I won't play if PVP is too open

At first I was excited about the idea of Pathfinder Online but as I read the overall idea of what they want to accomplish I saw this

Character-controlled settlements can grow into full-fledged kingdoms that compete for resources as they seek to become the dominant force in the land, raising vast armies to hold their territory against the depredations of monstrous creatures, NPC factions, and other player characters.

I was fine up until I saw "and other player characters".

Personally I am not for PVP online thanks to Penny Arcade's Internet [Jerk] Theory (I got the second word wrong on purpose to make it cleaner). It describes how anonymity makes a normal person a complete jerk.

Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = Complete Jerk (edited again for content issues).

While there are a lot of people who don't try to just grief others there are some who just get kicks on just trying to make others suffer. I like friendly games, not antagonistic ones.

I will watch this game's development and will play, only if the opportunity for griefing other people is minimized. Now, I may be a minority and if I am then Goblin Works would be fiscally foolish to try to appeal to the kind of gamer I am. I hope it is a success whether I play it or not because I love Pathfinder and hope it will continue to flourish.

Terek

But but but making people wish I was never born is one of the most glorious things out there!

Removed a post. I know it was sarcasm/for the lols, but it was still not appropriate.

Personally I am not for PVP online...

James Jacobs and I are also not terribly interested in PvP, and we intend to ensure that there are ways to enjoy Pathfinder Online without having to deal with that if you don't want to. But many folks—and quite possibly many *more* folks—*are* interested in that, and we intend to provide it.

Hopefully Paizo and Goblinworks can find a way to satisfy both consumer demands.

I've never done computer games so I'm only imagining what goes on, but I know I won't participate if my PC, who plays maybe a few hours a month, gets attacked by a PC who's online 80 hours a week and has, compared to me, unlimited resources AND fluency in the system while I'll be trying to remember what button I hit to swing my sword -- or run away!

How many people here have played EVE? All players in the same world, PvP is completely open. It's amazing how organized and thoughtful players can be in it. It's also worth noting that selfish doesn't always mean screwing everyone else over.

Tis true, there are quite a few games with open/world PVP in which a deep society constructs and controls it, there are 2 ways that this is often handled. 1. Death having a very notable penalty, In quite a few games, linage, pardus and I believe to a lesser extent eve, open PVP is possible, but the penalty is so bad that in the event that a jerk gets noticed killing people, he can expect the wrath of everyone that person knows, and if that person knows enough people more powerful then the jerk who killed him, well the jerk will be killed on sight until he is so weak he poses a threat to nobody. Basically the problem with games in which PVP has no consequence (say WoW on a PVP server etc...) is when there is no penalty for death, no harm comes to the jerk who does it, and thus he may spawn camp, stalk or hunt people long enough to ruin someone else's fun, but he doesn't mind getting killed himself so hunting him down has no effect and he stays acting like a jerk.

2. PVP control zones. Specifically arenas etc... places where people go to opt in to PVP. IMO this is probably the best system, you offer an event/location where PVP is allowed, basically leave all of the wolves to fight each-other away from the people who want to casually complete quests, fight boss monsters etc... This is the one way that conquers what I hate the most in many PVP games, (when group A. Is after a really powerful monster, group B. camps out, waits for team A to be almost depleted on resources (say when the boss is down to 25% and the team is over half way out of resources) and group B. comes in, whipes out the drained and distracted group A. Then wins credit for the almost dead powerful monster.

How many people here have played EVE? All players in the same world, PvP is completely open. It's amazing how organized and thoughtful players can be in it. It's also worth noting that selfish doesn't always mean screwing everyone else over.

That's because EVE is dominated by what are essentially player-run governments in the form of corps. Most corps are both willing and able to protect their members from disorganized griefers.

Now, mind you, EVE is no stranger to PvP conflict - it just tends to take place in the form of directed war efforts.

I admit, though, I'm a little hesitant to speak from my limited EVE experience on a board Ryan Dancey is commenting on...

I don't see why a sandbox MMO in the River Kingdoms wouldn't have upstart armies and kingdoms. That's inherent in the system. Also, as I said, helping others can benefit everyone.

