Non-PVP Server?

I detest PVP for several reasons, but just to touch on a couple of reasons :

1)On the MMO I previously played the PVP jerks would go out of their way to ruin other people's gaming experience: i.e. killing quest givers or merchants when I(or someone, not just me) would go to turn in a quest or deal with the merchants. They received no XP for this, and no in game reward, they just did it to be jerks and ruin other peoples gaming experience.

2) I am not really a competitive person, and I have nothing to prove to anyone else, so it annoys me to see or hear someone lording over someone else they think they are better than, just because they can beat them in PVP. I play games to have fun, and PVP sucks the fun out of any game for me.

As I said before I know I am in the minority here, but I do hope that eventually there will be some form of Pathfinder Video Game(Online or otherwise) that does not incorporate PVP.

But in PFO the other people ARE the E in PVE. It's a living environment filled with other people each of whom have goals that either align with or compete against your own.

If nothing else, I hope this post makes you think that just maybe PvP can be done A LOT better than it has been done in the past. And PvP...

Nicely put. Although I dont focus on PvP, I wouldnt play on a PVE server. Its just too tame. No thrill, no risk, nothing.

@Dario: I laughed at that suggestion. We may end up seeing RPed ghosts in game after all :P

Have you ever played a multiplayer FPS game and said to yourself "I wish my team was fighting against AI because getting shot by other people isn't fun"? Maybe you have, but for the 99.99% of everyone who plays those games, the answer is no.

No, I have never done that. Of course, I generally hate FPS multiplayer, so I don't play them much in the first place. Except for Mass Effect 3. Which is pretty good, and, incidentally, IS about your team fighting hordes of AI enemies. It also seems fairly popular.

Of course, I don't think PFO is going to be an FPS, so I don't really see the comparison. Baldur's Gate was wildly popular and I'm fairly certain there was no player on the other end, controlling all the NPC monsters. I'm also pretty sure that that the majority of players didn't sit there, thinking "man, I wish these wolves were controlled by a real person" either.

Of course, I could be wrong.

Yes, Baldurs gate was a hit but I found it very boring. I detest games that have an "artificial difficulty", meaning you have to act in a very specific way in order to beat the machine but once you found that way you will always beat it.

This is the reason why, for instance, WoW included more and more random elements to their boss fights, to keep it "interesting" (meaning that you will wipe now even when doing it "right" unless you equip is finally good enough to absorb those random spikes).

Many people like it that way (or at least like it more than the alternatives) and thats nice and fine and the reason why there are so many MMOs that work this way.

What galls me is when people insist that ALL MMOs have to be this way or else they will face abysmal failure (not that this happened in this thread, but it happened often enough in previous ones).

So really, give it a chance, the PvP-Environment in PFO will be unlike all you saw so far - you might still not like it, but whats to loose?

Meh. My distaste of PvP is on record. Despite that, I have faith that the development team have the skills to put together a game that isn't dominated by PvP greifing asshats. Whether or not this faith is misplaced i will find out in the Beta. If it turns out that PvP can't be run in a mature, game-enhancing fashion I'll sell my account and do something else.

There's no sense in asking for PvE, that has always been off the table. The question now is can you put aside your distrust of PvP and let PFO try their luck in making the game they aspire to? If not, there's a million PvEs out there. I'll be sad, but I've been a Pathfinder fanboi since they made that fateful announcement in 2008 that they were developing the game. My fondest hope is PFO can do to MMOs what Pathfinder did for tabletop.

Look at Harad Navar's Unofficial Pathfinder Online Map

There is a lot of room to avoid the full hex map being painted by the same boring bland colours.

PFO will be Sandbox[<Politics & Economy>OW{pve+pvp}]

Here's the direct link to the map: Harad Navar's Unofficial PFO Map with large Hexes V0a 150dpi

If we have enough players on the forums/ks to cooperate and form a strong block that is high security, this will a good place for a lot of more PvE inclined players. I think the vision is very promising.

