Lord Bozo Promises Love and Riches via Black Magic!


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Oh, you can also discuss various aspects Pathfinder Online if you feel like it.
I think Goblinworks is hoping the game evolves without the need for a SAD mechanic. Think about it: They invented the thing and now it's somewhere in the future. The far future. Maybe.

The problem is this: The whole structure of the game is reliant on player vs. player conflict to generate content because lots of themepark content is prohibitively expensive in time and money. Goblinworks needs player competition to have a game at all but wants to fine tune exactly how characters interact. That's a tall order.

Never thought I'd say this but trying to slog thru the SAD thread for a workable solution has convinced me that consequence-free pvp hexes are in our future, perhaps containing Tier 3 resources and treasure hoards. The idea of different types of hexes is already present.

I suppose caravans will be craftable objects that provide massive mobile storage and npc guards? With keywords that interact with player skills to gain speed, cover and bonuses?

I hope player-built training halls are responsible for all Tier 2 and higher skills and that the store never offers anything approaching the power of the best player-crafted items.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sepherum wrote:
The whole structure of the game is reliant on player vs. player conflict to generate content...

I don't think I agree with that. Remember, it's Exploration, Adventure, Development, and Domination. I imagine there are a fair number of players who would be content to engage the first three without really concerning themselves with the fourth (not that they'd necessarily be able to, but that they'd be content to). Just because a game has PvP - even at its core - doesn't mean that's what it's all about, or what the "whole structure of the game is reliant" upon.

How would FFA Zones avoid being murder simulators? Why would they put the best resources in the game in a place where folks had to put up with a murder simulator to get them?

Ryan's been fairly closed-lipped about it, but I remain hopeful that FFA PvP Zones will be places you go to maximize the rate of acquiring special resources, not places you must go to acquire them at all.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

'Murder simulator' to me is a false flag argument. It assumes 'bandits kill, merchants die' when there will be competitive fights between the two. Don't know of many murder victims who knew it was coming-anyone going into such a hex would be forewarned and forearmed; thus generating jobs for guards, scouts, crafters, etc. There's not going to be much to do at first if you don't group up and pvp. I'm concerned about the game surviving until there is adventure, exploration and development. I like your idea for FFA PvP Zones not having exclusive resources if we indeed end up with them, and I don't think they would be among EE features either.

Goblin Squad Member

I think there's plenty of development space for "meaningful player interaction" in the context of cooperation without direct competition; not every facet of the game has to be PvP.

Goblin Squad Member

Sepherum wrote:
... anyone going into such a hex would be forewarned...

This is true of any PvP game people choose to play. It doesn't mean they're not murder simulators.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Sepherum wrote:
... anyone going into such a hex would be forewarned...
This is true of any PvP game people choose to play. It doesn't mean they're not murder simulators.

Not according to Ryan. When Andius tried to argue that EvE Online was a murder simulator, Ryan responded with an absolute denial of that perception.

Even with FFA hexes, even without a reputation or alignment system, PFO would still not meet Ryan's definition of a murder simulator. Shall I pull up Ryan's quote? It does not go unnoticed that you often pull out Ryan quotes when they serve your purpose, but never a favorite or repost of those quotes you disagree with it.

Ryan had also written about FFA zones and had also stated that those zones would also hold the rarest of resources, to reward those willing to tread those dangerous lands. Perhaps I should pull up that quote as well?

How about his quote that the PvE content will be very, very limited. I could even bring up his quote that exploration.... Well how did he say it? Every inch of the game world will be discovered in a matter of hours or days at most?

@Pax Shane

Not every form of PvP is combat either. There is Social PvP, Economic PvP and yes of course combat based PvP. There is also the PvP of ideas in the meta game, where various agendas will try to drive the direction of the game.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:


Ryan had also written about FFA zones and had also stated that those zones would also hold the rarest of resources, to reward those willing to tread those dangerous lands. Perhaps I should pull up that quote as well?

Actually, I would love to see that quote from Ryan. I remember a big discussion about FFA Zones the notion of requiring players to enter them to get the rarest resources, but I do not remember much developer input let alone any solid positions. I remember it being a fairly contentious topic.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:

@All - There will be bandits.

There won't be bandits on every trail, every 10 feet, comprised of newbie players and newbie characters in it for the lulz.

Bandits will be careful. They'll pick their targets well. They'll often ransom the cargos rather than kill the teamsters.

