Goblin Squad Member
|
Other games with the problems I've outlined have exactly the same three-tier system.
Yes, but the reason is not the three-tier system (most notably social engeneering) but the fact that these games do not have clear cut rules/mechanics that make social engeneering a powerful tool it could otherwise be.
It is no wonder that most games go with factions and then funnel PvP into closely controlled areas. This is establishing very concrete rules that can not be broken.
However the thing about might not being the only factor for the success of a guild/gang intrigues me, as this is certainly something new and, I would imagine, incredibly hard to balance.
1: Game Mechanics - the game itself can establish limits on what can and cannot be done. It can also establish punishments for doing things that are considered poor behavior even if it does not outright restrict them.
Paladins. They spawn and hunt down the offender for their excessively cruel and sadistic ways. They drop no loot and give no exp or skills while being fought. They have smite evil which hurts griefers more (because they're evil). They also have divine grace to reduce damage taken. They cannot be drawn off the target of their ire (but they will come after you when the griefer is dead if you really want to intervene...)
2: Community Management - the humans who watch over the game can act to force certain kinds of behavior to cease when they are petitioned for help. Those same humans can escalate the matter to the point where a repeat or particularly egregious offender's accounts are closed.(*)
Outsiders. If someone is being griefed, they gain a Planar Ally(Devil, Demon, Archon, Inevitable, etc.), which cannot be detected by any means. If the player is griefed again, their Planar Ally springs into action. The planar ally stays around for a random amount of time so a griefer can't hover and predict when it's safe to strike again.
3: Social Engineering - the humans who play within the game can act to enforce certain norms of behavior by providing and withholding access to shared community resources in response to character behavior.
There's so many ways to go with this, but that's up to the players. 2 out of 3 ain't bad. I'll show myself out.
Those are both game mechanics.
Right you are. I forgot to mention a planar ally would have to be assigned by a GM...but it would still be a game mechanic.
I guess option 2 would be, "I'm a GM, stop griefing or I will hit thee with the banhammer...or...something.(The GM is new and not decisive in this case)"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
non-consensual PvP is only ever fun for PvPers.
In which case, since they want PvP, then it is entirely consensual PvP anyway.
It is never fun for people who DON'T want to PvP. If seeing the best areas, mining the best ore or fighting toughest monsters is only going to be available to those who PvP then you can count me out.
I was excited about the prospect of playing Pathfinder online with my friends. Now, not so much.
This is not true. I have a group of friends playing EVE. Areas of Eve are dangerous, and known to be, but they are sometimes major routes players need to take. When someone needs to transport something important through one of these areas, they talk to the corporation and ask who is free to scout the area. Someone sends in a disposable alt/clone in a cheap ship, runs some scans, and sends back his report. The important ship then jumps in and moves through the area if it is safe. My friends enjoy working arround this element of danger as a logistics problem. Thus non-consentual PVP creates other interactions in game and influences player behavior in creative and fun ways.
As far as mining goes, it means you do not mine in dangerous areas alone. In EVE, you get a group: 1-2 people with combat skills to watch everyone and be the guard, 3-4 miners who churn through the asteroids, 2-3 haulers who take the mined materials back to base. If hostiles show up, the miners pack up and run while the people who are there to guard fight. If it looks like a long fight, they jump into alternate ships specked for combat and counterattack. This encourages group behavior and reliance on a guild, which is one of the big advantages of an MMO game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is not true. I have a group of friends playing EVE. Areas of Eve are dangerous, and known to be, but they are sometimes major routes players need to take. When someone needs to transport something important through one of these areas, they talk to the corporation and ask who is free to scout the area. Someone sends in a disposable alt/clone in a cheap ship, runs some scans, and sends back his report. The important ship then jumps in and moves through the area if it is safe. My friends enjoy working arround this element of danger as a logistics problem. Thus non-consentual PVP creates other interactions in game and influences player behavior in creative and fun ways.