If the PvP is done like EvE (with high sec/low sec) I don't have a problem with it. I can understand some peoples trepidation over it though. As long as there are enough areas for the non-player killing types to explore, gather resources and adventure in a high security environment then it shouldn't be a problem. Just like EvE, High Sec resource gathering shouldn't yield as good a find compared to low sec (risk vs reward type thing).

My playstyle personally is to explore, craft and dungeon crawl. I've tried the whole theme-park MMO raid gear grind and pvp level grind but they all feel so hollow compared to sandbox games.

I think sandbox games are going to make a comeback too.
Trion Worlds Rift is proving that the current MMO model is becoming stale. They have an amazing team, good community communication and are amazing with their update schedule, but the same old game design has people bored and moving on after 6 months. I for one would love to see an MMO that can bring back that table top feel.

How many people here have played EVE? All players in the same world, PvP is completely open. It's amazing how organized and thoughtful players can be in it. It's also worth noting that selfish doesn't always mean screwing everyone else over.

Many years ago my wife and I started playing EVE. After about 10 hours of gameplay someone came along in a much bigger ship and hammered us, took out stuff and... well... that was that for us with EVE.

That massive Titan battle in EVE looked cool, and I'm sure was great to be a part of. It also just seems a bit too exhausting, both with money and time. I'd much rather be a dev who's profiting from all that virtual effort.

I won't play at all. I hate MMO's.

Tis true, there are quite a few games with open/world PVP in which a deep society constructs and controls it, there are 2 ways that this is often handled. 1. Death having a very notable penalty, In quite a few games, linage, pardus and I believe to a lesser extent eve, open PVP is possible, but the penalty is so bad that in the event that a jerk gets noticed killing people, he can expect the wrath of everyone that person knows, and if that person knows enough people more powerful then the jerk who killed him, well the jerk will be killed on sight until he is so weak he poses a threat to nobody. Basically the problem with games in which PVP has no consequence (say WoW on a PVP server etc...) is when there is no penalty for death, no harm comes to the jerk who does it, and thus he may spawn camp, stalk or hunt people long enough to ruin someone else's fun, but he doesn't mind getting killed himself so hunting him down has no effect and he stays acting like a jerk.

2. PVP control zones. Specifically arenas etc... places where people go to opt in to PVP. IMO this is probably the best system, you offer an event/location where PVP is allowed, basically leave all of the wolves to fight each-other away from the people who want to casually complete quests, fight boss monsters etc... This is the one way that conquers what I hate the most in many PVP games, (when group A. Is after a really powerful monster, group B. camps out, waits for team A to be almost depleted on resources (say when the boss is down to 25% and the team is over half way out of resources) and group B. comes in, whipes out the drained and distracted group A. Then wins credit for the almost dead powerful monster.

The Lineage system was good.

Your second option is fine for PvE servers, but I firmly believe that there should be very limited restrictions on PvP servers. Instancing PvP with even teams and capture the flag games are mere mini games and add nothing to a persistent game world. Sure they can be fun and competitive, but they are really just an option for players that don't enjoy the risks of true warfare. I'm more inclined to favor a system like EVE or Lineage personally. If there are major restrictions that inhibit pvp on specific pvp servers then I would expect that it detract from my enjoyment and would just end up on a regular RP server.

The FAQ on the goblinworks website mentions that there will be harsh penalties for unprovoked player killing. If there is a harsh penalty system in place well before the game is launched then it should work out fine. Adding in a system after launch would be a bad idea (just ask funcom).

What about "real" life?
Think about medieval times. Inside settlements people didn't kill each other, when done, law enforcement was around to keep the lord peace. The wild is no man land lots of bandits around there. People didn't travel alone.
I know MMO are not RPG but I would like to see something like this.
If I'm a peasant/low level pc, I will look for security in some settlement were wealthy/high level people manage the law. So I can sleep safe at night. When I feel comfortable I look for other people to go around an look for adventure.
If somebody kills me in town I could hope the lord (to whom I'm paying my tax) is going to outlaw/hunt/exiliate the pc. Even better I don't die, I just get beaten very very badly and need recovery time.

