Should starfall hexes be FFA?


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 623 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

In this post, Ryan left the door open for considering letting portions of the map be consequence-free PVP areas. I was thinking this over- both whether it's a good idea at all, and where these areas would be if so, and it occurred to me that the grey hexes are relatively uncommon, but distributed throughout the map, unclaimable as holdings, and also home to rare and valuable resources which can't be found elsewhere.

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea. It makes the acquisition of top end gear more perilous and rewards groups who can put together the organization to successfully gather in a very hostile environment, while also providing an outlet for players who want to blow off some steam without worrying about consequence every once in a while or who just feel like a break from complex politics.

It would be easy enough to come up with a lore justification why the concentrated presence of so much otherworldly material overwhelms your normal ethical senses and makes everyone else appear hostile.

Goblin Squad Member

Guurzak wrote:

In this post, Ryan left the door open for considering letting portions of the map be consequence-free PVP areas. I was thinking this over- both whether it's a good idea at all, and where these areas would be if so, and it occurred to me that the grey hexes are relatively uncommon, but distributed throughout the map, unclaimable as holdings, and also home to rare and valuable resources which can't be found elsewhere.

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea. It makes the acquisition of top end gear more perilous and rewards groups who can put together the organization to successfully gather in a very hostile environment, while also providing an outlet for players who want to blow off some steam without worrying about consequence every once in a while or who just feel like a break from complex politics.

It would be easy enough to come up with a lore justification why the concentrated presence of so much otherworldly material overwhelms your normal ethical senses and makes everyone else appear hostile.

Don't like this idea.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure the Gods would suspend their consideration of murdering unflagged innocents as an evil act just because of "ooh! shiny!" metal.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd be okay with it being a Rep-free zone that still has alignment ramifications, personally. So, a largely out-of-lore deal. What happens in Brokenlands stays in Brokenlands.


FMS Quietus wrote:
Guurzak wrote:

In this post, Ryan left the door open for considering letting portions of the map be consequence-free PVP areas. I was thinking this over- both whether it's a good idea at all, and where these areas would be if so, and it occurred to me that the grey hexes are relatively uncommon, but distributed throughout the map, unclaimable as holdings, and also home to rare and valuable resources which can't be found elsewhere.

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea. It makes the acquisition of top end gear more perilous and rewards groups who can put together the organization to successfully gather in a very hostile environment, while also providing an outlet for players who want to blow off some steam without worrying about consequence every once in a while or who just feel like a break from complex politics.

It would be easy enough to come up with a lore justification why the concentrated presence of so much otherworldly material overwhelms your normal ethical senses and makes everyone else appear hostile.

Don't like this idea.

Good to know. Any reason why, or is it just abstractly displeasing?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That would definitely make the tiny fraction of us that detest PvP much happier. We've been hoping all along that instead of only facing the thought of consequence-free slaughter for a short period every twenty four hours, we'd also get to experience it every time we go near a hex that has something difficult to obtain anywhere else.

Thanks for thinking of the poor PvPers who have nothing else to keep them busy. Maybe if we put our heads together, we can come up with the final straw and convince a bunch more people to abandon the money they've put in.

/sarcasm (in case it wasn't blindingly obvious).

Goblin Squad Member

I can understand the logic from a gameplay model. But I'm not really a fan of it. The ability to go to FFA zones and pick on other players is contradictory to those settlements who can set their reputation thresholds to a level to exclude those players from partaking of their services.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would prefer to give the rep & alignment systems a chance to show what they can do before deciding to have consequence-free areas.

Ideally, for me, the same rules can apply everywhere and the world needn't be segregated into "FFA PvP-zones" and (relatively) safe zones with the population segregation that likely comes with it.

Liberty's Edge

If any areas should be free of PvP in a PvP based game, it should NOT be those areas in which extremely valuable items or resources exist. As one who dislikes the idea of PvP in general, I nevertheless think that, in this game, safe non PvP areas should be located near beginner player starter towns. Perhaps these could be slightly enlarged.


