Not watch a virtual economy to know what price I need to set to sell a chunk of iron for.I would. I enjoy games where I can craft and create and trade and watch prices fluctuate.
I'm also a nerd's nerd.
Thank you Seattle and Good Night!
Agreed. I know a lot of people who would love to watch an economy. I had a friend do an economic study of WoW Auction House prices for a class project. Actual research projects have been done on the subject (For a while, WoW Gold was one of the most stable currencies in the world.) Annother friend enjoyed price fixing ore on a WoW server for a while. Annother friend got his jollies abusing the Kingdom of Loathing ecconomy, before they hired him to be a moderator and look out for similar behavior.
That they intend the game to allow murder and robbery (What Ryan said on the crafting thread implied that there will be full or partial looting of corpses. On other threads,he has indicated support for non-consensual PvP.)
I will have to pay Goblinworks to perform a second job in fantasy life-simulator.
When I'm paying for entertainment, I want to play a game. Not watch a virtual economy to know what price I need to set to sell a chunk of iron for. I don't want to explore an uncharted area and be more worried about asshats running around murdering other players for yuks. That isn't realistic, it's just virtual bullying.
Thanks for the announcement of a game, but if this game is going to have a basic familiarity with EVE Online, this fan has to say "No thanks and good luck!"
The bolded portion is what I am referencing. I may not be a huge curmudgeon and snobby elitist where MMOs and RPGs are concerned, however I do still give MMOs a try...thinking maybe, just maybe, there will be an MMO I can say, Damned awesome game. My biggest gripe with MMOs is PvP. If non-consenual PvP is part of the game, then PFO will be an utter fail. NON-CONSENUAL PvP is a deal breaker.
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hmm, EVE has non-consensual PvP as did DAoC - both are/were highly successful.
If you would have said "non-consensual PvP in a grindy themepark MMO is utter fail" I would have agreed, but so you simply demonstrate the fact that you don't know alot about what PFO is going to be about.
Hmm, EVE has non-consensual PvP as did DAoC - both are/were highly successful.
If you would have said "non-consensual PvP in a grindy themepark MMO is utter fail" I would have agreed, but so you simply demonstrate the fact that you don't know alot about what PFO is going to be about.
Actually we all know very little of what PFO is going to be about, even yourself. You have your guesses, which you seem to be promoting as concrete game features, but they are still guesses nonetheless.
What I am hearing from the posters on the board here is that each of us seems to be wishing for a game closely related to whatever our favorite game was. For some it is WoW, others want an EVE clone, others still want the second coming of DAoC. But for any of us who do not work for Paizo/Goblinworks to come across as speaking from a position of authority is silly.
As far as the "sandbox" vs. "theme park" thing goes, I am already sick of reading those buzzwords, and it seems that no three posters are in agreement as to exactly what they mean.
All I know is what I personally do not want, and what I do not want is a rehash of EVE set in Golarion, but I am seeing a lot of people asking for just that.
Spreadsheets In Space style economics is tedious and annoying. Who wants to do that much work out of game in order to have success within it?
Biggest Gang Wins is frustrating and is tied to Poopsockers Rule Over Players With Lives. While everyone agrees that a person more dedicated and willing to put in more effort should reap some benefits over a person who does not, such a gap should feel insurmountable.
Let Me Entertain Myself By Kicking Over Your Sandcastle is a game for 7 year old bullies on a playground. PvP is one thing, but PvP without limitations can quickly turn into bullying.
And anything that allows Real Money Transactions to become a large factor in game is poorly thought out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To be fair, the recycled costs of items in EVE vs their selling price is highly influenced by people being dumb. My friends tried to start a ship constructing buisness. After they got the first couple ships off the line, they realized that they couldn't compete with the market because the market was opperating at a loss. They started doing the math, then buying hulls and scrapping them for proffit.
Been there, done that. With T2 hulls too (the buying and reciclyng for profit, not the selling).
Check what the "insurance scam" or "insurance exchange rate" is. It has been somewhat patched by CCP with the change in insurance payout, but it was the basis for the minerals cost.For the non initiated, it is something that hopefully will be avoided in Pathfinder. The price of the standard minerals is so low that the insurance payout for destroyed ships was the thing deciding what was the sell prices for minerals.
When they were priced too low it was possible to construct a starship, insure it and then self destruct, getting more money that what you would have got selling the ship.
That is partially related to the mining bots problem, as a large percentage of the minerals are produced by mining bots or combat bots killing a kind of NPC that drop metal alloys.
The resource gathering bots can be a big problem. On one hand hopefully resource gathering should not be bot friendly, on the other hand if you have to do a minigame every time you have to gather a resource it will become boring extremely fast.
To be fair, the recycled costs of items in EVE vs their selling price is highly influenced by people being dumb. My friends tried to start a ship constructing buisness. After they got the first couple ships off the line, they realized that they couldn't compete with the market because the market was opperating at a loss. They started doing the math, then buying hulls and scrapping them for proffit.Been there, done that. With T2 hulls too (the buying and reciclyng for profit, not the selling).
Check what the "insurance scam" or "insurance exchange rate" is. It has been somewhat patched by CCP with the change in insurance payout, but it was the basis for the minerals cost.For the non initiated, it is something that hopefully will be avoided in Pathfinder. The price of the standard minerals is so low that the insurance payout for destroyed ships was the thing deciding what was the sell prices for minerals.
When they were priced too low it was possible to construct a starship, insure it and then self destruct, getting more money that what you would have got selling the ship.That is partially related to the mining bots problem, as a large percentage of the minerals are produced by mining bots or combat bots killing a kind of NPC that drop metal alloys.
The resource gathering bots can be a big problem. On one hand hopefully resource gathering should not be bot friendly, on the other hand if you have to do a minigame every time you have to gather a resource it will become boring extremely fast.
Actually, I am kind of with the opposite oppinion. Let the bots in for generic resources. Let them trash the market and make basic resources cheap and allow for a flourishing low level ecconomy. Make upper tier resources require significant investments to get, but be worthwhile. Give players a way of skipping over the low level resources if they choose.