A lot of Bandits will be chaotic evil. They'll cope. They'll find ways to make that work for them. It's not an easy road - but it is a road. I doubt there will be any wilderness areas in the game where you will not constantly have to be on your guard, ready to fight or flee, should someone come at you with bad intent.

Being a highwayman is hard freakin' work. That's why there's not a lot of them. Always on the run, hunted by those who seek rewards, dealing with a crappy reputation; this is the life you choose.

There's a fractal space of "characters who attack other characters" and being a simple bandit is one very small portion of that fractal space.

When you go to war, having teams disrupt logistics and supply lines will be a critical tactic. Some characters will do that.

When someone transport very valuable items they create a juicy target, a single act of highway robbery won't destroy your alignment. Some characters will specialize in the high-reward, low-impact strike.

We'll likely declare some areas free-for-all zones where conditions are so bad that nobody gets any penalty for whacking anyone. Where, how, why, how large, etc. all to be determined, but that is the kind of thing I'd expect in a land like the River Kingdoms. Of course, you'd have to be mad to go into such an area without being able to hold your own.... no easy targets.

Goblin Squad Member

That post is here and is from December 13, 2012. It may be essentially out of date.

Goblin Squad Member

Harad Navar wrote:
That post is here and is from December 13, 2012. It may be essentially out of date.

I agree as out dated as it might seem, it was still the last comment by Ryan made on the subject.

However looking at the prospects of: SADs, Feuds, Factions and Wars it may not be necessary assuming these listed actions will provide enough opportunity for reputation consequence free PVP.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:

@All - There will be bandits.

There won't be bandits on every trail, every 10 feet, comprised of newbie players and newbie characters in it for the lulz.

Bandits will be careful. They'll pick their targets well. They'll often ransom the cargos rather than kill the teamsters.

A lot of Bandits will be chaotic evil. They'll cope. They'll find ways to make that work for them. It's not an easy road - but it is a road. I doubt there will be any wilderness areas in the game where you will not constantly have to be on your guard, ready to fight or flee, should someone come at you with bad intent.

Being a highwayman is hard freakin' work. That's why there's not a lot of them. Always on the run, hunted by those who seek rewards, dealing with a crappy reputation; this is the life you choose.

There's a fractal space of "characters who attack other characters" and being a simple bandit is one very small portion of that fractal space.

When you go to war, having teams disrupt logistics and supply lines will be a critical tactic. Some characters will do that.

When someone transport very valuable items they create a juicy target, a single act of highway robbery won't destroy your alignment. Some characters will specialize in the high-reward, low-impact strike.

We'll likely declare some areas free-for-all zones where conditions are so bad that nobody gets any penalty for whacking anyone. Where, how, why, how large, etc. all to be determined, but that is the kind of thing I'd expect in a land like the River Kingdoms. Of course, you'd have to be mad to go into such an area without being able to hold your own.... no easy targets.

Thanx B. I knew I remembered that somewhere. And entering a game that has multiple levels of security (including pvp-free zones around npc towns and free-for-alls in the far wilderness) isn't a 'murder simulator'. Little hysterical, that.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Sepherum wrote:
... anyone going into such a hex would be forewarned...
This is true of any PvP game people choose to play. It doesn't mean they're not murder simulators.
Not according to Ryan. When Andius tried to argue that EvE Online was a murder simulator, Ryan responded with an absolute denial of that perception.

Do you even read what I write? Are you actually saying that Ryan's stated position is that the fact that players can choose not to log in to a game means it's not a murder simulator?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lifedragn wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Ryan had also written about FFA zones and had also stated that those zones would also hold the rarest of resources, to reward those willing to tread those dangerous lands. Perhaps I should pull up that quote as well?
Actually, I would love to see that quote from Ryan. I remember a big discussion about FFA Zones the notion of requiring players to enter them to get the rarest resources, but I do not remember much developer input let alone any solid positions. I remember it being a fairly contentious topic.

Did you notice that the quote Bluddwolf produced didn't actually say what he said it said? I find it funny that Bluddwolf holds me to some incredible standard where even the things I'm not saying must be true in every minor detail or he calls me out.