Well surely PvP has to be controlled somehow.

I think that PvP and Group vs Group sure has its place in a D&D game but ganking anyone at all times and lowbies especially should be limited....as well as PvP in general.

Group vs Group could be more open somehow.

Just look on the Neverwinter Nights persistent world servers. Most of them have full PvP on but no-one actually uses it. The amount of jerks is very low. As of lately the amount of total players is also getting lower though. Still not bad for an 11 years old computer game.

Waiting with anticipaction for something that can actually replace it.

Sean Byram wrote:

How many people here have played EVE? All players in the same world, PvP is completely open. It's amazing how organized and thoughtful players can be in it. It's also worth noting that selfish doesn't always mean screwing everyone else over.

That's because EVE is dominated by what are essentially player-run governments in the form of corps. Most corps are both willing and able to protect their members from disorganized griefers.

Now, mind you, EVE is no stranger to PvP conflict - it just tends to take place in the form of directed war efforts.

I admit, though, I'm a little hesitant to speak from my limited EVE experience on a board Ryan Dancey is commenting on...

Can I say Goonswarm?

When you have one of the largest Alliances that claim that its goal is to run the game for all other players you have a problem if you aren't maketing the game to a very specific audience. One that is not that of Pathfinder.

Sure Goonswarm has toned down, but getting a ton of them subscribing to the game to play together with the stated goal to make the life of the other players hell would incur the risk of wrecking the game if PVP is too free.

I have been playing EVE for 6 years and like it but the basis of a game like Pathfinder are very different.

I think if the alignment system is put into play and enforced, then perhaps the PvP ganking will be kept to a min. I remember when in EQ, if you started a fight in the city, the guards would come kill whoever threw the first punch. Even if it was a friendly duel (I can still feel the mace at the back of my Barbarians head)...

I for one have no interest in PVP. I have much more interest in PVE.

I for one dislike pVP, and much prefer PVE.

I actually like the Kingmaker model, where you (an adventuring party) go out explore, do some dungeon delving, clear an area of monsters and a bandit lord, then receive a charter to start a settlement. While you set the towns people to do what they do, collect resources and gather food, your group of adventurers is responsible for dealing with problems ie wandering monsters, banditry, squabbles between your nobles etc.

oh i almost forgot, I like the idea of having actual wandering monsters.... so at 1st level, you might run across a hill giant. I dislike the model where area is tied to level. I much prefer as you explore the map, you you don't know what you will find, and you don't know what will find you while camped at night. This way it will be different each time you play.

Pathfinder is a social cooperative game, where people work together to over come the challenges the GMs put in front of them. I hope in the development of this game, that this baseline is remembered.

I have heard bad things through the grapevine about EVE so I'm a bit leery. Granted this is only what a good friend has told me and i have no experience with the game, I'm a bit leery.

In the traditional MMO model, I enjoy PvP. I enjoy every aspect of MMOs and PvP is just one of those aspects. I really don't understand the aversion to it tbh. Just because some people don't like it, doesn't mean it shouldn't exist in the game. There are plenty of people that do like it. My MMO philosophy is simply this, the more content in the game the better it will be for ALL players. PvP is just more content.

This is a seriously age-old discussion with MMO players and it can never truly be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. The FAQ has already confirmed the existence of PvP in the game. My suggestion to people who are concerned is to wait and be patient before passing judgement on it. When we can play the beta then we'll truly know how much PvP we're talking about. Until then it's pure speculation.

My MMO philosophy is simply this, the more content in the game the better it will be for ALL players. PvP is just more content.

If PVP is entirely optional, d'accord. However, if PVP is implemented in a way that another player may just attack me, because, well he can, we are not talking about 'more content' anymore.

I agree with you that we'll have to wait and see how PvP is going to be implemented before passing judgement, but I can say that any non-optional PvP will be a show stopper for me.

OP here -- totally a noob -- what is "E" in PvE?

OP here -- totally a noob -- what is "E" in PvE?

The 'E' stands for "Environment". as in "Player vs NPCs/the world", basically enemies not controlled by other humans.

