No, they're exactly not that. They aren't called "Non-player characters" for no reason.
They're not the opposition. They're a challenge. It's a significant difference in RPGs, because they are created/controlled by the GM to be a challenge. They're there for the express purpose of challenging you, not to win.
It seems you and I have an irreconcilable difference in regards to gaming philosophy my friend. In my games, 'non-player characters' are just that, characters who just so happen to not have a player. Michael of the city watch, along with his wife Shaina and their daughter Elaine are every bit as 'real' as the PC's.
When NPC's happen to fight the PC's, make no mistake, it is to win. They have goals, dreams, and purpose riding on the outcome of the fight (not to mention not dying) and they're going to fight tooth and toenail to come out on top, aka they play to win. (Note I say they, being the NPC's, not myself as GM. I'm just here to neutrally run the world and let the party interact with it.)
Sure the PC's have the advantage 95% of the time (though that varies from cakewalk to near-even match) but the NPC's aren't just there to be a roadblock. They're living breathing parts of an interactive world, just like the PC's.
There's a reason I don't use a GM screen to hide my rolls :P
The only problem I see right now is that you are sort of assuming everyone plays D&D the same way you do. It's more or less locked into most players' and GM's minds that the NPCs are "less" than the PCs, and that's sort of a given in MMO games even more than at the table. Don't get me wrong, though, I feel frustrated when my NPCs are treated as objects instead of actual characters, but it just makes playing with some groups less of a pain.
Anyway, I agree with Kae Yoss concerning the attitude of players in Online Multiplayer games (nothing positive to say about it), as I myself saw some pretty crazy s*** being pulled off in Warhammer Space Marines in an online match yesterday. Everyone had a horrid ping and made use of the devastating lag to kill off players who didn't lag (my pal had to ragequit after an opponent he fired at suddenly disappeared, then reappeared and killed him...for the fifth time in that round).
Goblin Squad Member
|
Diego Rossi both examples you present with thugs waiting to waylay PCs I find very unattractive. I would probably not want to play Pathfinder Online if such conditions existed on the game.
I play EVE. Sadly the developers though, when they created the universe map, that it would be important to implement choke points to force interaction. Maybe it was a valid strategy when the game was new and there were 5.000 players in all. Now you have 50.000 accounts logged at any time of the day and the choke points are prime hunting ground for player killers.
Some of them are infamous for the quantity of player killers that set up camp there to kill new players when the autopilot suggest to use that route. More experience pilot simply say the autopilot "always avoid XX system".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Elyas- I get where you're coming from, really, I do, but there's something here that (I believe, though of course I could be mistaken) you're missing.When you're playing D&D with a GM, and some people, be they bandits, or agents from an enemy country/faction, or other adventurers with opposing goals of your own are the opposition, who do you think those people are? They're the 'other players' in the game. You're competing against them for something, be that resources, rewards, or your very life.
Unless you regularly play with a GM whose goal is to screw you, no, it is not player vs player. It is player vs environment. Same thing for a computer game. Unless the goal of the developers of the game is to killl the players they operate like a normal GM.
A normal GM don't create routinely up asymmetrical confrontations for the fun of seeing other player suffer, Players in MMORPG where PvP is not heavily regulated do that.
That's not really what Kyrt was getting at, Diego. He was talking more on the characterization of the NPCs for the sake of actual immersion. I can tell how annoyed he would be with my group, who just can't help metagaming at times. Then again, I'm surprised by how little metagaming happened yesterday in the 4e campaign we just started, even though one of the main metagame offenders is now the DM.
That's not really what Kyrt was getting at, Diego...
Maybe not but ill be willing to bet that unlike the table top i can't bluff diplomacy or intimidate online bandits away since they would have the same protection a table top pc has.
Some of us want pvp just not a walking down the street jumped from the shadows kind. Even if they can't loot me doesnt mean they can't get what they want.
Lets say I'm a blacksmith who makes really good swords a group of guys orders some but instead of paying kill me. Now they can't loot me but everytime i turn around they are kicking my butt and telling me it stops when they get their swords. Worst part is its not griefing its roleplaying thugs and might not even be against the games rules.