People will find a way to make harvester bots. I think it is better to expect and embrace it than try to prevent it.
Hmm, EVE has non-consensual PvP as did DAoC - both are/were highly successful.
If you would have said "non-consensual PvP in a grindy themepark MMO is utter fail" I would have agreed, but so you simply demonstrate the fact that you don't know alot about what PFO is going to be about.
Ultima Online, the original "sandbox" MMO's non-consensual pvp was utter fail. The fact that the vast majority of people moved to the non-PvP side of the server (the Trammel shard) after UO: Renaissance says something.
Goblinworks Founder
|
Ultima Online, the original "sandbox" MMO's non-consensual pvp was utter fail. The fact that the vast majority of people moved to the non-PvP side of the server (the Trammel shard) after UO: Renaissance says something.Hmm, EVE has non-consensual PvP as did DAoC - both are/were highly successful.
If you would have said "non-consensual PvP in a grindy themepark MMO is utter fail" I would have agreed, but so you simply demonstrate the fact that you don't know alot about what PFO is going to be about.
Ultima Online is nearly 15 years old. I'm sure Goblinworks can piece together lessons learned over the past 15 years and produce something worthwhile.
Ultima Online is nearly 15 years old. I'm sure Goblinworks can piece together lessons learned over the past 15 years and produce something worthwhile.
I'm not sure how the age of the platform is relevant to your contention that '"nonconsensual pvp in a grindy themepark mmo is utter fail" but not in a sandbox.' I was pointing out that even in UO, the prototypical sandbox MMO, people voted with their feet and went to the non-pvp facet when the option became available (and it was only about 3-4 years old at that point).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure how the age of the platform is relevant to your contention that '"nonconsensual pvp in a grindy themepark mmo is utter fail" but not in a sandbox.' I was pointing out that even in UO, the prototypical sandbox MMO, people voted with their feet and went to the non-pvp facet when the option became available (and it was only about 3-4 years old at that point).
That was a long time ago. It was either Ultima Online or nothing in regards to mainstream MMORPGs. Open PvP was more a social experiment than a well thought out game design and given the chaos which ensued, it is no surprise everyone jumped ship to Trammel. We shouldn't forget the influence of human nature either; Offer someone the choice between an instant peanut, or a peanut at the end of a mine field, which would they take? Trammel was but a little blue door away. PvP and loot mechanics were not the talking point they are today and the choice was simple.
Now however, the last decade has shown that PvP servers are amongst - if not - the most popular servers. People are choosing non-consensual PvP over consensual PvP. To go back to your example of Ultima Online, in terms of active players, UO free servers deploying Felucca only rulesets are by far the most popular and I don't think there are many still occupying EA's Sosaria.
Mortal Online and Darkfall Online attracted the attention of hundreds of thousands whilst deploying almost no marketing what so ever beyond offering a few interviews. Both games failed drastically, but not because people did not enjoy the concepts employed, quite the contrary. Full loot, open PvP and a sandbox environment were the pulling points of these games. Had these products had bigger studios behind them/great access to resources as to have allowed for greater marketing and a strong execution of these features - we wouldn't be having this debate.
We argue about how much we should maximize or minimize WoW's influence on this game. We do the same in regard to Felucca and Ultima Online. The important thing here is to establish that both are wrong for Pathfinder Online, yet both offer key ingredients which it will need to appeal to it's fanbase.
In my own opinion, full loot and open PvP works. Eve Online, Ultima Online (currently on player servers) and Darkfall Online (despite everything else wrong with it) show that it is far from the beast it was in 1998. Open PvP systems are now intelligent enough to incorporate appropriate risks and punishments to which developers can readily scale in policing such an environment appropriately.
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ultima Online is nearly 15 years old. I'm sure Goblinworks can piece together lessons learned over the past 15 years and produce something worthwhile.I'm not sure how the age of the platform is relevant to your contention that '"nonconsensual pvp in a grindy themepark mmo is utter fail" but not in a sandbox.' I was pointing out that even in UO, the prototypical sandbox MMO, people voted with their feet and went to the non-pvp facet when the option became available (and it was only about 3-4 years old at that point).
I was merely pointing out that the "Prototypical Sandbox MMO" has been on the market for nearly 15 years and that there is nearly 15 years of mistakes that Goblinworks can analyze so they do not follow the same path.
Unlike many others on this forum, I want to see their vision work without them taking the lazy path of themepark MMo's and instanced-segregated content.
Instead of saying "OMG Goblinworks it can't be done"
I am saying "HELL YEH! Goblinworks! Show me what you can do!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That was a long time ago. It was either Ultima Online or nothing in regards to mainstream MMORPGs. Open PvP was more a social experiment than a well thought out game design and given the chaos which ensued, it is no surprise everyone jumped ship to Trammel. We shouldn't forget the influence of human nature either; Offer someone the choice between an instant peanut, or a peanut at the end of a mine field, which would they take? Trammel was but a little blue door away. PvP and loot mechanics were not the talking point they are today and the choice was simple.
Now however, the last decade has shown that PvP servers are amongst - if not - the most popular servers. People are choosing non-consensual PvP over consensual PvP. To go back to your example of Ultima Online, in terms of active players, UO free servers deploying Felucca only rulesets are by far the most popular and I don't think there are many still occupying EA's Sosaria.
Actually, EverQuest stomped UO in subscription numbers immediately upon release (in 1999, a year before UO: Renaissance), and only had PvE servers to begin with. Rallos Zek was the only PvP server for quite a while. You can attribute this to 'theme park beats sandbox' or you can attribute this to "nonconsensual pvp loses to limited pvp" or a mixture of the above and other factors, but at the time of the UO player base's choice between nonconsensual pvp and what I referred to before as "no-pvp" (though it would be more accurate to refer to it as "limited pvp" thanks to the 'guild war' system and guild stones, now that I think about it), MMO gamers had another major option--plus all the older stuff like The Realm Online.