Think of it as all the times your party is clearing a dungeon of monsters or fighting bandits to rescue the fair damsel, not attempting to cheat or murder each other for their own gains and occasionally taking a break to do some looting of ancient ruins and fight some bandits for that girl you're sure would fetch a pretty penny on the slave auctions.

...not that I'd know anything about that last part, of course. I play Lawful Good, and since I'm Lawful Good you can trust me when I say I never lie, because if I lied I wouldn't be LG, would I? Makes perfect sense.

OP here -- totally a noob -- what is "E" in PvE?

Environment (monsters, etc.)

From the game design:

CONFLICT

Non-Consensual PvP

Most areas of the game world will permit one character to attack another. Parties may come into conflict regularly. Characters may take the role of bandits, spies, or advance scouts; they may be opposed by guards, armed merchants, and opposing armies. Some areas held by strong NPC Factions will generate swift and almost certainly deadly response to unprovoked aggression.

Warfare

Occasionally matters will escalate to a state of declared war between Settlements and/or Player Nations. Once war is declared, NPC Factions will cease enforcing the peace and allow the combatants to have at one another without restriction.

Territorial Control

Ultimately, characters will struggle to take and hold territory from other Settlements and Player Nations. Control of rich resources, military strongpoints, trade routes, and other sources of value will drive the players into conflict. The battles for control of territory will feature the largest possible armies using sophisticated tactics, maneuvers, logistics and support to achieve their objectives.

And a bit more:

The law enforcement situation in the River Kingdoms varies depending how far one travels from the more civilized areas and is typically a function of NPC Factions. There are islands of law enforcement in the interior near the NPC Settlements of the River Kings but the lands between are filled with danger.

Consequences

If a character attacks another (assuming the two are not at War), several things happen:

* The attacking character's Alignment may shift
* If the victim dies from the attack, the attacker may be assigned a Bounty
* The attacker will be Flagged as a Criminal
* The members of the victim's Party, Settlement and Player Nation will be alerted to the attack if they are in the same Region and will be able to use Fast Travel to get to the battle site to render assistance quickly
* If the attack takes place in territory protected by a lawful, neutral or good NPC Faction, a team of NPC Marshals will be dispatched to destroy the criminal.

The intention of this design is to permit the potential for a player to attack another, but for the consequences of doing so to escalate the closer the attack occurs to territory that enforces laws against murder. At some point the speed of the retribution for such actions should discourage all but the most egregious criminal activity.

Player Settlements, of course, are responsible for enforcing law as they see fit. :)

Ryan, does that mean that if you're a player who doesn't want PvP (most notibly, doesn't want to deal with other players attacking them) and you head off to the deep wilderness, far from towns, laws, etc, then you're simply SOL if someone attacks you? If so, then that is unfortunate.

Ryan, does that mean that if you're a player who doesn't want PvP (most notibly, doesn't want to deal with other players attacking them) and you head off to the deep wilderness, far from towns, laws, etc, then you're simply SOL if someone attacks you? If so, then that is unfortunate.

Yes, that is what it means. You need to think about other players as being a part of the world just like wandering monsters. They're predators, and if you venture out alone you're the prey.

Massively Multiplayer games gain value and become a unique and distinctive kind of experience when they maximize human interaction. There are lots of ways to play sword & sorcery games by oneself. MMOs are not designed for that kind of experience. If you want an MMO where you don't have to worry about being attacked by other players that's what most theme park games have specialized in.

Pathfinder Online's sandbox design means that interactions with other players, sometimes via combat, will be an ever-present part of the experience.

There will be characters who will go alone into the wilderness to explore. Those explorers will always be in danger. That danger will often come from the knowledge that if they are detected by other players, they're probably going to die. But if the rewards for solo exploration are sufficient (both qualitative and quantitative), people will do it. I think those rewards will be sufficient.

How are griefers handled that just spam their character at people? Just run around killing and when they in turn get killed just make a new character and run out again to maraud?

Well thats pretty much killed of any intest me or any of my friends would have had in this game.