I actually agree that I wouldn't play PFO if it came to my blacksmith getting his face stabbed until he gives up the damned swords. Hell, for all the complaints I see around here about World of Warcraft, I'm proud to admit that I HAD FUN PLAYING THE DAMNED GAME UP UNTIL CATACLYSM. And you know what I never liked? PvP servers!! I always played either on PvE or RP servers. If I wanted PvP, I went to Battlegrounds. My friend played at a PvP server, and all that did was turn her even more cynical than before.
And yeah, no matter what anyone here says (RP reasons or otherwise), that one thing with the blacksmith would still be griefing. It's like the player-killer at the table who justified killing his part just because he was an elf, and they were humans, and he didn't happen to like humans.
I actually agree that I wouldn't play PFO if it came to my blacksmith getting his face stabbed until he gives up the damned swords. Hell, for all the complaints I see around here about World of Warcraft, I'm proud to admit that I HAD FUN PLAYING THE DAMNED GAME UP UNTIL CATACLYSM. And you know what I never liked? PvP servers!! I always played either on PvE or RP servers. If I wanted PvP, I went to Battlegrounds. My friend played at a PvP server, and all that did was turn her even more cynical than before.
My kind of person you are sir. WOW is trying to drag me back in with Panda's Monks and Item Reskinning. PFO needs to hurry lol.
Funny that you say that, when I myself find the Pandaren unneeded. They were an Easter Egg in Warcraft III, so why the hell did THEY have to be the new thing to show up? Then again, WoW just might win me back if they actually upped the challenge in the raids and started to kick the more stupid players in the face. I played since Vanilla, and it only really started to stagnate for me near the end of WotLK...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No, they're exactly not that. They aren't called "Non-player characters" for no reason.
They're not the opposition. They're a challenge. It's a significant difference in RPGs, because they are created/controlled by the GM to be a challenge. They're there for the express purpose of challenging you, not to win.
It seems you and I have an irreconcilable difference in regards to gaming philosophy my friend. In my games, 'non-player characters' are just that, characters who just so happen to not have a player. Michael of the city watch, along with his wife Shaina and their daughter Elaine are every bit as 'real' as the PC's.
When NPC's happen to fight the PC's, make no mistake, it is to win. They have goals, dreams, and purpose riding on the outcome of the fight (not to mention not dying) and they're going to fight tooth and toenail to come out on top, aka they play to win. (Note I say they, being the NPC's, not myself as GM. I'm just here to neutrally run the world and let the party interact with it.)
Sure the PC's have the advantage 95% of the time (though that varies from cakewalk to near-even match) but the NPC's aren't just there to be a roadblock. They're living breathing parts of an interactive world, just like the PC's.
There's a reason I don't use a GM screen to hide my rolls :P
Your characters lose far more often than the players do though, right?
I think the difference is ethical and a matter of the metagame, there isn't anyone tearing their hair out due to lagging, dying and losing a months work of character development when your players kill an Orc chieftain in your home game. You created that character likely expecting him to be wiped out and looted.
I would guess very few players are shooting to be th BBEG who ultimately gets surrounded and smashed to a pulp by a well rehearsed gang of heroes.
Actually, you're talking to a guy who's players have been subject to some pretty disturbing stuff in his games (then again, they were okay with it, or so I've heard). If I recall right, he as much expects the NPCs to achieve whatever goals they have as he expects the players to do so.
In general I hate PvP when I'm not choosing it. I'm a little worried about this whole thing, PFO, ending up as PvP everywhere.
But I can also see that for this sandboxy thing to work, you need to be able to do some hostile take-overs, or some such. If you then incorporated some sort of code of conduct, i.e. an official declaration of war or some such, before you went ahead and did it, it would be okay I suppose.
You might have a system with bounties. If some players kill other players without "consent" they get a bounty for others to collect. This may be apealing for some to get as high a bounty on their heads as possible, I dunno, I'm just picking things from the top of my head.
