Ryan Dancy said wrote:
“I think telling someone that Pathfinder Online is all about PvP is like saying football is all about tackling. It fundamentally misses the point, while being technically logically defensible. Just like playing football is all about scoring tough downs, and running plays and all the cool things about football. Pathfinder online is about building settlements struggling with each other over resources and territory and engaging in commerce and diplomacy as well as warfare.”
If Pvp only express a small portion of what a player can experience in Pathfinder Online could we possible come up with a description that will come closer to describing the vision Ryan has describe in the above quote?
I believe no one on forum would dispute me if I said that one of Pathfinder’s goals is to maximize meaning player interaction. In fact Ryan in the same panel describe maximizing meaningful player interaction as the first core goal Goblin works and Pazio decided upon.
Hmmm meaningful player to player interaction it has some possibilities. The problem with it is while player vs player is too narrow in its scope meaningful player to player is too general.
First let try to come with descriptions for most player to player interaction in any sandbox game, Pathfinder Online included. Most sand box games have consensual/non-consensual player interaction. Below is my definition of what consensual player interaction means to me.
Consensual player to player interaction: is any interaction where both parties agree to accept the results of the interaction no matter if the results are positive or negative to them.
Thinking a day or two on this it came to me that we could possibly used the axis system that Dungeons and Dragons uses for its alignment system to further define consensual/non-consensual player to player interaction.
The first part of our Axis would be:
Triggered Consensual player interaction: consent to engage in player to player interaction will be triggered by a pop up box that allows you to decide to either to accept or deny interacting with the other player. Ex: Trading or sparing.
Acceded Consensual player interaction consent is taken as given. In many sandbox games players would assume that by your doing an action or your entering an area you have already consented to interact with them. Ex: placing an item for sale in the action house, or enter Nul space in eve.
Non-consensual player interaction where one player tries to force consent on another. ex: attacking a non-flag player, griefing would be a toxic example.
In DND alignment the second axis is good neutral and evil. Our version would be:
Positive/Positive the results of the interaction would give both parties a positive benefit. Ex: Joining a charter company, activates one would do at a settlement like training or crafting.
Positive/Negative the interaction would result in one side gaining a benefit and the other side receiving a penalty. EX: SAD, War.
Positive/Neutral an interaction where only one party gains a positive benefit. The other party thinking other crafters here do not receive any benefit or penalty Ex. selling an item on the auction House. *suggested by Bluddwolf :)
Neutral/Neutral any interaction with another player were the results has no apparent in game benefit or penalty. ex: the most basic example would be any role playing activity
How do I see this in Pathfinder? I believe the player interaction in Pathfinder would be mostly Acceded Consensual player interaction with P/P, P/N and N tags. While Non-consensual player interaction cannot be totally eliminated it will always have consequences for the person forcing interaction against an unwilling player. Goblin Works and the community of player will also be working their hardest to eliminate any toxic interaction whenever it happens.
Well there is my long and rambling thoughts on the matter.
Now it time for me to go to bed, Night all.
