Hawksm00r's page

Hawksm00r wrote:

These are all good solutions for helping to make PvP less grief driven. But there are just some people that don't want to be involved in non-consensual PvP in any way, shape or form. Allowing them to opt out with a simple flagging mechanic is no less a fair option. Why should some people be forced to play the game in a way that they just don't enjoy at all?

I don't understand why you feel forced to play a game that you will not enjoy. Player vs Player will be a part of this game, the sooner people accept this the sooner we can direct discussion to more important things.

You're right, "forced" was the wrong term to use here. What I should have said is that this will continue to be an issue for those that want consensual PvP unless it is addressed. I'm sorry that you don't consider it important, that's your prerogative, but some of us would like to see it changed before serious design even gets under way, so we would like it to be discussed. That's how things get changed, sometimes for the better, and sometimes for the worse. As far as I am concerned PvP needs to be consensual.

No, I will not be forced to play this game. However, as a possible player and paying customer, I would like Goblinworks to reconsider their stance on non-consensual PvP. The option to choose would be appreciated by a large number of gamers. If this cannot be accomplished on a one world server, then create two. Who does it hurt to give players more options?

NOTE: It would require absolutely no effort to put a timer on the flag so that it cannot be turned on and off willy nilly. What would stop the programmers from adding such simple code?

Consensual PvP is not PvP but rather sports!

Sorry, you can tell me all that you want about how in WoW, Arenas and Battlegrounds are about fighting the other faction, but in reality this is only an e-sport option with no impact on the PvE game that is WoW.

So, for me, only non-consensual PvP is actual PvP and there are several ways in which this could be done to make sense:

1. Zone based
There are "wilderlands" zones that are important and sometimes, but not always, mandatory to enter where you could be attacked by other players. So these zones give a reason apart from PvP to enter them and thus non-consensual PvP will ensue.

2. Faction based
There are factions that you belong to. See these as kingdoms. You can not attack anyone from your own kingdom but you can attack and be attacked by members of other kingdoms that your kingdom is not allied with.

3. Event based
There are factions that can declare war upon one another. You can never attack anyone unless she belongs to a faction your faction is currently at war with.

4. mechanically balanced
You can be attacked almost anywhere and from anyone but the attacker suffers severe ingame drawbacks for being a bandit.

Note that all of the above could even be combined.

I hope that you can see that there are ways to build non-consensual PvP into PFO that do not mean you are getting griefed 24/7.

These are all good solutions for helping to make PvP less grief driven. But there are just some people that don't want to be involved in non-consensual PvP in any way, shape or form. Allowing them to opt out with a simple flagging mechanic is no less a fair option. Why should some people be forced to play the game in a way that they just don't enjoy at all?

What use is making a great blacksmith character if warrior characters keep attacking me?

I think this sums up the whole forced PvP issue. There would be no point in making this character at all, and that kills any chance at fun for players that would love to play non-combat roles in the game. I don't see where it would be that hard to give the players a choice.

I fear that SW:TOR may be the death-knell for large budget, AAA MMOs.

Though I agree that many AAA MMOs have suffered in the past due to over spending and under selling, I don't think this will be a problem for TOR.

It seems they are on par to recoup the cost of the game through pre-sales and early launch sales alone.

Presale Numbers for TOR Looking Good

If they manage to keep a mere 25%, as Mr. Dancey states he wants to keep for PFO, then according to those numbers they will still be raking in the dough hand over fist.

I'm not even sure where Mr. Dancey got his numbers from. I know that a guy with his experience has connections but I think $300 million is a far cry greater than what EA is actually claiming to have spent.

$300 million? EA checks their books

It feels to me that video games are really now just hitting their stride, becoming major blockbusters in a way that at least I myself, would have never thought possible. Just look at Black Ops, Battlefield 3, Modern Warfare 3 and Skyrim, for recent examples.

Does it really seem like such a good idea to jump on the bandwagon at this date and not bring your AAA game with you?

I was really excited when I first read the news about this project. As I stated in a previous post I would love to see this game kick ass, but I just don't see that happening on such a small scale. I too fear for the future of MMOs, but not the big guns, it's the small fries that have me concerned.

I have to say, the limited number of new players each month is a bit distressing. When you factor in that just about everything with "Pathfinder" in the name has sold far more copied than initially anticipated, if you have 50,000 people interested in the game when it launches, and turn away over 90% of them, some are simply going to not try again. Either because they get involved with another game instead, or hold a grugde over having their money turned away to play a game they wanted to, it strikes me as a way to generate far more ill will towards the game than beneficial.

When you also factor in the very realistic situation of having one player get in one of the first few months, and love the game, only to find out that even though he's plugged the game to his other gamer friends (either other MMO players, or tabletop gaming group, etc.), they can't get to play for several months until they are able to get in....by then the original player may have become dissolussioned with the game and his friends never join to play with him.

Finally, giving preferential treatment to guilds from other games is simply elitist a major turn off to potential new players (at least some of them, counting me - I don't claim to speak for everyone) when there's only a limited number of openings. So I potentially can't get to play because people who play another game get a "fast pass" to the beginning of the line?

Now, if these first 7 months are the Beta period, that's one thing, but the blog post doesn't indicate this is the case. By not being a Beta, it's a finished product that's able to be paid for, and I can't fathom the business sense of actively turning away customers.

Agreed, on every account. There's no better way to destroy your fan base then to ignore them, sort them or label some as better than others. Despite the best intentions that may be the motive here, letting in such limited numbers of people for several years is bound to have some type of negative backlash associated with it. I just don't see this as positive in nearly any light. I want this project to succeed but to use a famous quote, "I have a bad feeling about this."