I would probably not play a game that had thirteen-year-old bandit-mugger-murderers hiding behind each and every tree, just waiting to spill my bit-blood. I can see that it would encourage that you went out in groups like them there real adventurers from them there stories, but it's not possible to always be able to log on at the same time as your friends. Yeah, you form a guild then... I dunno... I'm not sure what to think here...
...I feel like getting angry about the fact that you implied otherwise last time, but I'll let it slide. Your game, your players, none of my concern. (What WOULD get me angry now was someone telling me that their way of playing is the only right one, but nobody here is that stupid, right?)
Anyway, that logic still cannot be readily applied to PFO (or any other MMO for that matter) without some consequences. As some have pointed out how EVE Online and some other games have turned out, there are problems involving non-consensual PvP that PFO would somehow need to overcome and succeed in something where all the games before it have failed. And being as cynical as I am, I don't see that really happening.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm actually not sure the split universes idea is going to be plausible in pathfinder for 2 reasons. Assuming goblinworks team actually has an idea to make PVP not suck and not be a mass PK mess for the players, it will involve making it a core mechanic the game works with. Which would mean more or less, that either they are releasing 2 drastically different games, and having to split all developer resources between them, or they are releasing a game with 2 servers, in which one of them just flat out won't work.
For those talking about worrying about your blacksmith getting stabbed in the face and robbed. Even the scraps that Ryan has implied about the game, pretty much show that isn't going to be possible. He's more or less shown the idea of tiers of safety. In a town, that will be a 99.99% safe zone. IE anyone attempting to PK or harm someone in the town, will be unlikely to pull anything off before the guards jump him he is flagged as a criminal and instantly attacked by dozens of strong NPCs in addition to pretty much any PC in the city, and he will be guaranteed to lose far more then what he gains in any circumstance, Areas near a town will be Low risk areas, as in anyone attempting to PK there will have an 90% chance of getting crushed, as getting killed in that area will immediately warn all members of the players kingdom (or possibly just whatever kingdoms turf he is in, Ryan also implied something of a fast travel option to allow them to get to the scene of the crime quickly).
Basically what these 2 mean is that your non-combat blacksmith, will more or less be absolutely safe when in town, and in minimal danger when traveling between towns (though he could hire an escort if he is carrying excessively valuable things).
Now on the other hand, wilderness is where things can go bad, and I think this is where there will be a challenge. These areas I have a feeling they are intending for kingdoms to be able to control some of the resources from them, which will likely create monopolies etc... I don't think these exclusive nodes are going to be the sole way to get things, but most likely the highest efficiency. In a non PVP world these spots would wind up first come first serve. Ownership will never change. Can't go to war for them because the group that has the advantage, would have no reason to agree to a war. In a PVP world this would be a regular source of conflict, but for the people who aren't interested in combat, they would likely stay clear of the contested areas and the deep wilderness.
The issue with 2 seperate worlds is not "well if you make a non-pvp world then it wouldn't effect the world of both. Just dosn't work, the game either needs the core concept of the game to expect pvp, or not expect PVP. If it tries to accommodate both, well then you wind up with WoW's PVP servers that are more or less just mindless gank fests with no political consequences.
TL:DR having a PVP and PVE server will not work, Either the game needs to be built with PVP in mind at the core in which case it will fail without PVP, or it needs to be written without PVP in the core, in which case PVP will be pointless.
Now on the other hand, wilderness is where things can go bad, and I think this is where there will be a challenge.
Wilderness is kinda where guys like miners have to go to get ore for the blacksmith. So the blacksmith is safe but his ore supply is controlled by the mob now.
You know if they allow looting i see rare gear drops being deadly if you don't trust everyone in your group. lets say the group decides to roll on who gets an item or maybe they bid for it. The loser just bides his time and jumps the winner for it at his convience.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wilderness is kinda where guys like miners have to go to get ore for the blacksmith. So the blacksmith is safe but his ore supply is controlled by the mob now.