I also believe it worth pointing out that you really can't compare the free emulated Felucca-only servers with the pay-to-play official servers. It'd be more germane to see how Siege Perilous (the 'hardcore' server on UO) or any other Felucca-only servers they've put up since I played the game, ranks in popularity against the 'normal' servers. The "free" factor of the emulated servers just throws off a good comparison otherwise.
Mortal Online and Darkfall Online attracted the attention of hundreds of thousands whilst deploying almost no marketing what so ever beyond offering a few interviews. Both games failed drastically, but not because people did not enjoy the concepts employed, quite the contrary. Full loot, open PvP and a sandbox environment were the pulling points of these games. Had these products had bigger studios behind them/great access to resources as to have allowed for greater marketing and a strong execution of these features - we wouldn't be having this debate.
I think that part of this was that both Mortal Online and Darkfall Online were intended as PvP fests, just like Shadowbane. Ultima Online was not, and I really would hope that PFO isn't either. I mean, Turbine used the argument that DDO wouldn't include PvP because it went against the spirit of what was essentially a cooperative game. Pathfinder, as a game, is much more cooperative than it is adversarial in nature--the same arguments Turbine made for DDO would work with PFO.
We argue about how much we should maximize or minimize WoW's influence on this game. We do the same in regard to Felucca and Ultima Online. The important thing here is to establish that both are wrong for Pathfinder Online, yet both offer key ingredients which it will need to appeal to it's fanbase.
In my own opinion, full loot and open PvP works. Eve Online, Ultima Online (currently on player servers) and Darkfall Online (despite everything else wrong with it) show that it is far from the beast it was in 1998. Open PvP systems are now intelligent enough to incorporate appropriate risks and punishments to which developers can readily scale in policing such an environment appropriately.
Sure, it works. I think it's more a matter of whether it does PFO any services. And it's certainly not what I want out of an MMO, sandbox or not.
I was merely pointing out that the "Prototypical Sandbox MMO" has been on the market for nearly 15 years and that there is nearly 15 years of mistakes that Goblinworks can analyze so they do not follow the same path.
Unlike many others on this forum, I want to see their vision work without them taking the lazy path of themepark MMo's and instanced-segregated content.
Instead of saying "OMG Goblinworks it can't be done"
I am saying "HELL YEH! Goblinworks! Show me what you can do!"
It's not 'saying "OMG Goblinworks it can't be done" versus saying "HELL YEH! Goblinworks! Show me what you can do!" It's "That would ruin the MMO for a lot of people--please don't do that" versus "I and other people like me would prefer that in this MMO! Please do this!" It's also them balancing the 'theme park elements' of this "hybrid sandbox/theme park MMO" with the 'sandbox' elements you want. So far, all of the hype has been on its sandbox qualities, but the Goblinworks website makes it clear that it's supposed to be a hybrid.
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That would ruin the MMO for a lot of people--please don't do that" versus "I and other people like me would prefer that in this MMO! Please do this!"
I'm sorry but I said "Hell yeah! Goblinworks! Show me what you can do".
I will stick to my quotations as they are my words.One of the very first things I said when this game was announced and it is still number one on my wish list:
1 - For Goblinworks to stay true to their vision.
You have a vision. If you didn't I wouldn't be here typing up a wish list. Keep that vision and don't let the naysayers turn this into another wow-clone.
You can interpret that how ever you like. My preferred playing style is to experience everything on offer with as much freedom as I am given in accordance with the Terms of Agreement. I am not a PvPer, I am not a PvE'r, I am not a Role player or a Player Killer, I am not a Crafter or an Entertainer, I am not a Leader or a Merchant. I can be all of those things and more, but do not restrict me to but a few.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry but I said "Hell yeah! Goblinworks! Show me what you can do". I will stick to my quotations as they are my words.
You'll have to excuse me, I misread your words as "You are saying that it can't be done. I'm saying that I want them to show me what they can do." I am definitely not saying it can't be done--I'm saying that it'll diminish the appeal for a number of people who might otherwise be interested in a Pathfinder MMO.
You seem rabidly opposed to World of Warcraft and non-sandbox games in general. I rather hope that they stay true to their vision and come up with a hybrid, rather than a sandbox. Yes, that means instanced content and quests and NPCs. Not just a lot of wide-open spaces that quickly become cluttered with houses, where roaming gangs gank other players and loot their corpses, burn down their houses and otherwise prove the axiom that it's easier to destroy than create.
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry but I said "Hell yeah! Goblinworks! Show me what you can do". I will stick to my quotations as they are my words.You'll have to excuse me, I misread your words as "You are saying that it can't be done. I'm saying that I want them to show me what they can do." I am definitely not saying it can't be done--I'm saying that it'll diminish the appeal for a number of people who might otherwise be interested in a Pathfinder MMO.
You seem rabidly opposed to World of Warcraft and non-sandbox games in general. I rather hope that they stay true to their vision and come up with a hybrid, rather than a sandbox. Yes, that means instanced content and quests and NPCs. Not just a lot of wide-open spaces that quickly become cluttered with houses, where roaming gangs gank other players and loot their corpses, burn down their houses and otherwise prove the axiom that it's easier to destroy than create.
I'm not rabidly opposed. I just don't believe there is room for more of them when there is definitely room for a hybrid model. Yes I am talking about a hybrid model as well surprisingly. I just prefer more sandbox in my themepark where you prefer more themepark in your sandbox.
I am picturing this project working more like EvE with 80% of the population in the secure zones. Whilst you seem to be picturing the project as the pure anarchy you experienced in Ultima Online. Neither of us are wrong because the game has only just been announced. Maybe I just have a more positive attitude. I don't know you so I can't say.
You seem rabidly opposed to World of Warcraft and non-sandbox games in general.
Personally speaking, I am rabidly opposed to it because I already have quite a few choices when it comes to games like that.
I rather hope that they stay true to their vision and come up with a hybrid, rather than a sandbox. Yes, that means instanced content and quests and NPCs.
I don't want instances, but quests and NPC's would be nice.
