Gilthy's page

Bluddwolf wrote:

Audoucet wrote:

Don't forget the 75% of EvE players never putting one foot outside of high security territory.

Don't forget that statistic, even if true, has no meaning regardless of how you are looking to use it.

Does this mean the 75% do not PvP?
Does this mean the 75% don't commit crimes?
Does this mean the 75% are not Griefers?
Does this mean the 75% are not alts of pvpers in low or null sec?

I can't forget something that hasn't been established as fact.

I'm not sure there are that many players stuck in high, but anyway whatever the numbers, I'd say these guys have found a way of enjoying EvE compatible with their own risk tolerance (or aversion), in a game that might be the most engaging open pvp around. If not, they'd have quit and gone to SWTOR (as a good example of SF theme park in my mind, this isn't derogatory).

Maybe their risk threshold makes them stay all the time in high (so no open pvp, only wardecs can hit them), or maybe they go in low once in a while for missions or rare ore or whatever and take the risk of getting attacked. But anyway, they are aware of it and accept it.

Seeya,
Moonbird

I am a rather casual EVE Online player. Casual as in, I play it heavily for a week or two, three, then go play "EVE Offline" (i.e. just keeping the skill queue running) for the next period, which might be from 1-2 weeks to maybe 3 months, depending on interest, other games and offline stuff (work, life in general and being heavily invested in playing tabletop RPG's).

When I play EVE Online, I'm playing mostly solo in space, chatting in various channels, scanning down stuff, sites, wormholes, peeking inside those and exploring more, doing some sites I come across. I tend to mostly stay in high-sec space, because the risk of moving from high-sec to low-sec and beyond feels like a sharp cliff, not a gradual increase of danger. And yes, I've picked up stuff in low-sec, travelled through it, etc. without getting ganked or otherwise killed (except that one time when I was planning to join some big CCP-driven event, where I encountered a rather heavy gate camp the moment I crossed the line from high to low sec; that was a calculated risk, however). For some reason, entering wormholes feels less dangerous than entering low-sec to me.

I hope PFO will have a more gradual curve in the risk/danger element, and more choices/less choke points when moving around the landscape. In EVE, the gates between the systems are the only spots where you can move from one "hex" to the next; I would hope that PFO offers less defined borders where you can "sneak across" if you are careful.

I don't mind risk or danger, but I do like choice in when to be exposed to danger, and choice in how to avoid it.

And to answer the original topic of this thread, it is that choice, coupled with meaningful consequences, that drew me to the idea of Pathfinder Online; there are quite a few things I do like in EVE, but I actually prefer playing as an avatar (and not primarily a ship) and would love to experience a proper fantasy sandbox, with not just PvP but also a bunch of sandboxy PvE elements (monster hexes, escalations, etc.). And I can only hope that it is that choice that is communicated, and not just the risk posed by "open PvP" and "being a murder simulator".

EDIT: Or maybe Pathfinder Online should not only have the equivalent of EVE wardecs, but also add peace declarations. And force people to play as "the other side" for a while, for a price. How would that feel?

The idea reminds me of a story in a Dragon magazine, a loooong time ago.

*googles*

It's "Catacomb" by Henry Melton from issue #97 of Dragon magazine May 1985.

If you want to read it, the author put it online to be read (for free) here.

And remember, this is from 1985:
This was written back when both the Mac and the IBM PC were new and years before the web. This was before everyone knew to click a mouse or knew that underlined text was a hyperlink.

Ryan Dancey wrote:

Don't do things that make people angry just to make them angry.

Yeah I get it, I'm hoping that system works, and I don't have to give a dissertation on why I killed someone.

I'm now imagining having to fill out an extended questionaire (in triplicate, of course) whenever you kill someone. :-)

I haven't seen the discussions in question either, but if it relates to the game being 'biased' towards lawful, good, and famous over chaotic, evil, and infamous... yep that's the developer's attempt to limit griefing. Sometimes I think it may go too far and potentially make anything other than Lawful Good a 'developmental dead end', but in that case I have no doubt such will become apparent in play-testing and be balanced back.

I personally think this is to be vastly preferred over the CCP \ EVE Online developers (and long-time players) 'bias' towards a HTFU (Harden The F*** Up) attitude in their game management, where grieving is an accepted (and even expected) part of the game.

There are quite a number of things in EVE I do appreciate, depth and available options in the game design and gameplay are some of them. That attitude ... not so much.

And once it's an accepted part of the game, it's hard to turn back the dials. Should CCP try and switch their attitude around (at least, should they do so too fast), their current player base would quit in anger (at least, the vocal part would). Better to start with this games (PFO) bias turned the other way around.