostly on the scarcity of resources and your access to them.
Let us say you discover a mother load of a semi rare resource, near your settlement hex or within your settlement hex. This resource is essential for settlement defense. It would be in your settlements best interest to either set the whole hex to NBSI or to encircle the resource node with a ring of death (CE Low Rep Alts) to keep all but your own away from it.
What may seem meaningless to the victims, is actually meaningful to you. That is one if the problems with applying the label of meaningful or meaningless to actions, it is very subjective. This is especially true when you through role playing into the mix, and then an alignment system that includes chaotic or neutral alignments. Lawful, Good and Evil are somewhat more predictable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The prevelence of NBSI will be based mostly on the scarcity of resources and your access to them.
Let us say you discover a mother load of a semi rare resource, near your settlement hex or within your settlement hex. This resource is essential for settlement defense. It would be in your settlements best interest to either set the whole hex to NBSI or to encircle the resource node with a ring of death (CE Low Rep Alts) to keep all but your own away from it.
The right to set what resources can and can't be harvested by whom within your territory. This isn't a 100% blocking mechanic but instead criminal flags anyone who violates these laws.
This allows NRDS settlements to have a bit more control over what people can and can't do within their territory. Especially when it comes to the extraction of scarce resources.
While neither this nor anything like it has been confirmed, it hasn't been denied either. The mechanics outlining the control a settlement or POI has on it's territory haven't been detailed to us yet.
When coupled with the exile mechanic I suggested in that same topic, (or the group based version of it that has been pretty much confirmed already) getting caught extracting resources you aren't permitted to extract would be a good way to ensure that settlements which previously tolerated your presence or even welcomed you in, will no longer do so.
This could be even more damaging if NRDS groups start sharing the names of people who violate their rules. For instance TEO and TSV likely will share and act upon such information.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@Andius, are you suggesting that NBSI is meaningless PvP, whereas NRDS is meaningful?No. I'm simply using them as an example where you can disincentive one behavior by rewarding the opposing behavior as opposed to penalizing the behavior you don't want to see.
NBSI can be meaningful in some situations. Though I do believe it will be incredibly harmful to this game if it is very prevalent.
The prevelence of NBSI will be based mostly on the scarcity of resources and your access to them.
Let us say you discover a mother load of a semi rare resource, near your settlement hex or within your settlement hex. This resource is essential for settlement defense. It would be in your settlements best interest to either set the whole hex to NBSI or to encircle the resource node with a ring of death (CE Low Rep Alts) to keep all but your own away from it.
What may seem meaningless to the victims, is actually meaningful to you. That is one if the problems with applying the label of meaningful or meaningless to actions, it is very subjective. This is especially true when you through role playing into the mix, and then an alignment system that includes chaotic or neutral alignments. Lawful, Good and Evil are somewhat more predictable.
Those two actions aren't different. If you start killing everyone in the hex who isn't Blue, you will rapidly have a lot of low-rep murderers.
A NBSI policy has no effect on alignment or reputation penalties- while a "No Tresspassing" policy might shift penalties to the controlling organization, it still requires enforcement.