As far as mining goes, it means you do not mine in dangerous areas alone. In EVE, you get a group: 1-2 people with combat skills to watch everyone and be the guard, 3-4 miners who churn through the asteroids, 2-3 haulers who take the mined materials back to base. If hostiles show up, the miners pack up and run while the people who are there to guard fight. If it looks like a long fight, they jump into alternate ships specked for combat and counterattack. This encourages group behavior and reliance on a guild, which is one of the big advantages of an MMO game.
*Sigh of relief* Sandbox MMORPG player interaction. Why do so many want to remove the elements which make such an environment possible I will never know. Such little understand for how well it can operate.
Goblinworks Founder
|
So you're saying this is going to be like Aion? Where in order to progress your character after a while I'll HAVE to be in a guild?
No thanks.
Forced reliance on a guild is NOT an "advantage". It is a disadvantage. Look at all the horror stories of guild drama, of guild scams, of corporations screwing people over in EVE.
Again, no thanks.
WoW has the right level of guild/solo play right now. If I want to group, I can. If I want to solo I can. And I can still progress my character either way.
inb4 personal attacks on my ability to make friends.
It's not going to be anything like Aion.
I'm not going to attack you because of how you play online games. You like to solo and you like to group and Azeroth caters to your needs. You are lucky that you have a game that caters to your needs.
Reliance on a community (not just a guild)is how a sandbox works. It is why they feel much like a living, breathing persistent world because everything intertwines in wonderful spiderweb of war, economy, allegiances, espionage, industry and adventure all evolving at their own pace. No boss script can ever compete with that.
So what if the server is swarmed by goons? empires rise and fall over time. You can join them in their quest to achieve a new world order. You can build your own empire in a far away land, forge strong alliances and lead an attack against their tyranny.
You could just hang around the higher security areas and play all of the content within the safety net. The choices are all there.
And as for non-consensual PvP is only ever fun for PvPers. I used to think that as well until I played Age of Conan back in 2008. I enjoyed the feeling of being hunted whenever I left a major city to gather resources. I enjoyed it up until they made their itemization like world of warcraft.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is not true. I have a group of friends playing EVE. Areas of Eve are dangerous, and known to be, but they are sometimes major routes players need to take. When someone needs to transport something important through one of these areas, they talk to the corporation and ask who is free to scout the area. Someone sends in a disposable alt/clone in a cheap ship, runs some scans, and sends back his report. The important ship then jumps in and moves through the area if it is safe. My friends enjoy working arround this element of danger as a logistics problem. Thus non-consentual PVP creates other interactions in game and influences player behavior in creative and fun ways.As far as mining goes, it means you do not mine in dangerous areas alone. In EVE, you get a group: 1-2 people with combat skills to watch everyone and be the guard, 3-4 miners who churn through the asteroids, 2-3 haulers who take the mined materials back to base. If hostiles show up, the miners pack up and run while the people who are there to guard fight. If it looks like a long fight, they jump into alternate ships specked for combat and counterattack. This encourages group behavior and reliance on a guild, which is one of the big advantages of an MMO game.
You are joking or pulling our collective leg.
Alt scouting work in low sec where people can't use bubbles and even there the situation can change in a few seconds.
0.0 either your side control all the route to high sec, or you have a jump capable ship (teleport in Pathfinder terms) or you log just after downtime and hope to be there before the guys setting up gatecamps on the coke points.
In 0.0 (the player controlled area) the only way to be reasonably safe is to have guard at the access points of the systems. Guards protecting the miners do absolutely nothing if the attacker is willing to risk destruction after destroying the miners.
That is why a lot of 0.0 miners are bots that flee to safety as soon as a non friend enter the system.
As guard duty is boring PvPers protect only the access point where there is a good chance of someone entering the system.