If they can find a way to make player generated PvE content such as dungeons and encounters I will certainly commit to producing same as quickly as I can while assuring high quality entertainment.

If, together with GW, we can reach good understanding of whatever tools they are able to provide enough to set in place a robust quality assurance testing system then the community should be able to produce enough PvE content to satisfy even the dedicated PvE enthusiasts.

I look upon this prospect as the next evolution in the DM avocation.

I detest PVP for several reasons, but just to touch on a couple of reasons :

1)On the MMO I previously played the PVP jerks would go out of their way to ruin other people's gaming experience: i.e. killing quest givers or merchants when I(or someone, not just me) would go to turn in a quest or deal with the merchants. They received no XP for this, and no in game reward, they just did it to be jerks and ruin other peoples gaming experience.

2) I am not really a competitive person, and I have nothing to prove to anyone else, so it annoys me to see or hear someone lording over someone else they think they are better than, just because they can beat them in PVP. I play games to have fun, and PVP sucks the fun out of any game for me.

As I said before I know I am in the minority here, but I do hope that eventually there will be some form of Pathfinder Video Game(Online or otherwise) that does not incorporate PVP.

I think more people feel the way you do than you may realize. I'd say that at least 50% of the people that contributed to the kickstarter with the primary intention of playing the game feel this way. There is evidence to support this in the 2-4 PvP-based threads that received hundreds of posts during the kickstarter.

I also believe that about 40% of active posters here feel the same way. Most of these persons have slowly begun to trust that GW is well aware of the downsides of PvP in other MMOs as they have read more and more past blogs and dev posts. There are instances of this happening on these forums since January 2012.

I am not one of those people, but you are far from alone =)

I dont mind PvP most times. However often times I do.

Simply put I dont mind PvP. I greatly dislike people running around ganking folks for the lulz. I dislike when very large groups go around killing everybody, not because they are invading a territory, but because they think its fun to gank people.

PvP that adds meaning to the game im fine with. Its the bleeps that get a kick out of disrupting someone's playing that i dislike.

I dislike PvP, yet I play on PvP servers. It is rather simple to do, just play smart, and you will have no real hassle with the PvP, and still enjoy the game enjoying chats with your acquaintances, while busy with some task.

Oh, always carry what you only prepared to loose. PKers generally end up leaving you alone when they learn you generally have nothing of value for their efforts, yet resulting in get flagged.

What galls me is when people insist that ALL MMOs have to be this way or else they will face abysmal failure (not that this happened in this thread, but it happened often enough in previous ones).

You'll see this argument on both sides of the fence, largely because people seem to have an uncanny ability to mistake their personal preference for some sort of universal truth.

The main difference I'm seeing between the two sides, is that the PvP fans often appear to want to force PvE'ers to "learn to enjoy PvP" while the PvE'ers don't really care what the PvPers are doing, as long as they can be left out of it.

I still don't buy the argument that PFO couldn't be consensual PvP, but I do accept that it's not being designed that way, and me being here is me "giving it a chance". PFO might not turn out as horrible as every other game that has tried. :)

(But then again, if I can be a pessimist for a second, if PFO does manage to come up with a PvP system that I will enjoy, there's a fair chance the PvP fans would hate it. So I'm not really sure PFO should even try to "win me over.")

Picture yourself spending a few hours harvesting resources. Now you are on your track back - would you turn on PvP and risk loosing your stuff?

No, you wouldn't!

So consentional PvP equals no PvP in regards to sandboxes and their economy.

I still don't buy the argument that PFO couldn't be consensual PvP, but I do accept that it's not being designed that way, and me being here is me "giving it a chance". PFO might not turn out as horrible as every other game that has tried. :)

This ideally will be a grey area of pvp neither white nor black.

Ideally players will find an extent of risk that suits them, with the odd unsuccessful trip (ie blundered into pvp) if they are highly pvp/risk averse. Conversely those that seek this may find pvp at all times in an area of the world map.