Now on the other hand, wilderness is where things can go bad, and I think this is where there will be a challenge.
Not necessarily, Quite a few were suggesting the ideas of the primary collecting being done by the city (NPCs), or the idea of the players of the city establishing mines etc... that gather similar to an RTS, and then can be bought from the city's supplies. Also you have to keep in mind economies are not made by one person doing everything, In real life or even in pathfinder campaign settings, how often is the grunt in the mine, and the guy who's in town square with a hammer and anvil the same person? The idea of distribution of labor, should involve people doing the part they enjoy and are prepared for.
Secondly I've never implied that there wouldn't be resources in the "low risk areas in the borders of the town, Perhaps not in as high quanities as in the wilderness,
Personally I would like to see gathering itself done by NPCs, The amount of area the town secures will increase the rate, and lower the prices, for the crafters to be able to purchase and work with the materials. The absolute best gear, should involve things that are very hard to get, and involve extreme amounts of danger (say scales from a dragon, or something), The crafter could be expected to buy the items from a professional hunter (assuming that they actually arrange it so that it is hard to be a master of both crafting, and monster hunting as the same character). The value should be marked up for each portion. IE the crafter should be able to have a good profit margin after the cost of the weapon and base materials to be added for his labor and expertise.
You know if they allow looting I see rare gear drops being deadly if you don't trust everyone in your group. Lets say the group decides to roll on who gets an item or maybe they bid for it. The loser just bides his time and jumps the winner for it at his convenience.
You have no idea how many times I've wanted to gut the pig who ninja looted gear that I actually needed in World of Warcraft. If that kind of PvP action were allowed, it would at least get rid of some frustrating situations for some players. I'm still saying that there are more Cons than Pros in nonconsensual PvP, though, and a lot of us can elaborate why (and we've already done so).
Goblinworks Founder
|
You know if they allow looting I see rare gear drops being deadly if you don't trust everyone in your group. Lets say the group decides to roll on who gets an item or maybe they bid for it. The loser just bides his time and jumps the winner for it at his convenience.You have no idea how many times I've wanted to gut the pig who ninja looted gear that I actually needed in World of Warcraft. If that kind of PvP action were allowed, it would at least get rid of some frustrating situations for some players. I'm still saying that there are more Cons than Pros in nonconsensual PvP, though, and a lot of us can elaborate why (and we've already done so).
It was possible to do this in Age of Conan due to the lack of factions and free for all PvP. It was also possible to kill those smart asses that would go out of their way to steal a resource node or quest mob.
Not that I did that sort of thing. For conflicting quests I was more inclined to invite them to group (while in stealth) with a friendly whisper. For resources it would all depend on the mood I was in. Resources had a RNG chance of a random encounter table anyway so attacking another player gathering resources was really no different if you were after the same resource. It was actually quite fun being attacked while gathering. It was always satisfying when someone attacked you and through blind luck and determination you actually won the fight.There was no looting in Age of Conan though, and there was no penalty for failure which in my opinion only empowers the PK more than the regular player.
On a side note, I just wanted to post some of Ryan Dancey's quotes and some stuff from the FAQ in case some people hadn't read it or had but forgot.
I'm not trying to be condescending or aggressive, I am just posting a bunch of stuff that I see as positive toward both sides of the fence and those of us that always inevitably get caught in between.
Will PvP (player-vs.-player aggression) be allowed?Characters will be able to attack rival characters in most parts of the game world. In many circumstances, though, unprovoked aggression may carry severe in-game penalties.
From the game design:
CONFLICT
Non-Consensual PvP
Most areas of the game world will permit one character to attack another. Parties may come into conflict regularly. Characters may take the role of bandits, spies, or advance scouts; they may be opposed by guards, armed merchants, and opposing armies. Some areas held by strong NPC Factions will generate swift and almost certainly deadly response to unprovoked aggression.
Warfare
Occasionally matters will escalate to a state of declared war between Settlements and/or Player Nations. Once war is declared, NPC Factions will cease enforcing the peace and allow the combatants to have at one another without restriction.
