Robbor's page

I wouldn't say large scale PvP is the only thing I'm after. I think the current system of a settlement deciding when it will have it's siege opportunity window will limit most of the really large battles to that time.

I think small scale PvP will be at it's best when raiding a rivals outpost, resource spots, etc. You can easily utilize guerilla tactics and a small mobile unit would work great.

As far as assassinations are considered i think there needs to be a condition that must be satisfied before one can be given out:

- kill right towards someone that attacked you without cause
- oathbreakers
- being at war with someone lets you issue assassination contracts

Bounties are a great way for someone to formalize revenge but if you place a bounty on someone i think there still should be a cause for it. Bounty griefing wouldn't be fun.

It should bring meaningful interaction against people that sometimes do bad things but are careful not to go too deep into the rep hole.

Robbor wrote:

I want a sandbox mmo where communities matter, where interaction is meaningful and where you CAN attack anyone, anywhere for whatever reason you see fit. But I also want the reprecussions for targeting targets that don't want to be targeted SEVERE.

What do you want these repercussions to be?

This is probably going to be one of the most debated topics when crowdforging starts.

I think goblinworks has an idea what they want to do so I'll go from what I read in the various blogs. Attacking targets that are not flagged for you to kill without consequences will drop your alignment and reputation and if they drop low enough (through constant murder of such targets) you will not be able to access skills that are necessary to make you viable in PvP.

This can be balanced easily based on how popular said behavior is, but my personal sentiment is that it's better to go overboard on this than make it trivial.

That brings us to a point where someone to actively target people would basically have to initiate a war with that community and that means there would be possible player induced repercussions in the means of fighting back since the agressor would be known and their assets/settlements could be destroyed. Which to me is meaningful pvp since both groups likely have an agenda at a higher level than ''lulz''

Thanks for the lesson of common sense in PvP and personal insults! I don't understand what kind of self-assurance you need when you keep trying to compare PvP skill whenever anyone makes a stand towards behaviour that will target every person or consider targeting it (and not doing it because the odds are against him) indiscriminately (since random is a concept you don't want to or can't understand)

I am not scared of my character being killed, actually PvP is why I play mmo's since Ultima Online. Sure I play good characters now since it is recently been more appealing and challenging to me but in UO i played a red character and loved it. I got lots of kicks from other peoples misery, since the group i was with outmatched our victims in both understanding of game mechanics and tactics. People like me then (and you now) were the reason EA made trammel to save their then sinking game. The game I loved was lost forever and I played on free servers alot after that for the same thrill, but now that I got more experience playing MMOs i realised games that are appealing to me are never commercialy successful because behaviour I described goes unchecked.

Eve online is often brought up, but 90% of the people there stay in high sec systems and only sometimes venture into low sec for the thrill it can be. But if Eve online disabled high sec the game would tank in about one month.

I want a sandbox mmo where communities matter, where interaction is meaningful and where you CAN attack anyone, anywhere for whatever reason you see fit. But I also want the reprecussions for targeting targets that don't want to be targeted SEVERE.

Why do you refuse to understand this?

Nihimon wrote:

..Telling them how you found happiness in a random gank-fest, and how they can find happiness in random gank-fests too, isn't going to do much good..

Not sure what you definition of "random" is. Targets are almost never selected randomly, as a matter of fact, "selection" removes all randomness.

It's the kind of thinking that i expect to be governed by the chaotic/alignment sink that makes your character unviable (or significantly less viable) in PvP.

If i go around killing everyone it's not random because i have to click a person first to attack him... WHUT?!

29 in August!

How many times will a Paladin attack a random person to see if he's carrying any juicy loot?

Will crafters issue a S&D against a fellow crafter just to take his materials and make more swords?

Will a merchant leading a caravan use his mules to trample someone returning from a monster camp and take his stuff?

Unique consequences for behavior that is deemed by many players as intrusive and frustrating and not ''content generation''

In these other MMOs, do the bandits have mechanics leveraged against them such as being in a faction that has an ever present opposition and being flagged to the entire playerbase when they commit a crime?

Usually they are flagged as murderer/criminal making them a generally allowed target for everyone along with a certain penalty to disallow such behavior. The penalties are usualy trivial and easy to avoid and only slightly frustrating, definitely uncomparably so to the frustration of their victims. That's why that playstyle is predominant.

Are there also several player based solutions as per Bluddwolf's above post that can be used by the aggrieved players to exact their revenge?

Not via in-game mechanics, just theoretical options via sandbox and player interaction. I like those ideas alot, vengeance would do much to aleviate the sense of frustration in many players, PO would truly be unique in that sense.

Can the combat also be moved to a higher level, being that of the entire company the bandit belongs to being feuded, or even their settlement sieged?

Yes, it usually can, but with a majority of players viewing the game as basicaly a murder simulator there's a bigger pool of people that will help the anti-social people and entire servers would gang up on even newly forged communities, especialy those of ''good'' people. But if odds are stacked against them they would abuse any game mechanics to avoid consequences, disbanding guilds, making specific war-dec guilds for that specific attack, etc.