I think that's the best place to reach an understanding. The key is the successful design that builds that sort of optional frequency for different players. Obviously the extremes "zero pvp ever" or "griefing pvp" are excluded.

Picture yourself spending a few hours harvesting resources. Now you are on your track back - would you turn on PvP and risk loosing your stuff?

No, you wouldn't!

So consentional PvP equals no PvP in regards to sandboxes and their economy.

Not necessarily. I'm going back about a decade here, but Dark Age of Camelot handled this by putting the valuable rewards in auto-flagging PvP zones. (The Darkness Falls dungeon in particular; there were mob groups in the frontiers that were great for farming - ah, the nasty little leprechauns! - but most people stuck with the dungeon.) They didn't have resource-gathering per se, but by using the rewards you got from killing mobs in the PvP zones to buy items you could then strip down for valuable parts, you could afford to skill up crafting faster - or afford a nicer house. Note that the leveling zones were non-PvP, so you could reach maximum level without ever engaging in non-consensual PvP, but at the cost of slower advancement, less coin, and less stuff.

That wouldn't work in PFO at this point, given the thrust of the design work to date, but it is possible to gate resources, and thus the economy, in ways other than non-consensual PvP. Perhaps, for PFO, the equivalent would be auto-flagging when you begin mining/harvesting/farming, with the flag only dropping when you enter a settlement. Thus, someone vehemently opposed to ever engaging in PvP could do so at the cost of never gathering resources - which in turn would keep from flooding the economy with materials gained at no risk. You could further gate content by barricading certain high-level skills behind required in-game activities which auto-flag you - the DAoC corollary being the level 60 armor quests, which required trips into the auto-flagging PvP zones in order to acquire the powerful items. Again, it's not something that will work in PFO at this stage of development, but it's one way of handling the economy that lies between "only consrnsual PvP" and "only non-consensual PvP".

Shades of grey are always trickier. But usually more interesting.

In any case, as someone who enjoyed DAoC's realm vs. realm (large-scale, organized) combat but who has found player vs, player (small-scale, non-consensual) combat to consist entirely of being ganked and griefed, I can certainly see the concerns over non-consensual PvP. I share them. I've still backed the Kickstarter, in part because the PFO version of RvR combat sounds like fun and in part because GoblinWorks is working very hard to discourage the sort of nasty, "just because I can" attacks that are my experience of PvP.

I doubt PFO will even have such a thing as a "server" in the traditional aspect, ie, all players will log into the same consistent world. The playerbase will be small enough for modern tech to host the entire world as a single environment every customer who buys the game will log into.

In that aspect, no. But in another way PVP will very much the CENTRAL aspect of this games focus.

It's more likely a scenario similar to a lot of games out there, such as Guild Wars and Star Trek Online, there will be likely one shard, but multiple instances for each location.

And given that this is coming from Ryan "Eve Online" Dancey, if you're not willing to engage in PVP, you'd probably best avoid this game entirely. In that game, PVP is the major source of content and I suspect that PFO will run in a simmilar fashion.

But given that it's Free to Play, it won't cost you anything more than time to find out.

If they can find a way to make player generated PvE content such as dungeons and encounters I will certainly commit to producing same as quickly as I can while assuring high quality entertainment.

If, together with GW, we can reach good understanding of whatever tools they are able to provide enough to set in place a robust quality assurance testing system then the community should be able to produce enough PvE content to satisfy even the dedicated PvE enthusiasts.

I look upon this prospect as the next evolution in the DM avocation.

Being, might I suggest that you sign up for NWOs beta? They should be very near the normal beta test phase, when the servers will be live all the time as opposed to just a few hours a day like they are now. I mention it because of their Foundry UGC tool. I think it would give you a lot of data to use when GW goes to create their own tool for UGC.

Figured I would mention it in case you haven't signed up yet. I think you will enjoy the Foundry.

Being wrote:

If they can find a way to make player generated PvE content such as dungeons and encounters I will certainly commit to producing same as quickly as I can while assuring high quality entertainment.