Everyone, please note that I didn't say PFO would be a murder simulator if it had FFA PvP zones. Also, please note that I didn't say Ryan would classify any game that had FFA PvP zones as a murder simulator. Thank you.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Lifedragn wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:


Ryan had also written about FFA zones and had also stated that those zones would also hold the rarest of resources, to reward those willing to tread those dangerous lands. Perhaps I should pull up that quote as well?
Actually, I would love to see that quote from Ryan. I remember a big discussion about FFA Zones the notion of requiring players to enter them to get the rarest resources, but I do not remember much developer input let alone any solid positions. I remember it being a fairly contentious topic.

I don't remember when it was said that the FFA zones would have anything special either. I'm guessing that was a extrapolation from Fallen Earth's PvP areas, which in my experience were safer than the wilds during a resource boom. Since there's so many people there, and none of them want to waste time in a fight, armed truce strictly dominates once even two units folllow that strategy, and anyone who tries to fight loses hard. Some amount of scarcity would shift the balance enough to make the cost of sharing greater than the cost of winning a fight.

To attract people to a PFO FFA area with economic incentives, the expected reward needs to be higher than the expected loss for each actor; this requires that the total reward be greater than the total loss (but is not guaranteed by that one condition). Less than all of the equipment lost will become equipment gained. The 'rare resources' acquired must be more valuable than the total amount of equipment destroyed by looting damage and total encumbrance limits plus the total value of all of the players' time spent in search of economic gain; otherwise it isn't profitable. I can't imagine that with a winner-take-most distribution system the rewards from such an area could be balanced with the general needs of the economy.

On the other hand, a FFA PvP zone that is a net economic loss is easy to balance. Just let the players decide how much equipment they are willing to subsidize and let them.

Goblin Squad Member

The idea that the more dangerous hexes would have the rarest of resources has been written here on these forums, and it is a fact that appears in practically every MMO I can think of. It is and has always been the carrot for taking the additional risk.

We can imagine that PFO will be so revolutionary that it breaks from all norms of the MMO genre, or we can assume that it will bear some resemblance to the MMOs that it's Devs have actually worked on in the past, namely: Eve Online, Fallen Earth and Darkfall.

Goblin Squad Member

The whole equation will be different in this situation. The relatively smaller amount of land available will be a major factor. The times that you can get in and get out with valuables, without conflict will be few. You will need gathering parties that can fight or bring extra protection. I don't think that there will be a way around that except at times that a friendly force controls the area.

Edit: What I mean is, in those games that Bluddwolf listed, "sneak and Creep" works for me 90% of the time because there is sooo much territory. In PfO, I think it will be more of "recon and harvest in force" situation. If you want to be successful more than 50% of the time.

The materials will have to be pretty valuable indeed.

Goblin Squad Member

FFA PvP areas with high yields of rare materials do seem to be common in MMOs. I think devs put such areas to encourage conflict - which raises the question of why players don't seek out conflict on their own without such areas. (And I'd question how much conflict such areas actually encourage). Maybe players, including self-described PvP players, are less risk tolerant than one might suppose.

Unlike the other games Bluddwolf cites, PFO has the concept of morality - and objective morality at that. Our alignments are changed by our actions. If GW implements some space where for some special reason, our actions have no effect on our alignments, then they weaken one of their main premises.

In the end PFO may have to add in FFA PvP areas. I think if they do so, it will be a concession that they couldn't build the game they have otherwise described with the current technology or budget available.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Lifedragn wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Ryan had also written about FFA zones and had also stated that those zones would also hold the rarest of resources, to reward those willing to tread those dangerous lands. Perhaps I should pull up that quote as well?
Actually, I would love to see that quote from Ryan. I remember a big discussion about FFA Zones the notion of requiring players to enter them to get the rarest resources, but I do not remember much developer input let alone any solid positions. I remember it being a fairly contentious topic.

Did you notice that the quote Bluddwolf produced didn't actually say what he said it said? I find it funny that Bluddwolf holds me to some incredible standard where even the things I'm not saying must be true in every minor detail or he calls me out.

Everyone, please note that I didn't say PFO would be a murder simulator if it had FFA PvP zones. Also, please note that I didn't say Ryan would classify any game that had FFA PvP zones as a murder simulator. Thank you.

I did notice this. The line between acceptability and unacceptability for me in the proposed model would be frequency of FFA zones and exclusivity of the rare resources. Having FFA zones be rare, but replenish their resource pools faster is the most acceptable route for me. Getting resources in non-FFA hexes, even the rarest of them, should be possible without ever having to enter an FFA hex. However, competition in the non-FFA zones will be very fierce as the resources do not replenish as quickly. If you can handle a slow drip of resources, the safer routes work. But if you are looking for the big pay-day then go risk your neck. However, nothing was really mentioned by developers about resources - it has been spoken to no end by players and inferred, but not actually stated.