Finding 1-2 combat types willing to guard 3-4 miners is practically impossible. A combat character can extremely easily make 50 millions/hour, a miner will get less than that. As the combat guy will ask for a compensation at least on par with what he would earn doing PvE for money, 3-4 miners would use all their earnings to compensate 1-2 guys on guard duty.
Being reasonably safe is possible, but it is not something that 1-2 guards and 3-4 guys will get.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And non consensual PvP IS only enjoyed by PvPers.
Wether PFO suceeds or not is determined by the balance between risk and reward and not by the absence of all risk! There already are enough games with multi-milion dollar budgets that provide such a riskfree playing experience (WoW, Aion, Rifts).
If that means a smaller audience of more dedicated players I am all for it. Because it will form a community, somethign I have missed since the days of DAoC where I "knew" most of the 3k people that "lived" at my server and enjoyed it despite the fact that they sometimes did not enjoy being killed when they only wanted to grind seals in DF.
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what if the server is swarmed by goons?So what if people have their hard earned character advancement/gear/houses/pet penguin looted, destroyed or killed because they didn't pay their weekly 'protection' money?
Oh but I can build my own empire! Oh wait, no I can't because I don't have the time to do that.
Oh I know, I'll forge alliances! Well, maybe if I can find anyone else who has managed to build up their empire without turning into the same extortionist cartel as the one I'm trying to fight.
Well I guess I'll just hang around high sec areas.
Yep. Cos there'll be everything I need to play my characters the way I want there.
Excuse me if I find that a little hard to believe. Especially since I love exploring and finding new vistas....
So what do you want again?
You don't want PvPYou don't want to be in a guild
You don't want to rely on other people
OH.... You want Pathfinder Offline?
Skyrim?
Neverwinter Nights?
World of Warcraft? Oh, no you have to group with people to "experience" it all there too.
I give up. Far too much drama and far too much negativity on these message boards.
I hope you all get your Massive Solo Player Online PVE RPG.
If that PvE RPG will be FUN, then I'm all up for kicking out the PvP griefers :)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So what do you want again?
You don't want PvP
You don't want to be in a guild
You don't want to rely on other people
What I believe he is saying, actually, is that he doesn't want to be REQUIRED to:
- PvP when he doesn't want to, just to see the world presented in the game.
- Be in a guild that is powerful or willing enough to protect him while he explores, instead of one of like-minded individuals that he may get along with much better.
- Rely on other people that are not always available in the limited play time that some of us have to try and accomplish something maybe in the hour or half-hour before work.
-------------------------------
The point is there are TONS of things that I HAVE to do, to get by, survive, make a living, support my family, etc...
I don't want my free-time hobby for fun to be filled with things that aggravate me that I am REQUIRED to do just to be able to play. The simple answer is yes, I can play another game. However, if the answer for too many people is "go play another game", then the makers need to look at whether the numbers going to play another game, based on aggravating in-game requirements, is more than they want to lose as players. Players that will potentially be paying for the product (or aspects of, for the buy perks style).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So what do you want again?
You don't want PvP
You don't want to be in a guild
You don't want to rely on other people
What I believe he is saying, actually, is that he doesn't want to be REQUIRED to:
- PvP when he doesn't want to, just to see the world presented in the game.
- Be in a guild that is powerful or willing enough to protect him while he explores, instead of one of like-minded individuals that he may get along with much better.
- Rely on other people that are not always available in the limited play time that some of us have to try and accomplish something maybe in the hour or half-hour before work.
-------------------------------
The point is there are TONS of things that I HAVE to do, to get by, survive, make a living, support my family, etc...
I don't want my free-time hobby for fun to be filled with things that aggravate me that I am REQUIRED to do just to be able to play. The simple answer is yes, I can play another game. However, if the answer for too many people is "go play another game", then the makers need to look at whether the numbers going to play another game, based on aggravating in-game requirements, is more than they want to lose as players. Players that will potentially be paying for the product (or aspects of, for the buy perks style).