Territorial Control
Ultimately, characters will struggle to take and hold territory from other Settlements and Player Nations. Control of rich resources, military strongpoints, trade routes, and other sources of value will drive the players into conflict. The battles for control of territory will feature the largest possible armies using sophisticated tactics, maneuvers, logistics and support to achieve their objectives.
And a bit more:
The law enforcement situation in the River Kingdoms varies depending how far one travels from the more civilized areas and is typically a function of NPC Factions. There are islands of law enforcement in the interior near the NPC Settlements of the River Kings but the lands between are filled with danger.
Consequences
If a character attacks another (assuming the two are not at War), several things happen:
* The attacking character's Alignment may shift
* If the victim dies from the attack, the attacker may be assigned a Bounty
* The attacker will be Flagged as a Criminal
* The members of the victim's Party, Settlement and Player Nation will be alerted to the attack if they are in the same Region and will be able to use Fast Travel to get to the battle site to render assistance quickly
* If the attack takes place in territory protected by a lawful, neutral or good NPC Faction, a team of NPC Marshals will be dispatched to destroy the criminal.The intention of this design is to permit the potential for a player to attack another, but for the consequences of doing so to escalate the closer the attack occurs to territory that enforces laws against murder. At some point the speed of the retribution for such actions should discourage all but the most egregious criminal activity.
Player Settlements, of course, are responsible for enforcing law as they see fit. :)
There will be consequences for your actions.
First, there's no hard & fast definition of "griefing" that will satisfy everyone. For some, any limit to their activities is too restrictive, and to others, any non-consensual interaction is too permissive. Where you fall on that continuum is really a matter of personal choice, not definition.I can tell you that in Pathfinder Online you will be involved in non-consensual interaction with other players on a regular basis.
That is not to say that unlimited poor behavior will be tolerated.
I'm especially concerned with ensuring that new players are able to learn how to play the game, gain some mastery of basic gameplay features, have some fun, and have a great experience without having to worry about someone intentionally ruining it for them by scamming them, killing them, taunting them, or otherwise disrupting their attention which should be focused on dealing with the sensory overload of going into a new virtual world.
I'm secondarily concerned with ensuring that people who choose a low risk / low reward course of play are able to do so without regular interruption by those seeking to gain enjoyment from interfering with them as they go about their business.
You can choose to look at the negatives of these quotes or you can choose to focus on the positive. The initial direction is to include non-consensual PvP in high risk / high reward without excluding players that are only interested in low risk / low reward without being interrupted by PKs.
Unlimited poor behavior will not be tolerated.
Players will be able to learn the game and have some fun without being subjected to anti-social behavior.
This is really an issue that will get worked on later, but at the moment I can say that my opinion is that I'd like to see a 2-factor system like that being used in Skyrim - if you have a magic sword, it's always magic, but if you empower it with some consumable resource, it's even better. I think that solves a lot of problems in an elegant way.And by the way, who said anything about not having full or partial looting?
^ This right here is neither positive or negative. It could be taken either way depending on how the reader interprets it. Well done.
....Now I am sure someone can do exactly what I have done and highlight the negative points in their opinion. I personally prefer to look at the positive and see where I can fit.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, they're exactly not that. They aren't called "Non-player characters" for no reason.
They're not the opposition. They're a challenge. It's a significant difference in RPGs, because they are created/controlled by the GM to be a challenge. They're there for the express purpose of challenging you, not to win.
It seems you and I have an irreconcilable difference in regards to gaming philosophy my friend. In my games, 'non-player characters' are just that, characters who just so happen to not have a player. Michael of the city watch, along with his wife Shaina and their daughter Elaine are every bit as 'real' as the PC's.
When NPC's happen to fight the PC's, make no mistake, it is to win. They have goals, dreams, and purpose riding on the outcome of the fight (not to mention not dying) and they're going to fight tooth and toenail to come out on top, aka they play to win. (Note I say they, being the NPC's, not myself as GM. I'm just here to neutrally run the world and let the party interact with it.)