That said, I stand with Urman that if we need FFA zones then the game design has failed a good portion of the population and may even turn them into flight risks.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
To attract people to a PFO FFA area with economic incentives...

That's they key to the analysis, I think. I would hope that most of the folks who go to FFA PvP zones to harvest are doing so simply because they want to PvP while harvesting.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lifedragn wrote:
Having FFA zones be rare, but replenish their resource pools faster is the most acceptable route for me.

That's kind of the way I was hoping it would be, too.

Urman wrote:
In the end PFO may have to add in FFA PvP areas. I think if they do so, it will be a concession that they couldn't build the game they have otherwise described with the current technology or budget available.

I wouldn't go that far. I think having some FFA PvP hexes would be a good thing, and I think making them produce good resources in greater quantities is perfectly acceptable. I just remain hopeful that they won't be used as gates.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:

The idea that the more dangerous hexes would have the rarest of resources has been written here on these forums, and it is a fact that appears in practically every MMO I can think of. It is and has always been the carrot for taking the additional risk.

We can imagine that PFO will be so revolutionary that it breaks from all norms of the MMO genre, or we can assume that it will bear some resemblance to the MMOs that it's Devs have actually worked on in the past, namely: Eve Online, Fallen Earth and Darkfall.

Funnily enough, in all three of those games you are slightly safer in the "more dangerous" areas, provided you don't offend or impose on someone who controls the territory. It's higher reward, higher investment, lower-risk.

Goblin Squad Member

Once the game is relatively far along in development I don't see a small number of FFA hexes as undermining the rep/alignment system. Making such hexes worthwhile without being 'gates' to exclusive resources is certainly possible. I think having the reputation system in game as soon as feasible will help a lot in crowdforging the perfect mix of meaningful pvp and minimal griefing. I don't see why there would be characters in separate bandit or merchant factions. I think factions should be based on Pathfinder lore and the roles of either should be trained skills equippable by anyone depending on what mission they are undertaking for their respective factions. Wouldn't want to be flagged as a bandit or merchant anymore than as a spy.

Goblin Squad Member

Sepherum wrote:
Once the game is relatively far along in development I don't see a small number of FFA hexes as undermining the rep/alignment system. Making such hexes worthwhile without being 'gates' to exclusive resources is certainly possible. I think having the reputation system in game as soon as feasible will help a lot in crowdforging the perfect mix of meaningful pvp and minimal griefing. I don't see why there would be characters in separate bandit or merchant factions. I think factions should be based on Pathfinder lore and the roles of either should be trained skills equippable by anyone depending on what mission they are undertaking for their respective factions. Wouldn't want to be flagged as a bandit or merchant anymore than as a spy.

Reputation is a construct of an MMO, and not TT RPGS. This is why factions in an MMO can not mirror those in PF RPG TT lore.

In TT RPGs there are no limits to power or skills associated with a reputation system. Even the alignment system provides gates to certain skills, but the power of skills available to all alignments are fairly even.

If a majority of the activities, especially PvP are contained within the sanctioned categories of behaviors, I could see GW not seeing the need to develop a reputation system. They have often said, reputation is not going to be used to punish griefing, a separate system will be used for that.

The best way for a player to prevent themselves bring victimized is for them to present themselves as a "hard target". I know his to be true as both hunter and criminal flagged pilot in EvE.

When I view a target, and see when his character was started and what ship he is flying, that feeds into the perception I have. When I view his corporation and alliance, and they have a reputation, that helps complete my picture and informs my decision to attack or not.

I have spent months in high sec space, often in fairly low skill intensive ships, criminal flagged (open to anyone attacking) and with a bounty on my head (incentive to kill me), and yet only two pilots in all of those months actually locked onto me, and only one fought me (and I lost). The lesson learned is that when surrounded by pilots mostly not interested in PvP, they won't jump into PvP just because they can freely do so.

Now I roam, PvP fit and ready, in low sec. Even there, most are not PvP oriented and I and my group (fleet) often are the hunters. We frequently don't get jumped, we are the ones looking for a fight.

I very much expect that to be the case in PFO.