You know one thing that could work, is if there were multiple levels of alliances. Say an empire, made up of kingdoms, containing clans, as well as secrete factions unconnected to any of it.
So now you have a large territory controlled by The empire of the flying spaghetti monster, which has very lose rules and guidelines for what rules each kingdom has, expands out across a very large area, instituting protection for a huge area containing 20 kingdoms of 500 people each. During wars each kingdom is more or less expected to be lending at least 50 people to assist in a war-front on each operation.
Now each kingdom of course represents the actual cities, distribution of territory etc... The empire may or may not chose to have rules over what can be mined or gathered in empire territory outside of given kingdom lands, but would offer protection for members of kingdoms under their empire. Then well the clans can be any size people want with any focus they want, people wanting to be in a clan with just 10 close knit friends can more or less avoid kingdom politics , short of perhaps empire wars leading to their kingdoms being over run. These clans would most likely have their own small keep or building of some sort within a kingdom.
Then you can move into the factions, These could be groups that have their own ties, completely seperate, even span multiple empires, of like minded folks, but one would have no way of knowing memberships of these unless they are desired. Say an order of spies that spans all empires, Sells information to person X. Person X does not give away who his informants are, and will be likely to trade the information with The empire of cthulu that is FSM empire's greatest enemy.
There also could be a faction of crafters, that may or may not be empire specific, an order that decides on the prices of things, votes and attempts to contain and manage the economy in an area. Again membership to this group should only be known by people within it, unless they chose to identify themselves.
By adding tiers like this, you can get the advantages of territorial protection over huge areas, while more or less having the freedom to also stick to a small group of friendly like minded individuals, only checking on the larger politics once in a blue moon.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, some sort of moderated clan war instead of an player only controlled clan war.
Would help to prevent a "winner" by artificially evening out the disadvantages but at the cost of total freedom.
Well I'm thinking the empire idea, I do not think they should be NPC either. The arbitrary factions at eternal war with eachother in WoW and many other games was something that just encouraged mass griefing, under the guise of "He's horde I must hate them by definition" or "They are alliance so I hate them" by definition. Empires themselves can be player lead, even form their own UN type of setup where kingdoms themselves vote for the overall goal and direction of the empire, as to if they should expand out and compete with other empires, or work at peace with them, etc...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wether PFO suceeds or not is determined by the balance between risk and reward and not by the absence of all risk! There already are enough games with multi-milion dollar budgets that provide such a riskfree playing experience (WoW, Aion, Rifts).
I don't think your metric for how successful PFO is really rings true. Plenty of MMOs are successful which use the "riskfree" (read: not actually risk-free) approach you talk about, and very few are terribly successful which use the riskier-rewardier approach you favor.
If that means a smaller audience of more dedicated players I am all for it.
I'm pretty sure Goblinworks would like a broad audience of casual-ish players as well as a smaller subset of more dedicated players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think your metric for how successful PFO is really rings true. Plenty of MMOs are successful which use the "riskfree" (read: not actually risk-free) approach you talk about, and very few are terribly successful which use the riskier-rewardier approach you favor.
These are all themepark MMOs which PFO is not gonna be.
And yes, every publisher wishes for many people to play and pay his game.
The question is, will emulating the existing "riskfree" games lead to success?
I simply object to the "non-consensual PvP (aka risk) will kill PFO" stereotype because that sounds awfully close to "if PFO isn't like WoW it will fail".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The question is, will emulating the existing "riskfree" games lead to success?
I think that the more you minimize the amount of suck in your game, the more people will play it.
For instance, if death sucks a lot, few people will play it. If death sucks very little, more people will stick with it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The question is, will emulating the existing "riskfree" games lead to success?I think that the more you minimize the amount of suck in your game, the more people will play it.
For instance, if death sucks a lot, few people will play it. If death sucks very little, more people will stick with it.