If, together with GW, we can reach good understanding of whatever tools they are able to provide enough to set in place a robust quality assurance testing system then the community should be able to produce enough PvE content to satisfy even the dedicated PvE enthusiasts.

I look upon this prospect as the next evolution in the DM avocation.

Being, might I suggest that you sign up for NWOs beta? They should be very near the normal beta test phase, when the servers will be live all the time as opposed to just a few hours a day like they are now. I mention it because of their Foundry UGC tool. I think it would give you a lot of data to use when GW goes to create their own tool for UGC.

Figured I would mention it in case you haven't signed up yet. I think you will enjoy the Foundry.

If Cryptic goes by the same method that they use for Star Trek Online, you'll need to be a subscriber to author content, but you'll be able to play it as a freebie player.

Do you suppose that foundry will be significantly different from NWN2's Aurora construction kit?

Carbon D. Metric wrote:

I doubt PFO will even have such a thing as a "server" in the traditional aspect, ie, all players will log into the same consistent world. The playerbase will be small enough for modern tech to host the entire world as a single environment every customer who buys the game will log into.

In that aspect, no. But in another way PVP will very much the CENTRAL aspect of this games focus.

It's more likely a scenario similar to a lot of games out there, such as Guild Wars and Star Trek Online, there will be likely one shard, but multiple instances for each location.

If I understand this correctly, I seriously doubt (and hope) this will be the case in PFO (under normal circumstances). A better comparison might be how another sandbox MMO, eve online, does it.

I say "under normal circumstances" because I haven't ever participated in a 500 vs 500 player battle in an MMO and I'm not sure how that might be done in a fantasy MMO. I know that this was one of the reasons for GW's proposed 'unit formations' idea.

Do you suppose that foundry will be significantly different from NWN2's Aurora construction kit?

It's near enough like it to where you'll be fairly familiar with the basic system, but it's added functionality and new stuff they have put in are really worth checking out. The dialog system on its own is really sweet.

Being, might I suggest that you sign up for NWOs beta? They should be very near the normal beta test phase, when the servers will be live all the time as opposed to just a few hours a day like they are now. I mention it because of their Foundry UGC tool. I think it would give you a lot of data to use when GW goes to create their own tool for UGC.

Figured I would mention it in case you haven't signed up yet. I think you will enjoy the Foundry.

For those interested, open beta starts on April 30.

Being wrote:

Do you suppose that foundry will be significantly different from NWN2's Aurora construction kit?

It's near enough like it to where you'll be fairly familiar with the basic system, but it's added functionality and new stuff they have put in are really worth checking out. The dialog system on its own is really sweet.

Tempting, in an acquisative sense of temptation. Yet if I spend the time I would want to on each game I've already helped kickstart there won't be enough hours left in a week for work, writing, painting, laundry, eating, or sleeping once they all release. Let along posting on forums... or wait: maybe that is what you are attemptin to achieve: Someone finally figured out how to shut Being up?

I'm onto you Val!!

I recognize that some level of PVP is essential to encourage interaction and make the game interesting. Reading the comments, I think much of the resistence to PvP is based on experiences with games that encourages (or at least did not discourage) PvP combat for it's own sake. I agree in that, while I would have no issue with my character being attacked by bandits with transporting valuable cargo, I would not enjoy a game where my character was in constant fear of being attacked by strangers while peacefully walking down the street. I don't see how a sandbox MMO can be sucessful if a character played as a psychopath on a continuing killing spree is able to prosper and advance faster than his victims.

GW seems to be considering ways, such reputation, to discourage PVP attacks that make no sense in the context of the game. If a bad reputation has enough of a negative effect on a character's ability to buy and sell, enter settlements, etc., a character that goes about attacking others without reason cannot prosper and may soon find it difficult to survive. I am hopeful the result will be a game that implements a nice balance that discourages irrational PvP without totally supressing rational PvP

My experience with PvP is that I am going to die whether I fight back or not. Ignoring the attacker will just make it pass faster so I can get back to what I was doing.