Goblin Squad Member

If the game design incorporates FFA hexes it will be on a trial basis first and expanded if/when it proves popular. I would initially begin with a ratio of NLT 1 FFA:10 'Standard' where 'standard' applies the restrictions of meaningful interaction (war, faction, feud, etc. as needed).

The 1:10 ratio is a rough, nearly arbitrary guess that would ultimately be determined by player usage rates.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
They have often said, reputation is not going to be used to punish griefing...

Reputation is one part of a layered approach that is meant to address a number of behaviors, including griefing. The presence of the Reputation system will not eliminate griefing, but it will contribute to reducing it.

Goblin Squad Member

@Being I think that 1:10 isn't too far from the ratio of monster hexes to non-monster hexes. I think a small number of FFA hexes, whether the monster hexes or a new FFA hex (1:10 is about 1 per settlement) would end up being a large bonus for the settlements.

While monster (or FFA) hexes will be outside of settlements' legitimate control, strong settlements can exert control of the hexes just the same. If there are consequences for 'unsanctioned' PvP everywhere, then companies and settlements can still wage wars and feuds over those resources in hexes they don't legally control. They *might* choose instead to share the resources - horror upon horrors, cooperation in a sandbox.

But once some hexes are FFA, settlements aren't limited by war and feud requirements. If they want the resources, they kill their competitors. The big winners in making some small number of hexes FFA would be the stronger settlements closest to such hexes. Success breeds success, and those big settlements would have the free reign to eliminate all small operators in "their" FFA hex without any Influence or DI costs. With only 1:10 hexes FFA, each settlement can focus its harvesters and guards on one or two hexes. The winner likely won't be the small gatherers and the bandits who prey on them.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Sepherum wrote:
Once the game is relatively far along in development I don't see a small number of FFA hexes as undermining the rep/alignment system. Making such hexes worthwhile without being 'gates' to exclusive resources is certainly possible. I think having the reputation system in game as soon as feasible will help a lot in crowdforging the perfect mix of meaningful pvp and minimal griefing. I don't see why there would be characters in separate bandit or merchant factions. I think factions should be based on Pathfinder lore and the roles of either should be trained skills equippable by anyone depending on what mission they are undertaking for their respective factions. Wouldn't want to be flagged as a bandit or merchant anymore than as a spy.

Reputation is a construct of an MMO, and not TT RPGS. This is why factions in an MMO can not mirror those in PF RPG TT lore.

In TT RPGs there are no limits to power or skills associated with a reputation system. Even the alignment system provides gates to certain skills, but the power of skills available to all alignments are fairly even.

If a majority of the activities, especially PvP are contained within the sanctioned categories of behaviors, I could see GW not seeing the need to develop a reputation system. They have often said, reputation is not going to be used to punish griefing, a separate system will be used for that.

The best way for a player to prevent themselves bring victimized is for them to present themselves as a "hard target". I know his to be true as both hunter and criminal flagged pilot in EvE.

When I view a target, and see when his character was started and what ship he is flying, that feeds into the perception I have. When I view his corporation and alliance, and they have a reputation, that helps complete my picture and informs my decision to attack or not.

I have spent months in high sec space, often in fairly low skill intensive ships, criminal flagged (open to anyone attacking) and with a bounty on my head...

I don't believe a numeric reputation system precludes the use of any TT Pathfinder lore; on the contrary, there is enough meat on the roleplaying bone there to represent almost any legitimate(illegitimate?) in-game playstyle. And you might get an argument that abilities tied to alignment are equal in RPGs, at least in TT Pathfinder. I believe the use of the very rich Pathfinder lore in place will help make a more interesting and immersive experience.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:

@Being I think that 1:10 isn't too far from the ratio of monster hexes to non-monster hexes. I think a small number of FFA hexes, whether the monster hexes or a new FFA hex (1:10 is about 1 per settlement) would end up being a large bonus for the settlements.

While monster (or FFA) hexes will be outside of settlements' legitimate control, strong settlements can exert control of the hexes just the same. If there are consequences for 'unsanctioned' PvP everywhere, then companies and settlements can still wage wars and feuds over those resources in hexes they don't legally control. They *might* choose instead to share the resources - horror upon horrors, cooperation in a sandbox.