Caldeathe wrote:
That would definitely make the tiny fraction of us that detest PvP much happier. We've been hoping all along that instead of only facing the thought of consequence-free slaughter for a short period every twenty four hours, we'd also get to experience it every time we go near a hex that has something difficult to obtain anywhere else.

First, not "near" a hex. In a hex. You can go near the hex to your tiny elf heart's content.

Second, there is going to be slaughter in the hex no matter what. People want that starmetal. Entire feuds and even wars will be fought over a Brokenlands hex. Bandits will camp the area within and nearby. Monsters will be everywhere.

If you do not like PvP, stay away from the Brokenlands hex.

Wurner and Lifedragn make good points. I'd counter that the people who want consequence-free ganking will just turn to wars, feuds, and unreasonable SADs, but they are a bit different.

Goblin Squad Member

Don't like the idea of it at all. All you'll create is a griefer lure that happens to be on top of the most valuable resources in the game.

If you want to randomly slaughter whoever you come across, I will support your right to do so in this game, but I will never agree to drop the repercussions of doing so. You want the carnage, you'll have to pay the price.

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
First, not "near" a hex. In a hex. You can go near the hex to your tiny elf heart's content

Your grammar nitpick made this so much better for everyone. Thanks.

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Second, there is going to be slaughter in the hex no matter what. People want that starmetal. Entire feuds and even wars will be fought over a Brokenlands hex. Bandits will camp the area within and nearby. Monsters will be everywhere.

But there is not going to be consequence free slaughter, barring this idea. If people want the rare components that badly, why can't they just take the reputation hit?


Grammar would be if you said "within of a hex" and I had corrected you. "Near" is a completely different word that is heavily deceptive. I'm not correcting grammar, I'm correcting exaggeration.

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
If you do not like PvP, stay away from the Brokenlands hex.

Why should I have to avoid a spot that is the only place on the map where I can acquire certain components?

How about, instead, let any group that wants to declare the hexes they control as consequence-free PvP, then they can have six or more hexes to bloody as they see fit, instead of interfering with people who just want to harvest and craft?


Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Second, there is going to be slaughter in the hex no matter what. People want that starmetal. Entire feuds and even wars will be fought over a Brokenlands hex. Bandits will camp the area within and nearby. Monsters will be everywhere.
But there is not going to be consequence free slaughter, barring this idea. If people want the rare components that badly, why can't they just take the reputation hit?

My point is that you and your PvP-detesting brethren are not going to be safe in the hex no matter what. There are only about five Brokenlands hexes in the entire world—if you hate PvP, you'll avoid them and trade with PvPers for the precious resource.

That will be true regardless of whether Guurzak's ambitious idea somehow takes root.

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
If you do not like PvP, stay away from the Brokenlands hex.

Why should I have to avoid a spot that is the only place on the map where I can acquire certain components?

How about, instead, let any group that wants to declare the hexes they control as consequence-free PvP, then they can have six or more hexes to bloody as they see fit, instead of interfering with people who just want to harvest and craft?

As stated in this post, Brokenlands hexes are not for people who "just want to harvest and craft". If you don't like dealing with bandits and general combat, you will keep your "harvesting and crafting" to ordinary harvesting nodes and purchase the rarer components from the bolder harvesters out there.

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Grammar would be if you said "within of a hex" and I had corrected you. "Near" is a completely different word that is heavily deceptive. I'm not correcting grammar, I'm correcting exaggeration.

That fixed it.

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Second, there is going to be slaughter in the hex no matter what. People want that starmetal. Entire feuds and even wars will be fought over a Brokenlands hex. Bandits will camp the area within and nearby. Monsters will be everywhere.
But there is not going to be consequence free slaughter, barring this idea. If people want the rare components that badly, why can't they just take the reputation hit?