Not just a lot of wide-open spaces that quickly become cluttered with houses, where roaming gangs gank other players and loot their corpses, burn down their houses and otherwise prove the axiom that it's easier to destroy than create.
You are thinking worst-case scenario, which seems to be the norm around here on all sides of the consensual/non-consensual pvp and Sandbox vs. Theme park argument. On one end, it's an apocalyptic wasteland, and on the other, it's a carebear wow-clone.
I'm sure there will be NPC-Kingdom controlled areas for one type of player, and the untamed wilds for the other.
I'm not rabidly opposed. I just don't believe there is room for more of them when there is definitely room for a hybrid model. Yes I am talking about a hybrid model as well surprisingly. I just prefer more sandbox in my themepark where you prefer more themepark in your sandbox.
I am picturing this project working more like EvE with 80% of the population in the secure zones. Whilst you seem to be picturing the project as the pure anarchy you experienced in Ultima Online. Neither of us are wrong because the game has only just been announced. Maybe I just have a more positive attitude. I don't know you so I can't say.
I don't really think it does the genre justice to refer to them as 'WoW clones,' and I don't really think that the genre is saturated. A no-name MMO may not carry the same high profile or high subscriber numbers, but people get bored with older games and move on, wanting something simultaneously new and familiar for their next MMO fix. Before World of Warcraft, there were multiple "big name MMOs," and while EQ dominated, DAoC, Asheron's Call, Final Fantasy XI and Ultima Online were still big draws. EQ2, DDO, LotRO and a host of others have come along concurrent with or in the wake of WoW's rise to popularity, and most of the 'big name' ones are still around (Tabula Rasa notwithstanding). But new ones come along and do well enough to be profitable even as older ones lose subscribers.
Honestly I would be concerned if it worked like Eve. My experiences with Eve are very limited compared to those of Ultima Online (pre- and post-UO:R), but I don't really like the idea that people who like to explore may well lose all of their possessions just because they wanted to see what PFO's version of 'low sec' areas looked like. Is it impossible to work around? No--you could just strip naked and wander the most dangerous areas of the River Kingdoms in your underwear, relying on fists or spells to keep you alive long enough to explore, similar to what another 'sandbox' MMO mentioned on these forums had happen. But that may not be an option for people who want to create player-run towns or who come to the game late enough that they can only find a place to construct a house in the nonconsensual pvp areas.
And yes, I think you have a lot more positive of an attitude about what nonconsensual pvp may look like in a finished PFO.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand comments like this at all. Yes in Pathfinder you have a team with which you work, but depending on your advancement track you'll have an average of thirteen, twenty, or THIRTY fights per level.
The thing is, every good story has conflict of some sort. In most stories, at least a portion of that conflict is combat. Even when it's not combat- but political maneuvering or something else entirely- the entire game is adversarial, aka running into adversaries and dealing with those who oppose you.
Hell, the bog standard D&D (and likely PF, though I haven't spoken with enough Pathfinder players to know for sure) game is simply a matter of killing people (people defined as sentient creatures) and taking their stuff.
Because it is not (generally) PC vs PC. It's PC cooperating with PC vs NPC. With the exception of 1st edition AD&D, where the GM-PC relationship was supposed to be adversarial, it's always been about cooperative gameplay, with the GM as neutral storyteller/arbitrator.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Because it is not (generally) PC vs PC. It's PC cooperating with PC vs NPC. With the exception of 1st edition AD&D, where the GM-PC relationship was supposed to be adversarial, it's always been about cooperative gameplay, with the GM as neutral storyteller/arbitrator.I don't understand comments like this at all. Yes in Pathfinder you have a team with which you work, but depending on your advancement track you'll have an average of thirteen, twenty, or THIRTY fights per level.
The thing is, every good story has conflict of some sort. In most stories, at least a portion of that conflict is combat. Even when it's not combat- but political maneuvering or something else entirely- the entire game is adversarial, aka running into adversaries and dealing with those who oppose you.
Hell, the bog standard D&D (and likely PF, though I haven't spoken with enough Pathfinder players to know for sure) game is simply a matter of killing people (people defined as sentient creatures) and taking their stuff.
Where you get this idea that in 1st edition the rapport GM/players was adversary?
There are and always have been dinfuntional GM that think that the players are adversaries, but that is and wasn't the norm in any edition of the game.@Kyrt
Trying to justify PvP based on PvE in the Patfinder pen and paper game is a bit ridiculous. Our home games are the epitome of PvE.
To each his own...to each his own... *Finishes mantra*
Sadly, what applies in one's table cannot always apply in Pathfinder Online, especially since so many GMs and Players have different styles and expectations as well as likes and dislikes. The good folk working on PFO have to go down one path, letting some follow and leaving others behind. What we want is enough people to be happy playing the game that it won't bomb after the first week.
Where you get this idea that in 1st edition the rapport GM/players was adversary?
There are and always have been dinfuntional GM that think that the players are adversaries, but that is and wasn't the norm in any edition of the game.
I couldn't tell you where I thought I heard it any more. Probably from a friend who actually played 1e (I only played some of the late 1e Gold Box CRPGs, never the PnP). If it wasn't the case in 1e, then disregard what I said.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In WoW in the "new" quest zone of hyal the chat was full of complaints of "grievers" (as if you really could do that in WoW).
There were 10 peeps complaining that they couldn't do their daily quests in peace because they were getting attacked and killed by 3 hordes every time.
Well...
Nevermind the fact that after being killed you loose nothing but about 30s of travel time.
Nevermind that fact that by banding together the 10 peeps could have easily beaten the snot out of the hordes and on top would have been able to finish their quests faster.
Nevermind the fact that if they hate it they could have played on a PvE Server instead.
I think it is exactly this type of people that share their hysteria here: the type that approach MMOs as multiplayer solitaire and that can not manage to solve even the tiniest amount of coordination.
I dearly hope that PFO will not be for this kind of player!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I couldn't tell you where I thought I heard it any more. Probably from a friend who actually played 1e (I only played some of the late 1e Gold Box CRPGs, never the PnP). If it wasn't the case in 1e, then disregard what I said.Where you get this idea that in 1st edition the rapport GM/players was adversary?