I like NPCs. They aren't vindictive. They don't take sadistic pleasure in my misfortune.

I like PvErs with your perspective. If we could arrange for your trade routes to pass through my company's bandit hunting grounds, I promise that we will not only not take sadistic pleasure in robbing you, but we will be remorseful for it..... Every time.

As another person who believes they have nothing to "prove" in PVP, I'm thinking I'll try (try being the key word) to take the pacifist's approach to PVP: get attacked, sit down, wait to die. If I can "grief" my opponent's play just that little bit, I'll salvage a bit of fun for myself out of having done something stupid enough to get attacked in the first place.

Until I see how GW sets up PVP in this game, I'm going to dread it as much as I do in every other game. But Lord, am I looking forward to seeing.

As another person who believes they have nothing to "prove" in PVP, I'm thinking I'll try (try being the key word) to take the pacifist's approach to PVP: get attacked, sit down, wait to die. If I can "grief" my opponent's play just that little bit, I'll salvage a bit of fun for myself out of having done something stupid enough to get attacked in the first place.

Until I see how GW sets up PVP in this game, I'm going to dread it as much as I do in every other game. But Lord, am I looking forward to seeing.

I also am not a big fan of PVP. I plan to be a merchant. I guess that I will try to do as much of my business as possible in settlements with a good market and plenty of protection.

Inevitably, I know, I will grow (as a merchant) large enough that I will need to branch out and get my goods to distant markets for the best chance at profits. I hope someday to have caravans all over the roads. Sometimes Bluddwolf's Band will get them and sometimes not.

The best ways that I have of looking at it:

1. It is all just a part of doing business. Costs can be moved on.
2. At least there is an option so the Bandits do not have to kill me.
3. Bandits are just really cool PVE.
4. Bandits exist in lots of fantasy fiction. The story is better.
5. Jerks that make the game unfun will be removed.
6. I plan to be so rich that the occasional gank won't hamper me too much and the "Eternal Bounty" may give me some satisfaction. =D

Completely agree. I learned my lessons in EVE, so my equipment's going to be threaded or utter vendor-trash, nothing between. Whatever crafting components I may've collected will be just gravy, because (generally) they'll be replaceable.

If the devs give us an ability (no, they won't) to destroy items in inventory as we're being "led toward death"...well, scorched-earth tactics will be just fine with me. Corpse runs? Who cares? Leaving nothing for a bandit to take...priceless. :)

Bringslite,

Another option is to hire the bandits from the area you're traveling through to act as your guards. If you're going to have to pay them, they might as well be working for you.

Bringslite,

Another option is to hire the bandits from the area you're traveling through to act as your guards. If you're going to have to pay them, they might as well be working for you.

Very true Mr. Hobbs. Or I could pay the first few times, get an idea of what force I need, and bring a Bandit #^@ Stomp Squad next time as a surprise! = )

Of course, you'd need to pay the squad every time after, since the bandit wouldn't likely care to do any positive business with you in the future.

Of course, you'd need to pay the squad every time after, since the bandit wouldn't likely care to do any positive business with you in the future.

Oh! It is Sooo On. Nasty Bandits!

Actually... the idea of a protection racket sounds pretty appealing to me. "Pay us a monthly fee of X gold so we don't take your stuff on the road. For an extra fee you can hire some of us to protect you from renegades in our territory."

Probably wont be a pay by month, more like a pay by trip lol. Thats what I will charge.

Which GW is completely integrating into the game.

kyrt-ryder,

Then you'll have bandits splitting their numbers...group A acting as protection while group B poses as the "dangerous threat" that the first group is hired to defend against...just so the protection ring can seem necessary. :)

Clever Hobbses, givsing away our tacticses

We protect our friends, cabrone. You want to be our friend, yes? It would be unfortunate if something should happen to your lovely establishment. There are many evil men about, and a shopkeeper needs someone to protect him and his goods. I'm sure we can come to an accommodation, yes?

The UnNamed Company has plans on being both hunter and guardian of merchant caravans. It all depends on how we are contracted.