Well thats pretty much killed of any intest me or any of my friends would have had in this game.

I have to admit that answer was a bit of a turn-off for me, too.

Well thats pretty much killed of any intest me or any of my friends would have had in this game.

Likewise.

I don't see the difference between a player wandering into a higher level wandering monster encounter than PvP. That being said no low level casual player is going to enjoy being completely destroyed by a high level raid character every time they leave the town to gather some resources. I think the development team are looking at balance of risk and reward. Lower level characters will have to stick closer to towns to gather lower level resources. Medium level characters will be willing to stray farther from towns to gather better resources. And finally if your looking for exotic resources you will have to go off the beaten path and have higher PvP, and PvE threats. Likewise, it would be nice to have wandering patrols so those labeled as criminals would have a chance of wandering into bounty hunters. It could actually be self policing. Town nobles could offer nice bounties on criminals and player characters could keep an eye out for them.

This sounds very similar to EVE's method of pvp, and I have to admit when I started EVE I expected it would be a bad experience but I was pleasantly surprised. Before you all write this off because you expect griefers to do nothing but sit in spawn points and wipe you out constantly, give it a chance, you might find that most people would rather actually play the game and that there are even a few people out there that are *gasp* decent people.

Well thats pretty much killed of any intest me or any of my friends would have had in this game.

I'm joining this club.

I think we need to step back from this for a moment and consider the fact that we don't really know what this will be like, and that many of us are looking at this through our WoW-glasses.

1) One thing many WoW players are constantly asking for is an incentive for world PvP. This setting seems like it would offer that.

2) WoW really isn't an MMO in the strictest sense. WoW allows for a completely solo game experience if you want it. It's more like a single player game with raids at the end.

3) How often do you expect to be going out in the wild alone? Especially if you know beforehand that it's dangerous to do so? WoW is the anomoly here, in that you spend a great deal of time in that game doing solo activities.

4) What would kill immersion more: knowing you were "safe" alone in the wild, or knowing you were not safe and need to bring friends?

I'm not a big fan of PvP myself, but I'm ok knowing there are places I am safe, places I need company, and places I know will be trouble. As long as there are places I can get equal reward without a PvP experience, I think this model would be fine.

Kevin Mack wrote:

Well thats pretty much killed of any intest me or any of my friends would have had in this game.

I'm joining this club.

We'll see where this goes but I don't think most folks want this style of PVP anymore. If there are seperate PVP and PVE servers it's a whole nother story but if all servers are mixed then I see a huge drop in interest.

One other comment, if it is going to allow PVP on the server do NOT allow any sort of level locking (such as EQ2 does). It lets folks just sit at some level and build up insane amounts of gear and just gank who ever they feel like with little fear of retaliation.

How many people here have played EVE? All players

I admit, though, I'm a little hesitant to speak from my limited EVE experience on a board Ryan Dancey is commenting on...

Oh? I have many failings, but being bashful is not one of them. Allow me then...

1) Tech design of EVE Online in several stages of its development was horribly unstable and resulted in absolutely CRASHING Windows Vista to a forced system restart every time I tried to run it over a perior of several weeks. It did this no matter what I tried or what drivers I juggled - from a virgin fresh install to a heavily manipulated driver pool. Please note - this is not an Win XP BSOD error, but a Windows Vista system restart crash. I've had maybe 6 of those events occur over the past 3.5 years. Four of them were caused by EVE.

Like all bug complaints they are inherently anecdotal and focus upon a relatively fixed point in time, NEvertheless, I was not impressed. It cost CCP my subscription money at the time.

2) When I came back to EVE a year later, I got it to work and then came up HARD against an almost inscrutable interface and set of objectives to learn how to start playing. EVE is just about the most difficult MMO *ever* to learn and get into. While these may have been something rewarding in all of that lurking somewhere, I can't really verify that because I didn't have the patience to put up with it.

I have a pretty complicated job and I prefer to do a little more relaxing with my electronic entertainment and hobbies (though clearly, that is not always the case). Still while EVE may be many things, "relaxing and rewarding play" for new players is not counted among its reputed virtues.