There are and always have been dinfuntional GM that think that the players are adversaries, but that is and wasn't the norm in any edition of the game.
I've recently been hearing some old Gygax stories that made it sound VERY adversarial... Traps with no saves... Instant death... GM gloating...
I've never played in a game like that... but I've heard some stories on here about 'If I haven't killed a PC in XXX game sessions, it seems to easy.'
Regardless... What I think would be the PERFECT 'looting' system for a game like this.
Every time you kill a PC (or any other NPC for that Matter) You get Loot.
Higher Level Characters give better loot.
This is not necessarily the ACTUAL gear your character HAS on them... but realistically, would the killer/bandit/etc. actually KNOW what potions you had, or what rings you had? Not likely. But then again in a regular PnP game what are the odds of running into three bandits with the absolute identical gear... Hide +1, Masterwork Club, 2 healing potions...
That's just a stat block. makes things easy.
Fact remains, in a standard 'RP' situation, you will likely NEVER come across that particular bandit again.. So HE doesn't know what you should have had... And when your character is Ressurected/cloned/hospitalized, or whatever excuse they give for them 'magically waking up...' You can go about your own business as if the annoying Griefer never crossed your path.
I am a casual player. The things I look for in a game like this....
1) It is still fun if I only play a couple hours a week. if there is nothing for my 1-5th level character to do... I get bored.
2) I play solo. If all my friends are not available when "I" want to play... I'm STILL gonna play!!
Sooooo If Everytime I log on, I'm low level and alone.... and every time I pick up a +1 sword, some jerk comes and takes it.... I'm gonna bail on that game VERY fast.
If some jerk comes up and kills me, and gets loot that have anything to do with my own pack... and I can carry on when he's gone, I'd be fine with it.
Having him get random loot based on my level... Has the added bonus, of making it not worth their time to prey on the young and the weak.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Regardless... What I think would be the PERFECT 'looting' system for a game like this...
No, it isn't.
See, to get an interesting economy going you need to filter things out of the economy and not only put new things into it.
In themepark MMOs the accepted method to do this is to make items hard and tedious to get and then obsolete with each new expansion. Literally what is top notch today is weaksauce tomorrow.
This creates the dreaded "endless grindfest".
In sandbox MMOs one of the main thing is that you can aquire the best items from players - they are therefore much easier to obtain (and usually gear doesn't play that large of a role because gear grinding is not the main thing of sandboxes).
Given this, how would you filter things out with the solution you proposed except for establishing another gear grinding circle?
Well, under the "you can loose a part of your loot upon death but have it easier to get new one" ruleset you have these bases covered.
Edit:
I play solo. If all my friends are not available when "I" want to play...
I just realized that you probably are the kind of player that I described in my post just before yours and if so, I can only hope that PFO will not appeal to you (no insult intended, I think these kinds of games are simply not for you).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I couldn't tell you where I thought I heard it any more. Probably from a friend who actually played 1e (I only played some of the late 1e Gold Box CRPGs, never the PnP). If it wasn't the case in 1e, then disregard what I said.Where you get this idea that in 1st edition the rapport GM/players was adversary?
There are and always have been dinfuntional GM that think that the players are adversaries, but that is and wasn't the norm in any edition of the game.I've recently been hearing some old Gygax stories that made it sound VERY adversarial... Traps with no saves... Instant death... GM gloating...
I've never played in a game like that... but I've heard some stories on here about 'If I haven't killed a PC in XXX game sessions, it seems to easy.'
Regardless... What I think would be the PERFECT 'looting' system for a game like this.
Every time you kill a PC (or any other NPC for that Matter) You get Loot.
Higher Level Characters give better loot.
This is not necessarily the ACTUAL gear your character HAS on them... but realistically, would the killer/bandit/etc. actually KNOW what potions you had, or what rings you had? Not likely. But then again in a regular PnP game what are the odds of running into three bandits with the absolute identical gear... Hide +1, Masterwork Club, 2 healing potions...
That's just a stat block. makes things easy.
Fact remains, in a standard 'RP' situation, you will likely NEVER come across that particular bandit again.. So HE doesn't know what you should have had... And when your character is Ressurected/cloned/hospitalized, or whatever excuse they give for them 'magically waking up...' You can go about your own business as if the annoying Griefer never crossed your path.
I am a casual player. The things I look for in a game like this....
1) It is still fun if I only play a couple hours a week. if there is nothing for my 1-5th level character to do... I get bored.
2) I play solo. If...
I disagree that having the person get better loot for level will discourage griefing of lower players at all. (in addition to the known sentiment that PFO will not have levels, meaning actually defining someones power is not going to be as simple as a single number). Every portion of every MMO has 2 styles of play in all forms. Some people will level up by killing 100 enemies higher level then themselves, some find the time/energy ratio better to kill 600 enemies 5 levels below themselves that they can quickly 1 shot. The same would occur with PKers. Rather then kill 1 person who is an even match, there will be many who would find it more efficient to kill 10 people much weaker.
I still hold to the idea that the only way to curve and control griefing, will not be to lower the penelty for death. That is how WoW tries to do it, by having no cost for PK deaths, all that does is create fearless griefers. People that go out and kill 10 people, knowing that after they are done someone is eventually going to kill them, but having absolutely no reason to care about the revenge. Thus they will milk it for all it is worth, continuing to harass the same person, stalk his corpse/resurection location etc...
Now in games like Liniage or pardus and to some extent eve, where death can set you back hours of work, people are far more choosey on their battles. They aren't going to kill someone in a location where they are likely to be killed back, because they will gain little, but be set back a great deal.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Different perspectives I guess Diego. In my campaigns there are a lot of adventurers aside from the party, and sometimes they cross paths. That other party could just as easily have been the PC's as the current one. The only difference is who is running them. That is all.
And they are managed by other players?
Or you, the GM, manage them as an adversary team managed by a player?