We can be hired to protect you. Who better than bandits, to protect you from bandits?

We can be hired to attack the caravans of your competition. This is ideally our preferred contract.

We will honor all contracts, not because we are lawful or nice, but becuase that is just good business practice. "It is ALL about the Gold!!"

If bandits attack you, while under our protection, you can be assured of two things: They are not our own (bad for business) and We will do our very best to deliver you to safety.

Having contact vs. other bandit groups will be of value to my company. It will let us know who is working in our territory. We will be able to evaluate their worth in combat. We will attempt to recruit those that are effective; offer to train those that are marginal; and slaughter those that are posers (not truly dedicated to banditry as a first choice for PFO interaction).

I detest PVP for several reasons, but just to touch on a couple of reasons :

1)On the MMO I previously played the PVP jerks would go out of their way to ruin other people's gaming experience: i.e. killing quest givers or merchants when I(or someone, not just me) would go to turn in a quest or deal with the merchants. They received no XP for this, and no in game reward, they just did it to be jerks and ruin other peoples gaming experience.

2) I am not really a competitive person, and I have nothing to prove to anyone else, so it annoys me to see or hear someone lording over someone else they think they are better than, just because they can beat them in PVP. I play games to have fun, and PVP sucks the fun out of any game for me.

As I said before I know I am in the minority here, but I do hope that eventually there will be some form of Pathfinder Video Game(Online or otherwise) that does not incorporate PVP.

Most MMOs give a free card regarding those actions or even reward it. As it sounds right now, PFO is going to penalize those who act in that way with alignment and reputation hits and various flags.

As I said before I know I am in the minority here, but I do hope that eventually there will be some form of Pathfinder Video Game(Online or otherwise) that does not incorporate PVP.

Without any real death penalty, MMOs without PvP have no risk at all. You just play until you over level and then you beat the game in usuallyess than 2 months. How could there be any enjoyment in building something if there is no chance that you might face done challenge in doing it?

How could there be any enjoyment in building something if there is no chance that you might face done challenge in doing it?

I fail to see how there's any enjoyment at all in the off chance that whatever you've worked on get destroyed and you have to start over. And, to be frank, whether this happens in a PvE game where you have to grind for something for months only to have a 50-50 chance the effort wasn't a complete waste (Aion, I'm looking at you) or a PvP game where other players can shoot your life's work to smithereens while you're offline, doesn't really matter.

There really isn't as much difference between PvP and poorly designed PvE as you'd like to think.

But if that's the kind of frustration you enjoy, there's plenty of games that will scratch that itch. Have fun!

@Slaunyeh - It seems to me, that settlements will be substantially potent places in terms of the cumulative value all the members have in said place: The self-determination being one of them (intangible value).

I think this will make it so that members will be much more careful of keeping political alliances and so on that support their settlement and ensuring sufficient might in arms is available for defense.

So this is based on many people having buildings and other connections to their settlement? It also seems the long-term sustainable strategy.

So, if this is the case, I think people who don't wish to be in a constant lord of the flies state, will find PFO actually fairly friendly environment in certain portions of the map.

That's my gut feeling on the significance and size and organisation of these things.

I have been looking forward to seeing how PFO would work, but more and more i see how heavy it sounds into PVP. I stopped playing a certain other MMO because of the focus it had on PVP. I absolutely detest PVP.

So, my question to those in charge of making this game ... Is there any possibility that you could create at least one server with no PVP aspect? I realize I am in the minority on this issue, but I would really like to play PFO, but will not if it is as PVP heavy as it sounds.

You know when I first heard about a Pathfinder MMO I was in heaven, but the more I see the less I want anything to do with it.

I detest PVP, crafting heavy, corpse run games. When I play a game I am playing to relax and just enjoy my characters, not to worry about having to watch my back, have a second job in game or dealing with greedy players to get my gear, and having to run all the way back to my corspe and hope I get there first.

I was hoping for a Pathfinder PnP inspired game instead its just pathfinder in name and sound more like EVE with a fantasy skin, no thanks.