But once some hexes are FFA, settlements aren't limited by war and feud requirements. If they want the resources, they kill their competitors. The big winners in making some small number of hexes FFA would be the stronger settlements closest to such hexes. Success breeds success, and those big settlements would have the free reign to eliminate all small operators in "their" FFA hex without any Influence or DI costs. With only 1:10 hexes FFA, each settlement can focus its harvesters and guards on one or two hexes. The winner likely won't be the small gatherers and the bandits who prey on them.

FFA hexes could move like resources. They've stated resource nodes will not be static, no? And there'd be a minimum distance between FFA hexes and settlement ones.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sepherum wrote:
FFA hexes could move like resources.

Ooh! Escalations that turn their controlled hexes into FFA PvP hexes! That's an awesome idea!

Goblin Squad Member

Even if the FFA hexes were static and the resources found within were static, I could see this leading to required trade between "bigtowns" who each control a different FFA hex. For example, if 1 town "owns" a FFA that contains Mithril, they would be required to trade that with another town that "owns" Red Wood Lumber as both are required to build and maintain T3 buildings. (Just as an example) This would then lead to bandits and competitors raiding caravans between the two towns.

Making the hexes shift would only mean that towns would have to constantly move their operations as the hexes move. This isn't a bad thing necessarily, though I can see good and bad to both.

@Nihimon, I like the idea of escalations changing hex types. That would allow for a dynamic game world. Not EE, but future plans definitely.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If the only way to get the better gear is to indulge in FFA PvP then it is going to put off a lot of players, myself included. I play an RPG to interact with other characters, not to kill everyone else so that I can 'win'.

Luckily, it does not appear that this situation will be the case and long may that continue. Going to a FFA PvP area is likely to be its own reward for the type of player who wants to test themselves against other players rather than the environment. There are those who enjoy challenging and defeating other players and there are those who prefer other aspects of the game. Unless both types of player are treated equally, it is going to be perceived as a game where only the FFA PvP players get the good rewards.

Goblin Squad Member

Sadurian wrote:

If the only way to get the better gear is to indulge in FFA PvP then it is going to put off a lot of players, myself included. I play an RPG to interact with other characters, not to kill everyone else so that I can 'win'.

Luckily, it does not appear that this situation will be the case and long may that continue. Going to a FFA PvP area is likely to be its own reward for the type of player who wants to test themselves against other players rather than the environment. There are those who enjoy challenging and defeating other players and there are those who prefer other aspects of the game. Unless both types of player are treated equally, it is going to be perceived as a game where only the FFA PvP players get the good rewards.

If there are FFA zones and they are hoped to be nothing more than a theme parkesque PvP arena, they will amount to the same result. Meaningless PvP with nothing put at risk (all gear will be threaded). That same kind of sparing arena can be a structure in a settlement, and does not need a hex type dedicated to it.

I'm not saying that anyone should be forced to enter for some kind of questing or faction purpose. These zones should have rarer resources, and those willing to tread those dangerous lands will reap those rewards. Those not willing will still be able to acquire those resources on the secondary market.

You can still remain largely PVE / social interaction, you may just need to have some interaction with those who take on greater risks to have nearly their access to those resources. You can do that by forming a trade relationship with a company that specializes in High Risk Resource Gathering.

These HRRGs will be fulfilling a specialized role that is not created by the FFA style arena that lacks rare resources.

Goblin Squad Member

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I wish to recommend that there should be no particularly greater value to FFA hexes compared to non-FFA hexes. FFA wasn't a design objective, FFA is only a sugarteat for those whose most creative expression of meaningful interaction is drawn from a schoolyard bully's playbook.

I don't think FFA hexes need any particularly enhanced encouragement. What needs encouragement is the 'meaningful' descriptor.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:

I wish to recommend that there should be no particularly greater value to FFA hexes compared to non-FFA hexes. FFA wasn't a design objective, FFA is only a sugarteat for those whose most creative expression of meaningful interaction is drawn from a schoolyard bully's playbook.

I don't think FFA hexes need any particularly enhanced encouragement. What needs encouragement is the 'meaningful' descriptor.

If there were no other purpose to enter a FFA hex than to have consequence free sparring, I would rarely if ever set foot in there. I can pre arrange all the sparring I like with internal UNC fights with Alts or Mains and it would still be consequence free.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

If the purpose of a FFA hex is to provide for consequence-free PvP, then why not remove consequences for defeat while in those areas too? Otherwise, it is not really consequence free. It just favors aggressive play-styles.