Just how difficult to learn? EVE Online is LEGENDARY in how hard it is to learn how to play

(Yes. Really, it's that bad.)

The back-stabbing and corp maneuvering in EVE is quite cool - for those who enjoy that sort of thing. It certainly is a great example of players shaping the game's design in unexpected ways. For all of that, it has always been a very narrowly focused game appealing to a niche of a niche (of a niche).

While there is value in knowing your market and pitching to it carefully, I think EVE went much too far down that path.

I think we need to step back from this for a moment and consider the fact that we don't really know what this will be like, and that many of us are looking at this through our WoW-glasses.

1) One thing many WoW players are constantly asking for is an incentive for world PvP. This setting seems like it would offer that.

2) WoW really isn't an MMO in the strictest sense. WoW allows for a completely solo game experience if you want it. It's more like a single player game with raids at the end.

3) How often do you expect to be going out in the wild alone? Especially if you know beforehand that it's dangerous to do so? WoW is the anomoly here, in that you spend a great deal of time in that game doing solo activities.

4) What would kill immersion more: knowing you were "safe" alone in the wild, or knowing you were not safe and need to bring friends?

I'm not a big fan of PvP myself, but I'm ok knowing there are places I am safe, places I need company, and places I know will be trouble. As long as there are places I can get equal reward without a PvP experience, I think this model would be fine.

3) Many players prefer to solo/duo a lot for what ever reason. If much of the world is unassessable (more or less) you lose a lot of MMOs. Just look at DDO, at first almost everything required a party and it really hurt the game. Know I will admit they probably shifted too far the way but it seems the trend of everyone grouping all the time has become much less popular.

I have three problems with PVP.

1. When PVP is substituted for player content in regards to environment. Developers give players a static environment and let PVP add the excitement. This keeps production costs down. But those that like to explore have little incentive to continue playing.

2. When PVP is global, versus controlled areas. At least controlled areas provide a buffer and would make sense to have PVP when you enter an area opposed to your alignment.

3. When PVP is gear dependent, versus just scaling the damage. This avoids the situation of low level characters not having any chance of harming high level characters. As part of it, there should be no "con" system to keep things exciting.

-.- Well, the PVP pretty much killed any interest in this game for me. Hated WoW PVP servers, hated EVE's PVP system. I'd be fine with PFO having select servers for this sort of thing, as long as it isn't forced on me.

Kevin Mack wrote:

Well thats pretty much killed of any intest me or any of my friends would have had in this game.

I have to admit that answer was a bit of a turn-off for me, too.

+1 to that. I tend to solo a lot, especially since I am busy with RL stuff and have little time to play. That makes finding groups harder than I like. PVP should be relagated to specific areas / servers. Having an Arena that alows PVP would be cool. But I prefer PVE, either solo or in a group.

Awesome. Practically everybody I game with is into open pvp, we're social and competitive gamers and not very interested in an MMO that caters to single player aspects. These are the things I want in an MMO.
I hope it's executed well though. Darkfall(and others) claimed to have all these things before release and implemented almost none of it or didn't do it effectively.

3) Many players prefer to solo/duo a lot for what ever reason. If much of the world is unassessable (more or less) you lose a lot of MMOs. Just look at DDO, at first almost everything required a party and it really hurt the game. Know I will admit they probably shifted too far the way but it seems the trend of everyone grouping all the time has become much less popular.

This is my personal preference too. But to reiterate (or clarify), as long as PvP is avoidable and there is an equal PvE alternative for advancement, I'm good.

Not going deep into the wild alone would be as obvious as not going into Wintergrasp alone, unless you were prepared to fight and die to be there.

Yes, that is what it means. You need to think about other players as being a part of the world just like wandering monsters. They're predators, and if you venture out alone you're the prey.

Make it too much EVE-like and we will have Narja and Rancer again. Especially if the killed player characters drop loot.

Make the death penalty for the killed character too step and you will discourage single players or small groups.
Make it irrelevant while people drop stuff and there would be plenty of guys doing that.
If you are in the wrong linguistic group and will have problem using vent your risk being locked out of most of the game content.