My point is that you and your PvP-detesting brethren are not going to be safe in the hex no matter what. There are only about five Brokenlands hexes in the entire world—if you hate PvP, you'll avoid them and trade with PvPers for the precious resource.

That will be true regardless of whether Guurzak's ambitious idea somehow takes root.

And my point is that I fully understand we will never be "safe" anywhere in the River Kingdoms, but at least we can have some tiny consolation that slaughtering us will generally do a tiny bit of damage the killer's reputation. But that's not good enough. Now they want to turn the very spots that are most interesting to harvesters into a free-kill zone where they can slaughter us any time they feel like it, and take our product, without any consequences at all. Yay!

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Grammar would be if you said "within of a hex" and I had corrected you. "Near" is a completely different word that is heavily deceptive. I'm not correcting grammar, I'm correcting exaggeration.

You're right.


Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:

And my point is that I fully understand we will never be "safe" anywhere in the River Kingdoms, but at least we can have some tiny consolation that slaughtering us will generally do a tiny bit of damage the killer's reputation. But that's not good enough. Now they want to turn the very spots that are most interesting to harvesters into a free-kill zone where they can slaughter us any time they feel like it, and take our product, without any consequences at all. Yay!

I do not think that is a sincere yay. :L

I repeat: Brokenlands are going to be the worst place for PvP-detesters like you to be in. I've already said I doubt Guurzak's idea will happen. This has nothing to do with the idea now. This is about an inaccurate conclusion I feel you've drawn.

Brokenlands hexes are not good for anti-PvPers. Harvesting in general is not awesome for anti-PvPers (because, like you said, almost nowhere is good for anti-PvPers), but Brokenlands hexes are specifically designed to be really rough areas and not for the faint of heart. If you're going into this game figuring Brokenlands hexes are gonna be the best place for you and your harvesting buddies to gather resources, you'd better change tact fast: I can practically guarantee* you'll end up avoiding them like the plague.

No one gatherer can get every type of resource, and I predict it'll be a unique breed of commoner with the balls to enter Crater hexes frequently.

*But not actually because I am not a mind reader.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think so. I'd rather there not be FFA in an area in general. I think these hexes will be interesting enough and the current mechanics will suffice.


Another possibility is that carrying raw starmetal ore or whatever makes you act higher-level, thus making your murder just a bit less consequential while not removing consequences altogether.

This would mean merchants would have the chance to at least get some metal before getting ganked, while supporting the "Brokenlands are brutal as heck" idea.

Not saying I support this, but it's a thought.

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Brokenlands hexes are not good for anti-PvPers. Harvesting in general is not awesome for anti-PvPers (because, like you said, almost nowhere is good for anti-PvPers), but Brokenlands hexes are specifically designed to be really rough areas and not for the faint of heart. If you're going into this game figuring Brokenlands hexes are gonna be the best place for you and your harvesting buddies to gather resources, you'd better change tact fast: I can practically guarantee* you'll end up avoiding them like the plague.

But is it so unreasonable to let the monsters in these hexes be actual monsters? You seem to believe PvE is a minor background nuisance, that the only hazards that matter are PvP. You've stated that PvP will happen in these hexes no matter what - I don't understand how that supports the position that consequence should be removed. You don't lower prices on goods that people are willing to buy at the current levels.


First, currently, PvE actually is no more than a nuisance. I played about six hours in the Alpha. The only time I got into an unwanted fight was either due to PvP or my own stupidity. Monsters stand still and are pretty easy to get around as long as you're careful.

Second, I'm not necessarily supporting the position that consequence should be removed, just pointing out that the consequences will not prevent PvP by any means. You'll just be more likely to get SAD'd than ganked.