Sure the PC's have the advantage 95% of the time (though that varies from cakewalk to near-even match) but the NPC's aren't just there to be a roadblock. They're living breathing parts of an interactive world, just like the PC's.
There's a reason I don't use a GM screen to hide my rolls :P
Not even close to relevant, because you ignore the salient part: The GM creates these NPCs to be a challenge. He doesn't create them to win. Unless he's a sociopath who likes griefing people.
If the GM plays to win, he wins. It's that easy. He can just sic a great wyrm red dragon on the 1st-level party.
But he doesn't. He creates challenges that the PCs can overcome. Whether he pretends they're "real" people with lives or just enemies that spawn in front of you isn't really relevant to this part.
And that's the difference. Whether the NPCs try to win the fight or not, the GM doesn't try to win. That's what separates him from other players in a competitive game. Those do try to win. They don't try to create an appropriate challenge for other players. They want to kill them and take their stuff. Not just the characters. The players. The people who are really doing the real thinking in the real world.
A GM might make adjustments to the threat level if one player decided to be focussed on things other than combat. An enemy player will laugh all the louder while he cuts that non-combatant down and then loots the corpse.
These are failures by the game developers for their game mechanics.
Just as failure to put safeguards against unwanted PVP in the game will be the failure of this game's developers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's actually one of the simpler things to implement. In Warcraft there are zones that put you in a mandatory PVP state. On a PVP server those zones are everywhere but your faction's home areas. on a PVE server those are gladiator arenas or battlegrounds. Since its implemented as zone switches on sever configuration, only one code base needs to be maintained.I'm actually not sure the split universes idea is going to be plausible in pathfinder for 2 reasons. Assuming goblinworks team actually has an idea to make PVP not suck and not be a mass PK mess for the players, it will involve making it a core mechanic the game works with. Which would mean more or less, that either they are releasing 2 drastically different games, and having to split all developer resources between them, or they are releasing a game with 2 servers, in which one of them just flat out won't work.
I was not talking about the code of enabling or disabling PVP, I was talkign about the raw mechanics of the game itself. If the game is based on PVP ideas, then they would have things like a city can claim a mine that is half way between it and it's neighbor. On a PVP server it's neighbor might think it should be there's and a war be fought for it. On a PVE server what happens? The side without challenges the city with to a war, and they say no, because well they have nothing to gain and much to lose, so it stays at a permanent first come first serve situation?
A PVP server that actually works as actual political issues, requires actual issues of conflict, otherwise it is just stupid ganking, in which case PVP should be scrapped altogether. If there are issues to be in conflict about, how do they get resolved in a PVE environment?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It seems you and I have an irreconcilable difference in regards to gaming philosophy my friend. In my games, 'non-player characters' are just that, characters who just so happen to not have a player. Michael of the city watch, along with his wife Shaina and their daughter Elaine are every bit as 'real' as the PC's.
I completely agree that NPCs are "real" in the terms of imagining and roleplaying. and Most of us who are against non-consensual PVP are not missing the point you were making.
And I doubt very much Kae Yoss sees any NPC challenge as ONLY a piece of paper w/ numbers on it - I know I don't.
But what I think you're missing is that in a Table Top version of D&D or other RPG, USUALLY it's not a GM vs Players mentality. Sure those NPCs are against the PCs, but:
In 3rd edition (which is what Pathfinder RPG is ultimately designed around), the foundation for encounters is based off a Challenge Rating and a core understanding that an Equal CR to APL of the PCs means a use of 25% of resources and by the 4th such encounter you should exhausted most to all of your resources for the day.
By the very nature of this system, it implies that the PCs are suppose to 'win' albeit using some of their daily resources.
A GM vs players mentality (In D&D/PFRPG) is asinine concept because the GM will always win - he has unlimited resources.
Thus the "Other guys" that you mention are there to be interacted with, be challenged by, but in most conventional games, the Players are suppose to win or at least survive. This it he basis of D&D since its inception. Its good vs evil, fellowships are suppose to be heroes against villains and ultimately be triumphant.