To sum it up, I am optimistic about PO very much and I'm looking forward to the interactions between different groups of people be it friendly or unfriendly. I've read posts from the staff and I know they're trying to make something unique here. Just can't help pointing out the traps of open unsanctioned pvp!

While the game is in the process of development and alot of the mechanics are speculative at best my ''understanding of pvp'' might be hindered just as much as anyones. But if you mean it generally i'll dismiss that comment as the self-gratitous garbage it was meant to be.

Maybe me describing the actions as ''banditry'' is where our views are different and we're not even talking about the same thing, yours is a romanticized version while mine is the rampant douchebaggery that is making people quit many sandbox mmorpgs out of frustration.

Broken_Sextant wrote:

Hi Nihimon. Hi Nihimon. I don't disagree that banditry has a place in PFO. I'm glad it does. My only point has been it shouldn't be easy, and should have significant challenges and consequences. Especially at first, it should be a serious challenge because I think enabling "bad" behavior too much has the potential to sabotage the success of the game more so than erring on the side of caution and then adding more functionality for bandits later, if needed.

It'll get real interesting when wars start and characters from a settlement get killed again and again and again and then their city razed so they have nowhere to train or live and have to go back to an NPC city.

A group of six bandits mugging a single merchant is going to look pretty soft then. That will be regarded as good behavior by the game also.

Why is there this notion that people who are rooting for harsher consquences for random agressive behaviour don't understand that the game is centered around PvP. Yes you can get your assets destroyed in a war, but you know who is warring you and the sword can swing both ways. If ''banditry'' is easy to play there will be lots of bandits attacking everyone and anyone, some seem to have the target bar as low as ''kill him to check if he has anything valuable''. If that kind of behavior is rampant then this game would be no different than any other sandbox mmo that is barely keeping alive (eve online being the only exception).

You're saying people can fight back against bandits, but there's a difference between commiting yourself to killing everyone you see indiscriminately creating situations that fit your advantage and trying to fight the same behavior.

The second being much harder and fruitless since getting killed will not stop anyone from targeting merchants.

If a group of 4 people attack and kill a merchant and take most of their items they profit much more than 4 people that escort same merchant for a cut of the profit. The risk is pretty much equal, profits completely unequal, hence there must be harsher consequences!

Though to be honest ''Look at my shiny new...'' is a big income source for non-sub MMO's like guild wars 2. So it has to be a big motivator for many people!

I've read that there are no plans to make anything like this available for now due to the constriction of resources but what do you think in the future, does a customizable home of your own appeal to you?

Let's say PO is the success story most of us hope it is, perhaps in a future content expansion

Owning your very own house and a key to it just kinda binds you even more to the virtual world that your character lives in.

The only downside is that the demand for houses would be great and land limited since for me instanced housing is out of the question and making the wilderness look cluttered with houses like it happened in UO is not at all immersive either. So maybe houses should be really expensive so sharing them is a more common thing!

What do you think?

I guess if a group of miners/fighters clear a crater and want to start gathering resources they would want to temporarily enforce their claim without all sinking into low rep/alignment because of killing a few people that would try to benefit from their work

@Robbor, look at first limitation. You wouldn't be able to SYG and AFK if they were there first. And if people are harvesting, you can't SYG them, as they were there first.

Good point! I think the system has it's merits actually!

Also great for killing AFK people without rep loss! =D

I think a mechanic like this isn't necessary as situations like this lead to what Pathfinder Online is really about.

You want the resources, you tell the people to wait until you are done or just leave altogether since you perceive those resources as yours. Disagreements like this could easily escalate into a heated war!

I think chaotic/evil characters being at a disadvantage in combat ability is a brilliant idea. RPK players generally devote most of their time killing anything that moves, learning the most effective PvP builds and techniques making them very good at PvP.

A problem with a community of ''do-gooders'' is that you have a number of people that are genuinely afraid and inexperienced in PvP and sparring among eachother can never bring you to the same level as someone that devotes all his time to murdering people fast and efficiently.

If these good people knew their equally equipped characters are stronger than the outlaws they will be less reluctant to involve themselves in PvP!

It will also force the people that love PvP to bring their skills to use in more meaningful interaction than just running around killing anything that moves. A confident group of would-be bandits would be just as good as a group of sell-swords for the highest bidder or helping a nation block it's rivals supply chain!

Yeah but indiscriminately targeting people is what they are trying to reduce with the whole alignment/reputation system!

If they manage that, they will achieve something very unique in the current mmo market.

Yeah so if i understand correctly bandits will be unlikey to target a lawful good soldier with mediocre equipment on his way to a monster spawn just for laughs and very likely to target a person with a small army of donkeys with bags filled with gold (or same soldier returning from monster spawn)

Its not an argument, it is a fact.

Also what you replied with has nothing to do with my statement. You are pulling in garbage and saying that is what PVP is...