Or instead you create a encounter balanced on the group strength and capabilities?
A universe managed by a GM for the players enjoyment is PvE, not PvP.
Unless your player regularly fight each other you are doing PvE.
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
Because it is not (generally) PC vs PC. It's PC cooperating with PC vs NPC. With the exception of 1st edition AD&D, where the GM-PC relationship was supposed to be adversarial, it's always been about cooperative gameplay, with the GM as neutral storyteller/arbitrator.
1st edition and even back as far as basic edition weren't always like that.
You might find a lesson in some of the old Gygax stories. Touching a sphere of annihilation will get you killed, that's a valuable lesson right there.
I know when I used to GM for my younger cousins, if I found they were taking the game a little too seriously I would kill one or two of them off. It wasn't to be mean, it was to stop them from forming emotional attachments to a figment of their imagination.
How many kids do you know that do this in MMO's? Getting too attached to their character or too focused on that one bit of loot they've been so desperate to get, then throw a tantrum to make a two year old jealous? I've seen plenty. Especially in pick up groups around 4-5pm.
When they're gaming starts to affect their reality, they need something to snap them back to reality.
So you're against players caring about their characters? It's bound to happen, and you shouldn't be confused or annoyed if people get angry at you for killing their precious characters, regardless of the age of the player in question.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So you're against players caring about their characters? It's bound to happen, and you shouldn't be confused or annoyed if people get angry at you for killing their precious characters, regardless of the age of the player in question.
I also have to second guess that, I think a nice hybrid is nice. In every story I generally do actually like characters that die in great memorable ways. I think a characters death is still a large part of the character and a reason to like him in itself.
I do say I would have to hate the idea of wanting people not to get at least partially attached to a character, at that point they just start becoming stat blocks, red shirts etc... When players don't care about their character at all, or have any concern for it's survival. Now it is no longer a game about the characters. Just a dull story about the world almost coming to an end or something.
The latter was exactly what I was getting at.
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
So you're against players caring about their characters? It's bound to happen, and you shouldn't be confused or annoyed if people get angry at you for killing their precious characters, regardless of the age of the player in question.
First, I think your missing the point. I'm not talking about kids that enjoy their character and really get into the game, that's the best thing that could ever happen to a GM.
These kids played hard and they liked the fact that death was very much a part of the game. I'm sorry if that doesn't meet your standards of gaming.The point I was trying to make is that when I first introduced them to gaming I played things hard from the start and killed a lot of characters. Not every incident ended up with them dead. I would occasionally throw in possessions or poisoned needles on important locks. Sometimes one would lose a limb. It worked though. They played memorable characters and even the ones that died meaningless deaths are still laughed about today ten years on.
My cousins never threw tantrums when things didn't go their way. More than I could say for some adults I've had the displeasure of meeting in MMO's or at conventions.
This next paragraph is for Ansha. This was 1st edition as I remembered it. RJK and GG always had the best stories. I have been a huge fan of Robilar since I was about thirteen.
Re: Robilar defeat
A condensation follows, as I've written of that encounter for the compilation.
I went up a passage in the Castle containing cells. When I got past one a wight came out which I hadn't seen in passing. Instead of fighting it I ran onward (it followed) and the passage did a Uturn revealing more cells, and another wight came out of one in front of me. So, one closing from the rear, one in front, and no where to run. I was 3rd level, iccch! I saw my doom fast approaching , but then:
The door to EGG's study is flung wide open, almost hitting me where I sat and Mary Gygax bursts in screaming to high heaven that "You're always playing this game!" (This is of course during the playtest phase, we don't know how successful it will be, etc., etc.) She continues screaming and slams the door shut.
Gary merely held hand to head with the onset of a headache and looks at me and says: "On a one or two, it's all been a dream," and he rolls the die and it's a 2. Phew. Thanks Mary!
I returned that favor for Jim Ward's PC Bombadil after his crushing at the hands of the Dark Druids (his Castle and characters were all wiped out), and that is part of the story as well that I've written.
There you go.
http://piedpiperpublishing.yuku.com/directory
I'll just say "to each his own" before you start to throw the pointless and overused "no, you are wrong and I am right" statement at me when it comes to character death. Anyway, this thread doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
Ultima Online is nearly 15 years old. I'm sure Goblinworks can piece together lessons learned over the past 15 years and produce something worthwhile.I'm not sure how the age of the platform is relevant to your contention that '"nonconsensual pvp in a grindy themepark mmo is utter fail" but not in a sandbox.' I was pointing out that even in UO, the prototypical sandbox MMO, people voted with their feet and went to the non-pvp facet when the option became available (and it was only about 3-4 years old at that point).I was merely pointing out that the "Prototypical Sandbox MMO" has been on the market for nearly 15 years and that there is nearly 15 years of mistakes that Goblinworks can analyze so they do not follow the same path.
Unlike many others on this forum, I want to see their vision work without them taking the lazy path of themepark MMo's and instanced-segregated content.
Instead of saying "OMG Goblinworks it can't be done"
I am saying "HELL YEH! Goblinworks! Show me what you can do!"
+1 to that. I plan on giving PFO at least three months of paid time, just to see how it works out.
I disagree that having the person get better loot for level will discourage griefing of lower players at all. (in addition to the known sentiment that PFO will not have levels, meaning actually defining someones power is not going to be as simple as a single number). Every portion of every MMO has 2 styles of play in all forms. Some people will level up by killing 100 enemies higher level then themselves, some find the time/energy ratio better to kill 600 enemies 5 levels below themselves that they can quickly 1 shot. The same would occur with PKers. Rather then kill 1 person who is an even match, there will be many who would find it more efficient to kill 10 people much weaker.
My point was more along the lines of 'Why would I loot this guy, if the best I can get from him may be a Masterwork weapon, but more likely a just a few copper.' If the goal is to play some kind of bandit or something (the only reason I can justify PK and looting...) Then your going to go after the ones that are worth your time.
If weaker characters give out awesome rare components that you've been looking for.... then killing them is an excellent plan.
if someone has to be 'close' to your level to give you 'ok' stuff and equal or higher then you to give you rare or special stuff... then it should work itself out.