A GM whose goal is to kill players whenever he wants to, usually finds himself with an ever decreasing player base. It's a stacked conflict and most people aren't interested in taking part with a GM who is out to kill player characters.
Yes the role of GM is narrator and arbiter and to roleplay the NPCs according to their true personalities etc, but the game design is there to help ensure players succeed most of the time (provided the players are playing and behaving in accordance with societal norms - and not say - hunting a Tarrasque at 1st level or deciding to attack the king while at a royal ball and not expect to get overpowered by all the guards etc).
In an MMO w/o such neutral arbitration and mentality of players being meant to win, and the "other guys" are other players, this balance, and any semblance of what the core concept of most RPGs goes out the window. So yes I get it and Kae Yoss gets it and the other person you addressed gets it.
Player vs Player in an MMO is NOT the same thing as a DM neutrally playing NPCs that are written into a module to challenge the PCs - even if you roleplay them to the T with accents, made-up language gibberish, wearing funny hats to portray them, playing mood music, mood lighting, or whatever other gimmicks GMs use to really make the NPC feel alive; they're still just meant as 1 of 4 challenges meant to overcome on this adventuring day.
And saying you don't play PF this way (4 daily encounter model) does not change the fact that the very design is based on that concept.
Robert
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You present your case pretty well Robert, and I can definitely understand what you're saying. I guess I'm the odd one out when I say I'm looking forward to my preferred Pathfinder Online precisely BECAUSE the 'other guys' have their own people behind them, as opposed to an AI or GM. For me personally, it offers a lot more depth than the alternative (just my perspective of course.)
And there isn't anything wrong about wanting that. The issue is with everybody having to play like that. I don't mind you playing the game your way, but I'd like to be able to opt out of the PvP and play co-cooperatively. I'm just not a competitive person, and I play video games for the escapism, not the realism. I don't want the depth of being able to get into a fight with anyone any time. If PFO had two servers, both of which got plenty of attention from the devs, and one was the non-consensual PvP you want and approached it in a fun manner and the other was co-operative questing and exploring, we could both have our fun.
And there isn't anything wrong about wanting that. The issue is with everybody having to play like that. I don't mind you playing the game your way, but I'd like to be able to opt out of the PvP and play co-cooperatively. I'm just not a competitive person, and I play video games for the escapism, not the realism. I don't want the depth of being able to get into a fight with anyone any time. If PFO had two servers, both of which got plenty of attention from the devs, and one was the non-consensual PvP you want and approached it in a fun manner and the other was co-operative questing and exploring, we could both have our fun.
+1 :)
Thank you kurt, KY & Kelsey.
Another point, please take what I have heard about the newly-released DC Online game. (From another I admit, My poor current PC will not even attempt to run that game!) ;P
This game has been out, what, 2+ weeks? And already the only things I hear about are 1) how much fun PC creation is, and 2) How no one can get anywhere because of all of the high-level 'heroes' that gang up and gank you at the entrance to a low-level quest spot. :P
This does not bode well for uncontrolled PVP in ANY game, IMHO.
Especially for those of us who, like Fakey, have a job, wife, kids, etc. And just want to take an hour after the kids are in bed to relax and explore, and maybe kill a few goblins who deserve it. :) If we cannot enjoy our limited time on the game, because we keep getting jumped by dweebs (of any age) who have far too much time on their hands, we will simply find another game to spend our limited time in.
And this would be a shame, because I, like most of you, have enjoyed being a part of the creation of this world from the beginning. I would love to explore the behemoth that has become Golarion. Even if I only get to explore one little bit at a time. :D
As above posters have said, If YOU enjoy such 'intense' interaction, you be my guest! But PLEASE leave me out of it! Even CoH/CoV, which also has full PvP, is limited to certain zones. It makes crossing those zones a pain at times, depending on how busy they are, but once you cross them, you can continue on with your quest without fear.