People like me that prefer to build the sand castle and think that is a jerk move to destroy another guy sand castle will have problem with half of the game content.

Good luck finding the right balance.

I think we need to step back from this for a moment and consider the fact that we don't really know what this will be like, and that many of us are looking at this through our WoW-glasses.

I am looking it through my EVE glasses. Never played WOW.

Just to specify it: almost certainly I will try it. Probably I will play it even if PVP were to hamper a lot of my activities.

Might i remind those are saying they have no interest in the game because of the 'open pvp'. In EvE through my long experience you can play as a 'carebear' within civilized areas with no problems. You will always come across jerks but perhaps instead of never playing why not create something similar to the "Helvetikan Confederacy" which is/was switzerland.
Three cantons joined together for mutual protection from outside forces.

with these kind of agreements you can ensure colonization of 'wild' areas without worrying about griefers and jerks who want to wreck your sandcastle. Personally i will be trying to form a "Vigilant of Sarenae" order that patrols RP territories to remove 'evils' and stop bandits.

I have two follow up comments to some of the issues surrounding the PvP elements of the game.

1) it's great if the penalties for becoming a criminal hurt the murdering PC. However, that does nothing for the play experience of the player who gets ambushed and killed and never wanted PvP. There's going to be people who are on the receiving end, and leave the game, even if the bounties and retribution elements of the game (both NPC and from other PC kingdoms and whatnot) keep the problem low. Does this simulate reality more - sure, sometimes random people are victims of crimes. However, this is a game people play to have fun, not to potentially become a crime statistic.

2) will the PvP elements in places such as "deep wilderness" be an issue for players who want to play the game primarily as an adventuring, going on quests and going to dungeons to fight monsters game? For exaple, if a dungeon is in the "deep wilderness" area (which makes sense - you don't have monsters in the streets of cities, or at least not too often), and a PC needs to travel to the dungeon, will they be able to be ambushed by a PvP player just trying to get into the dungeon? If so, then I see that as a problem. If the dungeon/adventure/quest parts of the game fully reside in "protected" regions, then it's not as big of an issue. My concern though is that a lot of the minimal information that has been released seems to suggest that the focus of the game would be on the kingdom building, city building, faction buidling, and social elements surrounding those which will often beceome PvP events like war. If that is going to prevent a gamer who wants to play PFO as a computer simulation of dungeon crawling adventuring, then there's a pretty big conflict between two often separate play styles.

interactions with other players, sometimes via combat, will be an ever-present part of the experience.

Dang man. Way to harsh my excitement. I can't stand getting whacked by some nut job kid with way too much time on his hands. I was hoping for something a little more sophisticated...

One greater question to tie in. What extent of penelty are you considering for death?

and PVP/PVE death as well, also rewards for PVP. For instance if getting killed has a huge penalty people will probably be less likely to randomly kill, or at least unlikely to randomly kill people in powerful nations etc... Due to the high probability of swift retribution. Much like in the web based game Pardus, open PVP is throughout the game, but practically unheard of outside of wars and political conflict due to the penalty of death being more or less 1/4th of the cost of every piece of equipment you are using and 5% of your total skills (note by total that means 5% of everything you have earned between then and day 1, so if you've been playing for a year, that's 2 weeks work down the trash). Between the penelty for death being high, and the fact that once you are known as a pirate, all bets are off, you will be killed on sight by almost anyone for a month.

Of course the drawback for the heavy death penalty, is the one who is PKed, can lose a lot as well, and while PK death would be rare with a painful penalty, it also could be harsh on the victim.

While some players dislike PvP in online games there are those who enjoy it. I for one really like PvP and hope there is a lot of opportunity for it in the Pathfinder online game.

If PvP is not in the game or not a huge part of it, so be it. Golarion is a great setting and it will be great to see it brought "to life" as an MMO.

Can I say Goonswarm?

When you have one of the largest Alliances that claim that its goal is to run the game for all other players

Goonfleet's primary goal was, for the time that I was following their actions, the elimination of BoB and its associated vassal corps. It would surprise me to learn that their stated goal was ruining the game for everyone else.