What makes you say you will not be able to play PFO and not relax and have to constantly watch your back? There are several roles you could undertake that would put you in zero danger and be very lucrative.

Only way to find out is to take her for a test drive!

Alephtau wrote:

I have been looking forward to seeing how PFO would work, but more and more i see how heavy it sounds into PVP. I stopped playing a certain other MMO because of the focus it had on PVP. I absolutely detest PVP.

So, my question to those in charge of making this game ... Is there any possibility that you could create at least one server with no PVP aspect? I realize I am in the minority on this issue, but I would really like to play PFO, but will not if it is as PVP heavy as it sounds.

You know when I first heard about a Pathfinder MMO I was in heaven, but the more I see the less I want anything to do with it.

I detest PVP, crafting heavy, corpse run games. When I play a game I am playing to relax and just enjoy my characters, not to worry about having to watch my back, have a second job in game or dealing with greedy players to get my gear, and having to run all the way back to my corspe and hope I get there first.

I was hoping for a Pathfinder PnP inspired game instead its just pathfinder in name and sound more like EVE with a fantasy skin, no thanks.

1. PvP is a flamewar topic. Discussing it leads to impassioned personal opinons. That does not means PFO will only be about PvP: It's a central subset of a ONLINE SANDBOX mmorpg.

2. EVE is often considered a 2nd job. Ryan has mentioned he's keen on the portion of the market who are very dedicated to a single game. Why do you think this is? I'll pose a guess myself: Online sandbox games are very tricky not to treat as a 2nd job or a less perjorative term, Online gaming, particularly SANDBOXES and the monetization methods are adapting these sorts of games in to HOBBIES. I've recently been playing Ravenmark: Mercenaries on my iOS device for simple eg. Here there's a real-time contracts for gaining xp and time with which my units and brigades are tied up via a timer. Secondly the core game is a async multiplayer: So you have alerts when the other player has completed their move. There's a fair bit of strategy to it that I'm not even uncovered yet. But the point is: It's quite similar to a hobby (you could argue it's a clever design timesink for making more money), in that I'm checking in regularly, I'm making moves in free moments over a few days and thinking about my strategy while not playing etc...

3. EVE has some really positive design ideas for mmorpgs, not for everyone but for x1 eg:

CCP Online's three design pillars for sandbox MMOs

The secret to EVE Online's success: It's all bottom-up

EVE Online and the meaning of 'sandbox'

And most applicable to this thread: All 5pgs:

Infinite Space: An Argument for Single-Sharded Architecture in MMOs

Alephtau wrote:

I have been looking forward to seeing how PFO would work, but more and more i see how heavy it sounds into PVP. I stopped playing a certain other MMO because of the focus it had on PVP. I absolutely detest PVP.

So, my question to those in charge of making this game ... Is there any possibility that you could create at least one server with no PVP aspect? I realize I am in the minority on this issue, but I would really like to play PFO, but will not if it is as PVP heavy as it sounds.

You know when I first heard about a Pathfinder MMO I was in heaven, but the more I see the less I want anything to do with it.

I detest PVP, crafting heavy, corpse run games. When I play a game I am playing to relax and just enjoy my characters, not to worry about having to watch my back, have a second job in game or dealing with greedy players to get my gear, and having to run all the way back to my corspe and hope I get there first.

I was hoping for a Pathfinder PnP inspired game instead its just pathfinder in name and sound more like EVE with a fantasy skin, no thanks.

There are many, perhaps even most, that would tell someone who declares that he wishes to be a Griefer, and he will be told that there are rules against that and he will be severely punished. He may then say, I will still grief until my heart's content, and he will be told that he is not welcome to be here with that play style.

I will be the first voice to say that the opposite extreme is equally unwelcome in PFO. I place the Griefer and the PvE Server players on the same level. Neither bring anything productive to an Open World PvP Sandbox MMO.

So I will give the same advise I was given: "There are plenty of games out there, where you can scratch that itch."