Which is kind of the way the loot drop system USUALLY works. It's rare to see the level 20 characters still camping goblins and kobalds because the loot and xp is so negligable that it isn't worth their time.
Just treat ALL characters the same as 'npcs' when determining loot/xp. The stuff doesn't have to come right from the victims inventory.
Either way, I don't believe some random jerk should come up, blindside me and steal the +4 holy sword I've been questing for 6 months to get... THere's zero good side to THAT...
I still hold to the idea that the only way to curve and control griefing, will not be to lower the penelty for death. That is how WoW tries to do it, by having no cost for PK deaths, all that does is create fearless griefers. People that go out and kill 10 people, knowing that after they are done someone is eventually going to kill them, but having absolutely no reason to care about the revenge. Thus they will milk it for all it is worth, continuing to harass the same person, stalk his corpse/resurection location etc...Now in games like Liniage or pardus and to some extent eve, where death can set you back hours of work, people are far more choosey on their battles. They aren't going to kill someone in a location where they are likely to be killed back, because they will gain little, but be set back a great deal.
I don't know... I think that kind of thing really hurts the victims more then the griefers honestly... Most griefers are more experienced, better equipted and more powerful ANYWAY... Soooo they can still kill and screw over a couple of PCs before having TOO much to worry about their OWN deaths...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just treat ALL characters the same as 'npcs' when determining loot/xp. The stuff doesn't have to come right from the victims inventory.
I really liked this idea at first and wanted to post a props to you. Though by the time I got to copy and pasting your words I realized that if there was no loss in your own gear when you got PvPed and instead characters just generated some random loots for the survivor that there would need to be a deterrent to keep two characters from just killing each other over and over to generate loot drops.
I just realized that you probably are the kind of player that I described in my post just before yours and if so, I can only hope that PFO will not appeal to you (no insult intended, I think these kinds of games are simply not for you).
I think these kinds of games should be fun for EVERYONE. I have a friend who quite simply disappeared for the first 4 days after every new EQ expansion came out... When Star Wars galaxy came out it was closer to a week... City of Heroes same thing... and He's looking forward to the new Knights of the old Republic MMO now... REALLy looking forward to it... (Hope his wife feeds the kids that week...)
Personally, if people want to spend THAT much time devoted to a video game... that's their decision. I don't want to do that. I have work... i have a life away from the computer.
I have friends who have canceled actually sitting at a table to play a REGULAR game with friends in person... because of a 'raid'.
I refuse to be THAT drawn into a game. Real people come first. Video games are for when I'm bored.
that said, I DID enjoy playing the first EverQuest, I loved Star Wars galaxies. City of Heroes was fun too. Lord of the Rings was fun too... but THAT was a game we tried to play as a group.... and work schedules got in the way. DDO was 'ok'... but we didn't keep that going long...
If people want to form long standing super guild/kingdoms... and they want to build economies and worlds... I'm all for it. More power to them. THat should have a place in games like this.
But there should ALSO be some easy things to do that casual players can log on and have some fun too. Not every quest should need a guild. I enjoy logging on running a few quests, chatting with people in a tavern (in character of course...) and having a good time.
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
I just realized that you probably are the kind of player that I described in my post just before yours and if so, I can only hope that PFO will not appeal to you (no insult intended, I think these kinds of games are simply not for you).I think these kinds of games should be fun for EVERYONE. I have a friend who quite simply disappeared for the first 4 days after every new EQ expansion came out... When Star Wars galaxy came out it was closer to a week... City of Heroes same thing... and He's looking forward to the new Knights of the old Republic MMO now... REALLy looking forward to it... (Hope his wife feeds the kids that week...)
Personally, if people want to spend THAT much time devoted to a video game... that's their decision. I don't want to do that. I have work... i have a life away from the computer.
I have friends who have canceled actually sitting at a table to play a REGULAR game with friends in person... because of a 'raid'.
I refuse to be THAT drawn into a game. Real people come first. Video games are for when I'm bored.
that said, I DID enjoy playing the first EverQuest, I loved Star Wars galaxies. City of Heroes was fun too. Lord of the Rings was fun too... but THAT was a game we tried to play as a group.... and work schedules got in the way. DDO was 'ok'... but we didn't keep that going long...
If people want to form long standing super guild/kingdoms... and they want to build economies and worlds... I'm all for it. More power to them. THat should have a place in games like this.
But there should ALSO be some easy things to do that casual players can log on and have some fun too. Not every quest should need a guild. I enjoy logging on running a few quests, chatting with people in a tavern (in character of course...) and having a good time.
I wholeheartedly agree mate. I would like to hope that the "themepark elements" from the FAQ pertain to the casual crowd that log in and do a quick 30minute dungeon. It doesn't even have to be a group dungeon. Just something traditional, claustrophobic and full of traps and goblins.
I will undoubtedly range from spending 30 minutes online to 8 hours online depending on real life commitments and time management. So it's always good to have something you can just jump into and have fun without being a major time sink. Of course I wouldn't expect a 30minute dungeon to be overly rewarding either, but I would be doing it for fun which is reward enough if the dungeon has traps and plenty of things to get lost with.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My point was more along the lines of 'Why would I loot this guy, if the best I can get from him may be a Masterwork weapon, but more likely a just a few copper.' If the goal is to play some kind of bandit or something (the only reason I can justify PK and looting...) Then your going to go after the ones that are worth your time.
If weaker characters give out awesome rare components that you've been looking for.... then killing them is an excellent plan.
if someone has to be 'close' to your level to give you 'ok' stuff and equal or higher then you to give you rare or special stuff... then it should work itself out.
Which is kind of the way the loot drop system USUALLY works. It's rare to see the level 20 characters still camping goblins and kobalds because the loot and xp is so negligable that it isn't worth their time.
Just treat ALL characters the same as 'npcs' when determining loot/xp. The stuff doesn't have to come right from the victims inventory.