If only everything you say wasn't always subjective.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If only everything you say wasn't always subjective.The question is, will emulating the existing "riskfree" games lead to success?I think that the more you minimize the amount of suck in your game, the more people will play it.
For instance, if death sucks a lot, few people will play it. If death sucks very little, more people will stick with it.
I'm speaking objectively - MMOs with harsh penalties for death will suffer from a lower subscriber count than the same MMO with less harsh death penalties would enjoy.
Objective is: "People tend to dislike harsh death penalties." Whether or not I personally dislike harsh death penalties, the fact remains that people tend to dislike them.
Subjective would be: "Death penalties suck." This statement is true from my perspective, but it stands to reason that there are some out there for whom it is untrue.
It is important for you to understand the difference between speaking subjectively and objectively - not just for the purposes of this discussion, but for life in general.
I'll also note that characterizing everything I say as subjective is an utter falsehood, and speaks to a desire on your part to marginalize or discredit the whole scope of my contributions to this sub-forum. I understand that you often disagree with the things that I say, and that's your prerogative (however misguided). But please understand that you will be better served by addressing each of my arguments individually than by trying to sidestep them with a blanket statement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm speaking objectively - MMOs with harsh penalties for death will suffer from a lower subscriber count than the same MMO with less harsh death penalties would enjoy.
Technically you don't because there is no MMO which offers an option and thus what you say is speculation on your part. And usage of the word harsh is also weighted against using "meaningful", for instance.
Sooo, the true objective statement would be:
Big classic MMOs nowadays have no meaningful death penalty.
If all you intend to do is bash Scott for having a different view than the one you have, then you will not be missed. This is supposed to be a debate, not an argument. Also, Mic...do you think that those death penalties have been removed for an actual reason? Because I think that most people who play MMOs nowadays don't want them back.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In response to Scott.
The influx of millions to the themepark came majoritively from everywhere but the MMORPG market. Before the WoW monster, MMORPGs were nothing new and struggled in any attempt to capture a significant market share. If we assume this majority can be your average PC or console gamer, such singleplayer or multiplayer games must by design not penalise players too harshly.
Do these millions of new MMORPG gamers constitute an MMORPG market per se, or the new World of Warcraft or MMMG (Multiplayery Multiplayer Multiplayer Game)? I needn't remind you that the WoW playerbase has to date been largely non-transferable to any other MMORPG game than that of a startling resemblance to WoW. The WoW market is closed for anything but a WoW game, it's identical twin or similar adaptation of a single/multiplayer experience to the MMO genre. Despite short sighted opinion, these two audiences are not remotely the same.
Who are we trying to appeal to Scott? As far as I am concerned, challenging World of Warcraft for any amount of it's playerbase is as would all agree, ill-founded. Not only do such MMORPG attempts to appeal to the WoW player fail in capturing any of the new WoW market, they also alienate the traditional market through attempting to conjoin both the WoW game and the traditional (or different) MMORPG. World of Warcraft Jim goes back to Warcraft and Jerry complains it's too much like Warcraft.
The large majority of the now very large MMORPG market prefer an easier, relatively risk free MMORPG - I totally agree with you. But this is a new MMORPG customer and one which is inaccessible unless you cater to their specific needs whilst accepting a relatively dismal chance of any success.
Taking the above into consideration, the only reason I would agree that they should make the game easier in accommodating to the mass market of MMORPG games is - never. It's why so many fail and I think that Goblinworks would achieve a far greater success in going the route of Eve Online; be it's own product with it's own market and leave the WoW market alone.
In response to Icyshadow - I'm not picking on Scott and he's entitled to an opinion. I'd enjoy these debates more if he expressed his opinions than simply point out every occasion in which someone suggests a feature or mechanic which does not appeal to a massive majority of tens of millions of people. Is aiming a solid product at 500,000 less of a business plan?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
MicMac and company love to confuse risk with PvP.