Third, if the only major danger in Brokenlands is the "actual" monsters, I'll be both surprised and dead. Dead because ain't nothin' else stopping me from nabbing a fleck or twenty of adamantine. :D

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty sure the combined PvE and PvP found in a Brokenlands hex is going to guarantee that any Harvester who's been doing the job for more than a day will know that he needs to hire or befriend some big scary buddies before heading out that way. Even if PvP isn't heavy there for some reason, the PvE content will still require it - unless you're the Harvester with the Biggest, Manliest Beard. (Which we all know keeps the mobs at bay.)

Goblin Squad Member

Moving away from the starter towns into player-controlled territory offers increased rewards, at increased risk. There are things you can do in a player settlement which you cannot do as a Thornkeep resident, but you must accept less safety in order to do those things.

I'm proposing that there be another threshold of risk/reward: players who want access to the very best materials in the game should accept even greater risk in order to do so.

Normal player space in PFO is the equivalent of Eve's low sec: You can aggress without being instakilled by the game systems but there are long term consequences for doing so. Eve's design has three security levels, but PFO's has only two. My proposal simply adds a new null-sec dynamic to the game where there was not one before.

To argue that you should be able to mind your own business and safely harvest and craft the most advanced items in the game misses the point of matching risk to reward; by that argument, there should be no limits on what a Thornkeep crafter can accomplish.


My problem isn't how the craftsfolk are affected, but how the PVPers are, actually. The rule is, act like a ganker, get the Rep hit. Adding this removes that and arguably creates an imbalance in the PvP system.

Goblin Squad Member

OK, what effect does this have on the gankers?

If they are also gankers outside of the grey hexes, then their settlements are crap and their power level is capped; they're not a challenge and will be steamrolled by any competent high-rep organization.

If they are playing high-rep everywhere else but go on NBSI sprees in the grey hexes... well, I would argue that that's exactly what this mechanic is supposed to enable. Those players are not a danger if you encounter them anywhere else, but they make gathering T3 resources much more interesting. And perhaps, by giving them this outlet, we make it more likely that players with moderate ganker tendencies will confine their ganking to specific, avoidable locations.


Sarcasm is really not a great way to argue.

It just lessens your point.


There already is increased risk in those hexes. Everybody knows that people in or around those hexes are likely to have high-value materials. Bandits also know this. There are also likely to be stronger monsters in these hexes.
I don't like the idea of special pvp rules for starmetal hexes.

Goblin Squad Member

It could allow for roving gangs just scouring the hexes for targets, killing for the sake of killing and not for the resources. The kind of environment that is a specific goal for the game to avoid creating. I believe many would never set their foot in such an area which is sad because it segregates the player population and in the extreme case creates two subsets of players, in effect playing two different games.

What exactly is it that the game stands to gain by having FFA zones? Is it:

More danger connected to gathering valuable resources? -Since there are only so many starfall hexes and everyone will want in on them I'd expect plenty of competition to arise and plenty of feuds, SAD robberies and wars.

A conduit for "blowing some steam", providing FFA PvP? -I hope that the rep system will allow for all the PvP you can sink your teeth into, that there's always war or conflict going on somewhere for you to join if you're so inclined, or for your company to start a feud yourselves or go raiding.

My opinion is that we should give the PvP system an honest chance and give up on it only if, after extensive testing and exploring available tweaks and variations, it doesn't work out. Because I think it would be truly great if the vision for PvP in PFO as described by GW can work.

Goblin Squad Member

If I was a GW developer, I'd never make an open-world FFA PvP area. One of the major design concepts of the game revolves around meaningful PvP not meaningless PvP.

There are a few scenarios where I could see allowable FFA PvP and have it make sense:

An event-specific area within a NPC Settlement that contains a FFA PvP tournament area that could periodically have tournaments where the FFA victor (via some point system) could acquire some reward or title.

A dungeon / instanced area that had a "last-person standing" PvP area that allowed completion of the instance or spawning of the boss to fight mano-a-mano.

I think most players who are eager for open-world PvP will use a second account or DT to create the dastardly-evil-bandit-who-kills-everyone-I-see if they desire. I don't think the game designers can completely eliminate that from happening.