I really don't see the need given the current system though.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:

I wish to recommend that there should be no particularly greater value to FFA hexes compared to non-FFA hexes. FFA wasn't a design objective, FFA is only a sugarteat for those whose most creative expression of meaningful interaction is drawn from a schoolyard bully's playbook.

I don't think FFA hexes need any particularly enhanced encouragement. What needs encouragement is the 'meaningful' descriptor.

Consequence-free pvp areas are a possible design objective as stated by the CEO of Goblinworks. He said 'likely', but nothing is set in stone.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I personally don't have a problem with FFA PvP Hexes; I think they'll be fun. I don't have a problem with them providing rewards in the form of better concentrations of higher-value resources. I just don't want to see them be the only source of those higher-value resources*; I don't want to see them serve as any kind of gating mechanism.

To put it into perspective, imagine if there were certain resources* that were only available as rewards by the GMs for "winning" an RP contest.

* I'm talking about resources that are necessary for creating mainstream Tier 3 items, not weird resources that are only useful for odd, non-impactful items.

Goblin Squad Member

Hey, how come the only responses to my thread are about 'FFA' areas? I mentioned some other stuff, too! I know bozos like to argue, but still...

Goblin Squad Member

Hey, I just follow the conversation where it goes. More often than not, I don't even pay attention to the thread title.

Goblin Squad Member

Sepherum wrote:
Hey, how come the only responses to my thread are about 'FFA' areas? I mentioned some other stuff, too! I know bozos like to argue, but still...

With these new "faction" ideas and possible FFA hexes, you are right that there may be no need for S&D. Except that it is still kind of a cool option to not have to kill in all circumstances for your lootz.

You will have the factioned bandits preying on the factioned merchants. They will be high rep and maybe never have a reason to go after the pitiful unfactioned gatherers, travelers and merchants except when they feel the rep hit is ok.

I am not planning to run a bandit or kill/loot toon, so I don't mind. I still feel like the game would be a little less without the S&D, just for it's flavor. At the same time, I see that it is growing over complicated and ripe for misuse.

Goblin Squad Member

Sepherum wrote:
Hey, how come the only responses to my thread are about 'FFA' areas? I mentioned some other stuff, too! I know bozos like to argue, but still...

To hit on one of your other topics. It has been said that the highest level gear will be crafted gear.

CEO, Goblinworks

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The easiest way to get gear will be to buy it on the markets. Only a limited subsection of characters will go to the places where the most exotic materials are harvested, and brave the dangers of those locations.

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
The easiest way to get gear will be to buy it on the markets. Only a limited subsection of characters will go to the places where the most exotic materials are harvested, and brave the dangers of those locations.

Sounds wonderful!

Goblin Squad Member

Ryan Dancey wrote:
The easiest way to get gear will be to buy it on the markets. Only a limited subsection of characters will go to the places where the most exotic materials are harvested, and brave the dangers of those locations.
Bluddwolf wrote:
These zones should have rarer resources, and those willing to tread those dangerous lands will reap those rewards. Those not willing will still be able to acquire those resources on the secondary market.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Ryan Dancey wrote:
The easiest way to get gear will be to buy it on the markets. Only a limited subsection of characters will go to the places where the most exotic materials are harvested, and brave the dangers of those locations.

That reads like a marketing professional wrote it to be deliberately noncommittal regarding the point at hand. Because I can justify reading it at least three different ways.

Well done sir.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
The easiest way to get gear will be to buy it on the markets. Only a limited subsection of characters will go to the places where the most exotic materials are harvested, and brave the dangers of those locations.
Bluddwolf wrote:
These zones should have rarer resources, and those willing to tread those dangerous lands will reap those rewards. Those not willing will still be able to acquire those resources on the secondary market.

Yeah, I think Mr. Dancey is sayin' it without sayin' he said it.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Where I think he's specifically saying that he's not saying it, but without saying that he's saying that he's not saying it.

Goblin Squad Member

Word.

Goblin Squad Member

I think Ryan is saying fairly clearly that I shouldn't get my hopes up. He can't say what FFA PvP zones will have, but I'm taking it as a clear statement that they might have exotic resources that aren't available elsewhere (except on the market).

Goblinworks Executive Founder

But there WILL be some stuff that is hard to acquire for done reason or other, and I'm willing to bet that there will at some point be an opportunistic gang waiting along the return path from that stuff to try to get some the "easy" way.

1 to 50 of 72 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Lord Bozo Promises Love and Riches via Black Magic! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.