The often mentioned EVE isn't risk free even when you are doing PvE, as you can and will lose you ship (and so your property) to the NPC.
What the NPC don't do is to purposefully hunt and torment another player, going out of their script to do that. So limiting or removing PvP don't automatically mean removing risk, it mean reducing annoyance at the hands of other players. It mean that the level of risk is generally instead of an unknown quantity dependant from the mood of other players.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who are we trying to appeal to Scott?
I'm pretty sure we're trying to appeal to people who want their funtime to be fun, not frustrating. Harsh death penalties in a game where death is partly determined by a RNG and by the actions of immature players is frustrating, not fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm speaking objectively - MMOs with harsh penalties for death will suffer from a lower subscriber count than the same MMO with less harsh death penalties would enjoy.Technically you don't because there is no MMO which offers an option
Sure there are. Most of them aren't terribly popular, so you don't hear much about them. I wonder why that is.
But, by way of example, EVE could be considered a game with harsher death penalties than the norm. And, I'd wager, it enjoys a lower subscriber base than it might otherwise have for it.
But yes, let's just keep disagreeing with me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In response to Scott.
The influx of millions to the themepark came majoritively from everywhere but the MMORPG market. Before the WoW monster, MMORPGs were nothing new and struggled in any attempt to capture a significant market share. If we assume this majority can be your average PC or console gamer, such singleplayer or multiplayer games must by design not penalise players too harshly.
Do these millions of new MMORPG gamers constitute an MMORPG market per se, or the new World of Warcraft or MMMG (Multiplayery Multiplayer Multiplayer Game)? I needn't remind you that the WoW playerbase has to date been largely non-transferable to any other MMORPG game than that of a startling resemblance to WoW. The WoW market is closed for anything but a WoW game, it's identical twin or similar adaptation of a single/multiplayer experience to the MMO genre. Despite short sighted opinion, these two audiences are not remotely the same.
If you think WoW represented an entirely new "genre" when it came along, you are very much mistaken. There were games with a great deal of similarity to it before, and there will be games with a great deal of similarity to it after.
WoW just did it all better.
Who are we trying to appeal to Scott?
People who enjoy the sort of game Goblinworks is trying to create.
As far as I am concerned, challenging World of Warcraft for any amount of it's playerbase is as would all agree, ill-founded. Not only do such MMORPG attempts to appeal to the WoW player fail in capturing any of the new WoW market, they also alienate the traditional market through attempting to conjoin both the WoW game and the traditional (or different) MMORPG. World of Warcraft Jim goes back to Warcraft and Jerry complains it's too much like Warcraft.
The large majority of the now very large MMORPG market prefer an easier, relatively risk free MMORPG - I totally agree with you. But this is a new MMORPG customer and one which is inaccessible unless you cater to their specific needs whilst accepting a relatively dismal chance of any success.
I promise, "Make death suck!" isn't on the list of top demands for anyone who actually understands what that would mean, beyond a handful of individuals boasting some really alien thinking.
Taking the above into consideration, the only reason I would agree that they should make the game easier in accommodating to the mass market of MMORPG games is - never. It's why so many fail and I think that Goblinworks would achieve a far greater success in going the route of Eve Online; be it's own product with it's own market and leave the WoW market alone.
And it will, to a large extent. But there are plenty of things that WoW does that PFO will also do, because they are good ideas.
I swear, sometimes it seems like there is a group of people here who, if you pointed out to them that WoW is played over the internet, would start clamoring "WoW sucks! PFO has to be a LAN-only game or it will fail because I won't give them my $10 per month!"
In response to Icyshadow - I'm not picking on Scott and he's entitled to an opinion. I'd enjoy these debates more if he expressed his opinions
I'm expressing my opinions. They just happen to run contrary to your own much of the time.
than simply point out every occasion in which someone suggests a feature or mechanic which does not appeal to a massive majority of tens of millions of people. Is aiming a solid product at 500,000 less of a business plan?