PFO is based on PVP, non-consensual pvp is a big part of the game. Once you get over that, you will be fine and have an "open mind."

If your "community" joins the game. You can run your settlement however you wish. Thats your part in the sandbox. That will not stop anyone from war decing you. You may not consent to being raided, war deced, SADed, or just plain ganked on the highway but you will be subject to it.

Ryan told everyone a year or more ago. If you want to practice up a bit for this game, play Eve. Granted most at the time played Darkfall instead because he also said he would like to to try the game.

I suggest you look at Ryan's posts in the link I posted.

You are the kind of person that makes sandbox mmorpgs commercialy unsuccessful :) Mortal Online is a superb game for you!

To be honest after reading Screaming for Vengeance i have to disagree with you!

I think alignment hits are gonna be a big detriment to much of the banditry, even though it is possible to attack someone in the wilderness hex it will still not be prudent 100% of the time.

I play with a relatively large community that takes pride in being the ''good guys'' in any game they play. We usualy train a significant militia however, since good guys with no teeth are just amusement for others.

If this is true:
chaotic evil characters will be at a fairly significant disadvantage compared to other settlements

squashing their chaotic evil settlement shouldn't be too hard, revoking their access to skills, training, resources, etc.

Bluddwolf that didn't actually have anything to do with SAD's but more with the ''sandbox PvP mmo'' argument Xeen brought up that means anyone could and should be killed anywhere at anytime.

Jiminy wrote:

Broken_Sextant wrote:

And despite that, they don't want it to be a murder sim. They want to discourage certain types of pvp. So again, somebody thinking that the line should be in a different place than you doesn't imply a lack of understanding that this is a pvp sandbox game.

They also want S&D to be a part of the game.

The details of which are undecided. That's the point of expressing our opinions about them now. Nothing is set in stone right now.

Exactly, we're just expressing our concerns and wishes to how we want the mechanic to work. No need to insult us for doing what the thread was created for!

Tyncale wrote:

I so loathe this forum-warring. Unproductive clutter. It happens a LOT on these forums, I must say.

Well, if people do not understand that the game is based on PVP, then they will join up and quit because someone attacked them. Instead they can join with an open mind.

That is what most of the forum warring is about here.

Which is not unproductive at all. Ryan was trying to tell us exactly that in this thread.

I think it's cute that you make assumptions about what people understand and don't understand so easily then propose that other should join the game with an ''open-mind''.

I know this game is about PvP, if my community joins it we will enforce our vision of how we want our settlement to be ran via politics, wardecs, asset destruction, whatever means necessary. But there's a difference between an active war based on meaningful player interaction and competition and a horde of douchebags that just wants to ruin other peoples experience given mechanics that can help in griefing.

You're looking at SAD through some romanticized goggles while I see it more as a helpful griefing mechanic.

Well there's a consensus that open world sandbox means you can kill everyone you see, take their stuff, try to humiliate them with teabagging the corpse via some creative use of character crouching then post the video on the game forum and have a good laugh with everyone else.

Hopefuly Pathfinder Onlines aspirations are a little higher

Right now the SAD mechanism reminds me of something we used to do in Ultima Online.

We would trick people into flagging grey so we could kill them without consequence:

Making them angry enough to make them attack us
Polymorph into a ratman so they would accidentaly attack us
Lure them into houses so they would be trespassing

whatever just to flag them ''grey'' and make them a non-consequence target.

All these tactics are toxic and borderline griefing, they don't seem fun to the victim and being bullied then murdered by the bullies without consequence is VERY frustrating.

SAD make tactics like this pointless since you can SAD someone and if he gives you money you highfive your fellow bullies and if he doesn't you proceed to murder them.

Is the frustration on the victim part any lesser when he realises this is just game mechanics?

I have to agree with Broken Sextant though, unconsensual PvP should be heavily penalized so that anyone has to weigh the reprecussions of his actions if you don't want a toxic community.

You may propagate playing a bandit should be just as viable as any other playstyle but the people who would be toxic to the community are the people who will see playing a bandit most appealing. I consider SAD's just as agressive as outright attacking someone and so will alot of other people.

I don't think a mechanic that lets you force people to give you stuff or fight you should be that consequence free (or even lets you gain rep).

Following this game to see how it evolves, considering buying EE pass!

My online community is http://duchyofwessex.org that is currently active in Mortal Online.

Hopefuly I can convince them to join Pathfinder Online when it launches, as I think we'd fit right in!

I've been following Pathfinder Online very closely since someone told me that in a nutshell it's gonna be ''high fantasy Eve Online'', once I found out they're gonna tackle the issue of a toxic community I was sold.

The OP's idea would create a breeding ground of anti-social behavior that is present in ALL of the sandboxes out there. I don't want to go into wilderness and automatically assume everyone I see will attempt to kill me without a word every time. That's not a virtual society that's sociopathy at it's best. I would prefer banditry to be a rare occasion, heavily penalized, but not impossible to happen.