You seem to be mixing general PKers and griefers. Griefers kill for fun, to mess with other peoples days etc... They could care less if there is any reward beyond that. WoW is the game I have seen more griefing on then liniage, eve and pardus combined, and there is no reward whatsoever for killing someone. In fact when the high levels are killing lowbies it hurts their pvp records.
You are talking about them being more experienced. Yes they are more experienced then the person they killed, but these types of people tend to have few friends watching their backs. Usually natures of kingdoms etc... You kill on their land, the absolute most experienced players reign down with vengance, in large organized groups of high leveled players with the intention to send the message that this will not be tolerated on their land or to their people. Assuming you make the cost of dying once, greater then the reward of killing 10 people, regardless of level, and you stack the penelty so that it hurts worse the higher level you are (Pretty easy to do, make it percentage based the higher you are the more you have to lose, a new player that's a few minutes work to recoup, someone 6 months in, could take a week), and now the issue is reduced from someone rushing in to kill as many as he can twice a day, to someone sneaking in, killing one, then running like a bat out of hell, and not risking being seen in that area for weeks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
An easy solution is that if you are killed by a Player, rather than an NPC, you lose X-amount of gold and your items take Y-amount of damage, plus whatever other problems 'Death' causes in PFO, you can hire a PC bounty hunter to deal with the miscreant.
This is expensive. But it will get the job done. Eventually. You can even hire bounty hunters for other players (that you yourself have not killed).
Say, Player A is a level 3 PC, and is killed by a level 7 Rival PC, whom we'll call Player B(astard). Player A manages to drag himself back to an allied base-camp, gets patched up and limps back to a town. There, he puts down a suitable payment on a message board. 'Player B(astard) attacked and nearly killed my near the Dryad's Grotto near the <Reverent Legion>'s base-camp. Bounty of 70 gold to anyone who kills him for me.'
Griefers and 'Bandit Clans' (EVE Players will know the type I am talking about) can still do their thing, but not only are Players out looking for revenge and revenge-looting, but other, higher level PCs are hunting them for Profit as well. A 10-man band of level 7 PCs is tough for people in a level 1-5 region to handle. A four-man team of level 15's can read the notice-board, take the Contract, kill the Bandits, take their stuff AND get paid for it.
************************************************************************
Again, I hope that Goblinworks will NOT allow our hard-earned stuff to be pinched. Or rather, we lose X-amount of Gold and XP and Item Durability and the 'winner' gets Y-amount of Gold and XP and Random Items (non-magical perhaps until the 'prey' gets to a decent level to avoid farming of lowbies)
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
If Goblinworks does end up using full or partial looting I doubt their itemization would be overly powerful that getting killed/looted would make too big a deal. I am actually in favor of looting because it means craftsman will always have work to replace the gear. I'm hoping there is item decay as well and that craftsman can repair damaged items. If craftsmen are needed, then harvesters are needed to ensure a healthy supply of raw materials. If harvesters are needed, then bandits and player killers have targets, and if bandits have targets then bounty hunters have targets. If all of this happens evenly you have a nice healthy balanced ecosystem.
If player killers are rewarded from a RNG loot table, then it will only destabilize the economy by injecting items into it. If nobody loses items, then crafters have nothing to craft. If craftsman have nothing to craft, harvesters have no need to harvest. If harvesters don't harvest, bandits have nothing to steal, bounty hunters have nothing to hunt and everyone complains about not having anything to do.
I'd rather have fun "doing nothing" than getting killed, then having to run and cry for a craftsman to get me a new armor set and weapon, only to lose it again the moment I step out in the open a second time. Either I run out of money and have to sit in the town naked while trolls come to laugh at me, or then I run out of patience and just ragequit the entire game by that part.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd rather have fun "doing nothing" than getting killed, then having to run and cry for a craftsman to get me a new armor set and weapon, only to lose it again the moment I step out in the open a second time. Either I run out of money and have to sit in the town naked while trolls come to laugh at me, or then I run out of patience and just ragequit the entire game by that part.
So you'd rather play a game in which gear is easily acquired and where you can operate in relatively safety?
I think you've just described Pathfinder Online! Just because open pvp and loot systems are mentioned, it does not mean a thing my friend.
Eve Online has open PvP and player looting (not to mention the fact people can destroy your ship), yet gear is readily available and you can play the game in almost it's entirety without ever having to risk your ship or your possessions to other players. Commodities only available in dangerous areas can be as dangerous as acquiring them or as easy as buying them.
The dangerous elements needn't concern you, yet removing them would destroy fundamental aspects of the game and so many playstyles and roles.
I think some are being a little greedy. Goblinworks are not going to make a free for all like Ultima Online. Relax.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personally what I think would be a fair death penalty. All skills reduced by 1%, or during a declared war between nations, this is reduced to .5% or even .1-ish (IMO crafting or other skills that cannot be used for combat may be exempt from this penalty, but all combat skills should take a hit), in addition to all equipped items taking notable damage and thus needing to be repaired.
At first you are thinking, 1%-.1% sounds like nothing, but I'm talking of everything you have earned from day 1. Newbie who's been playing for 2-3 days, has no idea on the risks of the game etc... he has say 50 skill points in swordfighting, he dies he now has 49.5. A loss of .5 he makes it back in a few minutes of training. A veteran who has been playing 6 months, has a swordfighting skill of 1500 kills the newbie, lets even say he gains what the newbie loses. he now has 1500.5 sword fighting. Newbies nation catches wind of the news, sends in a team and kills the griefer. Griefer loses 1% which for him would be 150, nothing to sneeze at for anyone, especially at his level
Basically the system greatly encourages people to play it smart, it not only makes killing a newbie a waste of time, but it also puts a death penalty that is negligible for a beginner (so it will not scare them off of the game), but at the same time it is very harsh for those who know what they are doing and are capable of planning it out.
A war reduction to this penalty I believe will allow for quality battles, while not being costless (war is hell, and it should feel like hell, it should be a continual painful bane on both sides, until one side just can't take it anymore, and yields whatever they were fighting over)