Yes, actually, all else held equal.
Oh yeah, no severe death penalties! If you want to award a victor in PvP, there is either reputation like LOTRO's renown and infamy for bragging rights or gps\pps or some sort of seal to turn in for gear or all of the above.
My definition of grieving is when a player is working on their PVE, RP, or a level 1 is attacked by a level 20. Why would a level 20 involve themselves with a level 1 unless the level 1 inserted him\herself into the 20s world?
There are two ways to handle this, consensual PvP and PvP zones which is basically consensual PvP on a larger scale. Have level restrictions on PvP zones so you can not have an all 20th level party vs level 1. Again, no reason other than to satisfy the no lifer's low confidence.
Zerging is not grieving because it usually goes both ways. Some days you zerg and the next day they zerg you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Who are we trying to appeal to Scott?I'm pretty sure we're trying to appeal to people who want their funtime to be fun, not frustrating. Harsh death penalties in a game where death is partly determined by a RNG and by the actions of immature players is frustrating, not fun.
This is the best thing I have ever heard from SKR. Almost enough to redeem him in my eyes!
I don't think your metric for how successful PFO is really rings true. Plenty of MMOs are successful which use the "riskfree" (read: not actually risk-free) approach you talk about, and very few are terribly successful which use the riskier-rewardier approach you favor.These are all themepark MMOs which PFO is not gonna be.
And yes, every publisher wishes for many people to play and pay his game.
The question is, will emulating the existing "riskfree" games lead to success?
I simply object to the "non-consensual PvP (aka risk) will kill PFO" stereotype because that sounds awfully close to "if PFO isn't like WoW it will fail".
You assume far too much.
It's amazing how many MMOs that aren't WoW don't have non-consensual PvP. So your jump in logic is just that, a jump with no connecting points to justify the statement.
I also haven't seen people espousing that non-consensual PvP will kill PFO, but that they won't play the game if it exists... Amazing how that's entirely different from what you said.
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also haven't seen people espousing that non-consensual PvP will kill PFO, but that they won't play the game if it exists... Amazing how that's entirely different from what you said.
It's funny when people always threaten not to play a game unless it is developed for them. I may as well jump on the wagon too.
I will not play this game if it doesn't have non-consensual PvP
Pathfinder setting or not. I have no interest in another themepark MMO where people can get the same or better rewards by having less or no risk.
I already plan on playing Guild Wars 2. Guild Wars 2 has no PvP at all outside of the RvR Mists and Arenas.
I was also planning on buying Pathfinder Online because of it's non-consensual PvP and full or partial looting. I will not buy it if they are removed.
So just like the carebears can stamp their feet and demand to have their way. I can lower myself to their level and do the same.
Good day ;)
I also haven't seen people espousing that non-consensual PvP will kill PFO, but that they won't play the game if it exists... Amazing how that's entirely different from what you said.It's funny when people always threaten not to play a game unless it is developed for them. I may as well jump on the wagon too.
I will not play this game if it doesn't have non-consensual PvP
Pathfinder setting or not. I have no interest in another themepark MMO where people can get the same or better rewards by having less or no risk.
I already plan on playing Guild Wars 2. Guild Wars 2 has no PvP at all outside of the RvR Mists and Arenas.
I was also planning on buying Pathfinder Online because of it's non-consensual PvP and full or partial looting. I will not buy it if they are removed.
So just like the carebears can stamp their feet and demand to have their way. I can lower myself to their level and do the same.
Good day ;)
Um... what's your point here other than needless condescension?
PvP needs to be consensual whether it is an area or a pop-up box or both.
If it is not, the PvE lovers will not play and personally I do not want to be jumped when I have 50 million windows open conducting character maintenance that is sometimes necessary when on the move.