Iatronas, a Brokenlands hex is not going to have much meaningless PvP because by entering the hex, you are stating that you're ready to risk life and limb to get rich. As such, pretty much any PvP does have meaning no matter what.

Cirolle wrote:

Sarcasm is really not a great way to argue.

It just lessens your point.

Who are you addressing?

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Hard to see how this makes any sense:
-The PVP system is built around the idea that using force has consequences--taking away consequences in the most important game location would gut your whole system.
-This would dramatically favor LG settlements. The trade-off for LG being mechanically powerful is that it is difficult to maintain. Why in the world would you take the most difficult choice in the game away from Good (especially LG) settlements?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My experience with FFA PvP areas in Fallen Earth was that when resources were plentiful enough, nobody was killing other characters. The first one to attack would be wasting time that could be spent getting resources.

I don't know how the dynamic is likely to change if killing another player put 3/4 of their gathered stuff back on the table; but if the character who is robbed can do a significant amount of damage to the robber, then there is a powerful reason for a third party to step in and finish him off (putting more stuff on the table and removing a competitor for it).

There might be an uneasy truce that only lasts because the one that breaks it also loses. I think that is the dynamic to shoot for, and I think that having ordinary Alignment, Reputation, and Stand and Deliver mechanics in place in brokenlands hexes is the best way to implement it: Anyone who attacks either directly or by issuing a SAD becomes fair game for everybody else.

Goblin Squad Member

I like the idea.

It promotes meaningful human interaction.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

OP makes a decent case why starfall hexes would be a good choice for FFA zones.

The thing is, FFA zones are entirely against the core premise of meaningful interaction and changing open world pvp away from the idea whoever can murder the most gets to be the most successful (selling skymetal in this case).

If people need a break from reputation and consequences to their actions they can go... to every single other open world pvp game out there.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm very much opposed to FFA hexes. FFA is the exact opposite of the meaningful interaction that is to be a core premise of PFO. And even encouraging this with valuable resources just stinks.

Those willing to murder others for loot or to remove them as competition will be more likely to do this anyway with potentially higher rewards. No need to encourage them further by removing the reputation hits.

Goblin Squad Member

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
I'm not sure the Gods would suspend their consideration of murdering unflagged innocents as an evil act just because of "ooh! shiny!" metal.

The only Gods that matter are the player-characters, and the only consideration is if it would be good for the game.

If there are FFA zones, then entering one is an acknowledgement of one's willingness to accept the risks for a chance at those rewards. In other words, there are no innocents.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
I'm not sure the Gods would suspend their consideration of murdering unflagged innocents as an evil act just because of "ooh! shiny!" metal.

The only Gods that matter are the player-characters, and the only consideration is if it would be good for the game.

If there are FFA zones, then entering one is an acknowledgement of one's willingness to accept the risks for a chance at those rewards. In other words, there are no innocents.

Make them the badlands without unique resources. Keep it about PVP and not about gatherers that have less PVP skills.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For those of you who are confident that the idea of FFA areas completely flies in the face of core PFO design tenets, why did Ryan say that

Ryan Dancey wrote:
there's a debate to be had in Crowdforging about the presence of anything-goes territory.

He must have seen something in the idea that merited at least some sort of consideration. Maybe that consideration simply leads to a reasoned decision against the plan, but that's not the same as "obviously no".

Can we identify what that something was, before dismissing the concept out of hand?

Goblin Squad Member

Guurzak wrote:
...that merited at least some sort of consideration.

He may also, of course, have seen nothing that closed the door on consideration. Subtle difference, but difference nonetheless.

The difficulties several folks in this thread have seen appear to be focused not on "no FFA", but on "no FFA in Skymetal hexes", as there are far too many not-PVP-related game-features revolving around that material. I'll not be surprised if "FFA in hexes with no other value than to folks who want FFA PVP" is a concept that can get more traction.

Goblin Squad Member

All that's going to come out of this thread is all the PVE people will go " I wan't you to be nerfed into the ground for looking at me funny, let alone killing me." and the PVP groups will go " This sounds like a decent idea."

That being the case I wouldn't be caught in a star metal hex near Golgotha.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin of Brighthaven wrote:

The thing is, FFA zones are entirely against the core premise of meaningful interaction and changing open world pvp away from the idea whoever can murder the most gets to be the most successful (selling skymetal in this case).

I disagree.

If everyone is sooooo worried about their reputation and alignment, you wouldn't bother bringing guards.

Oh, you didn't bring guards and got killed?

Bring some. Oh but that means you have to make a choice between guarding your caravan shipments or your harvesters. Meaningful interaction.

Oh, you don't have guards organic to your organization? Hire some. Meaningful interaction.

Oh but guards are costly. You are going to have to decide on issuing a guard contract or purchasing a shipment of resources for your settlement. Meaningful interactions.

Oh, your guards double crossed you? Issue a bounty contract. Meaningful interaction.

Oh, your guards got attacked and saved you? Give them a bonus. Meaningful interaction.

Too broke to hire guards? Make friends. Meaningful interaction.

Not good at making friends? Work a deal for a portion of the harvest. Meaningful interaction.

Oh, the most valuable stuff is in the most dangerous place that you have to expend resources and man-power to harvest from? Meaningful interaction. More importantly, it will be less likely that it gets farmed. It will keep rares truly rare.

I would say whoever has the best strategy will be the most successful. There is merit to that.

People with this whole concept of "Everyone should just leave me alone and let me craft and harvest and trade and do my own thing" need to wake up. You are going to have to interact with people, some you like, some you might not. Not all of those experiences will be pleasant for everyone. You can TOTALLY do something about it. Those choices to do so are meaningful human interaction. The more dangerous an area, the more likely you'll meaningfully interact. How do you make an open world PvP area more dangerous? Lesson / Remove the consequences for that PvP and make the area so it can't be "gate camped".

You have what you hold.

Goblin Squad Member

I would like to see a Tymon-like gladiator arena in one of the NPC settlements...a place where opponents could face off either in a sponsored tournament, to settle a grudge or just for fun. But there should be consequences elsewhere.

The Tymon story board allows for all sorts of challenges by up-and-coming gladiators who want to prove themselves in the arena. We might get Lisa to chime in here, as she wrote that one for the "Guide to the River Kingdoms".

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite of Fidelis wrote:
Keep it about PVP and not about gatherers that have less PVP skills.

Why shouldn't gatherers have to make meaningful choices as well?

Someone, I forget who, said that if Necromancers animate dead and that puts them into a heinous state where anyone can attack them without negative consequences, and that is a meaningful choice. Many seem to agree with that.

I can say the same about choosing not to invest in survival, combat or PVP skills and then trying to harvest the most valuable resources in the game. It is a meaningful choice when a player accepts comparative weakness in exchange for access to greater wealth.


Bringslite wrote:
Keep it about PVP and not about gatherers that have less PVP skills.

All gathering will be about PvP, too. That's what makes gathering challenging.

Goblin Squad Member

I don't like the idea of FFA PVP in Skymetal hexes and if I was playing a bandit, I wouldn't want to enter them to get skymetal loot either.

A "known" bandit could be attacked repeatedly without reputation penalty for just entering the skymetal before they have a chance to go after a harvester. There will be more powerful PvE monsters to get in your way.

As a bandit, I would wait outside the skymetal hex to issue a SAD or ambush (if willing to lose rep) the harvesters coming out with their skymetal.

Saying all above though, I would not be opposed to a FFA PVP in a non-vital hex if there would be clear warning that you are entering a FFA PVP area and with enough time to leave before you get jumped.

1 to 50 of 623 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Should starfall hexes be FFA? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.