In my LOTRO kin, only a handful of us PvP, the rest do not and refuse to. In addition, they only play Free Peoples of Middle Earth while I play on the side of Sauron as a Warg Stalker. So when I am in the PvP area, playing my warg, I am part of an Australian PvP Tribe (kin\guild).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
PvP needs to be consensual whether it is an area or a pop-up box or both.
If it is not, the PvE lovers will not play and personally I do not want to be jumped when I have 50 million windows open conducting character maintenance that is sometimes necessary when on the move.
In my LOTRO kin, only a handful of us PvP, the rest do not and refuse to. In addition, they only play Free Peoples of Middle Earth while I play on the side of Sauron as a Warg Stalker. So when I am in the PvP area, playing my warg, I am part of an Australian PvP Tribe (kin\guild).
What if the PvP elements of the game were tastefully done in such a way that it was an enjoyable part of the game play experience that blended seamlessly with the the rest of the game?
Would PvP done radically differently from what people know it to be now potentially change the minds of folks?
I myself have no insights as to what Goblinwork's plans are other then what they have shared here on the Paizo Forums, as well as on the Goblinworks site, and Paizo's winning track record in regards to being responsible for products I have enjoyed. I have seen quite a few posts as of late that have made very declarative statements based upon little more then conjecture, and it is rather lame in my humble opinion. There have been quite a few threads that have explored different ideas about what could be, or how different things maybe done, and I have enjoyed exploring the different ideas in such posts, but the tread of back and forth YES! or NO! bickering is starting to clutter up otherwise enjoyable threads.
Anderlorn, I am not looking to call you out or cause trouble, or say that you sux. I merely quoted your last post as my example because it was the last post in this thread as of the time in which I wrote this. All I am really asking for is that folks try and stop making declarations of what will be, and perhaps use these threads to spitball ideas with other members of the community, maybe organize factions or guilds, or communities, dream up some ideas the Devs may use, etc...
PvP as most of us have known it would be a deal breaker if Pathfinder Online consisted of rampant gank and grief fests that ruined any chance players may have at having fun, but what if Goblinwork's variation and game design for PvP does not Sux?
Addendum: People from Paizo and Goblinworks should ignore what I said about making declarations and spill whatever beans they wish, as well as let whatever cats out of the bag they believe should be freed.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So just like the carebears can stamp their feet and demand to have their way. I can lower myself to their level and do the same.Good day ;)
I think I mentioned this in a previous thread, but I'll assume you missed it. The term "Carebear" is quite derogatory, and is intended to imply a generally childish attitude.
Which is quite different from someone who prefers PvE content to PvP. I recommend not using the word unless you are intentionally being derogatory.
Also, generally speaking, the people who prefer a largely PvE experience tend to outnumber the people who prefer an Open PvP experience. Just look at the server listings for ANY MMO. Providing content for a large portion of your player base isn't catering any more than providing PvP servers is catering.
|
I had a similar view to Elth when I first began discussing the idea of non-consensual PvP in PFO. Now I have come to appreciate the validity of the "other side" and the concerns about PvP.
My concern is, if you want to avoid PvP in PFO, will you be stuck simply being a crafter or having to huddle in town and not explore the game world? If staying at home is the only thing for people who prefer PvE, then this would be one boring game. If I opt for PvE, I still want to explore the game world!
I may well not have the "complete view of it", but that is the way I understand it for the moment.
Generally speaking the people who prefer Open PvP stopped playing MMO's or just grudgingly play what is available. That is the only reason they are out numbered because they stopped playing the games when nobody catered to them. According to your generalization I am a statistic for PvE. Why? Because In both World of Warcraft and Rift: Planes of Telara I play on PvE servers. In Rift I play on a RP-PvE Server. I do this because of several reasons but mainly because neither game have anything to offer in open world PvP.
Not really. There are several games out there that have open PvP, and many of the people who prefer that style are playing them. The thing is that nowhere near as many people prefer that style of game, so those games that cater to these players are not as well-known or wildly successful with massive subscriber bases as the more popular PvE games.