I personally do not see why the content the developers have proposed (reposted above) cannot exist only in certain zones. Have a free-for all area that one team or another can control. Have several. But once we cross that zone, we can stop worrying about it and get on with our game. :)
Sorry so long winded, but due to personal experiences and those of my friends, I am firmly in the camp of NO PvP without consent.
~Rags
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That is what I see as crazy. Why alienate potential subscribers? I am not a business person or even business minded, but I imagine catering to all styles of gaming is better than alienating a bunch of people from the beginning.
Alright, it will cost time and money to develop, but I imagine PFO would benefit from allowing Player A a way of avoiding PvP while allowing Player B to revel in it. Objectives and rewards in the game should cater for either style of play.
I believe a valid answer to your question is:
Why a company would potentially alienate that group of potential players is because they realize they are not going to be able to compete - either because they can't do it better, or that the other options in the market already have too many die-hard fan-boys that won't switch regardless.
In other words, if they create the same product and put it on the market advertising it as just another MMO that does the exact same thing of so many others - and you're not confident that it won't WOW (pun intended) the audience and attract away from what they're spent their time/money on developing of their characters/accounts, then it's bound to fail or squander in mediocrity at best.
I see the developers' point that this is an area/market that is far less saturated and would prove to be much easier to "corner" on.
It would attract die-hard Pathfinder players, and it would attract die-hard MMOers that are looking for something 'different' or something better than what is already out there that does this.
On the other hand, like many others, I love the idea of being able to virutually tour and adventure in Golarion - a world that I have spent countless hours imagining, playing in w/ tabletop RPGing, and reading about and investing lots of money on supplements of it; and has the potential of being disappointing if we cant take the virtual tour if the game is designed to be too competitive for the average casual gamer (such as myself.)
Luckily I and others have Lord of the Rings online that is safe to do the casual gaming, and it's amazing virtually touring the imagination brain-child of the greatest fantasy author of all time.
Robert
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have a problem with a non consensual PvP system, what I have a problem is lack on consequence. Because you 'respawn' what does it matter if you kill some poor low leveler in a murdering spree in a city? Say we have a mechanism that makes the guards attack and kill the offending player, so what? Off to the graveyard, respawn, and if they are still feeling 'annoying' go back and ruin that or another players game - rinse and repeat. The only way I can see this working is if a player 'griefing' is caught PvP in 'lawful' areas that they are 'arrested' and perhaps not able to use that character for <insert real time sentence here> (a day, a week, a month?). Perhaps in some cities the penalty for murder is death (i.e. the character is deleted)?
Without consequence non consensual PvP will be plagued by the lowest denominator.
S.
I don't have a problem with a non consensual PvP system, what I have a problem is lack on consequence. Because you 'respawn' what does it matter if you kill some poor low leveler in a murdering spree in a city? Say we have a mechanism that makes the guards attack and kill the offending player, so what? Of to the graveyard, respawn, and if they are still feeling 'annoying' go back and ruin that or another players game - rinse and repeat. The only way I can see this working is if a player 'griefing' is caught PvP in 'lawful' areas that they are 'arrested' and perhaps not able to use that character for <insert real time sentence here> (a day, a week, a month?). Perhaps in some cities the penalty for murder is death (i.e. the character is deleted)?
Heh. Heheh,... While I for one would actually love to see this established, I feel all it would probably do is cause a chorus of gripes by the PK'ers that it was unfair, as the PC they killed weren't deleted. ;P
Without consequence non consensual PvP will be plagued by the lowest denominator.S.
Agreed. Sad, but it already been proven true.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
+1 :)
Thank you kurt, KY & Kelsey.
Another point, please take what I have heard about the newly-released DC Online game. (From another I admit, My poor current PC will not even attempt to run that game!) ;P
This game has been out, what, 2+ weeks? And already the only things I hear about are 1) how much fun PC creation is, and 2) How no one can get anywhere because of all of the high-level 'heroes' that gang up and gank you at the entrance to a low-level quest spot. :P
This does not bode well for uncontrolled PVP in ANY game, IMHO.
Again I have to say, a few games doing PVP terribly does not mean the system cannot work. At least if we can go by what Ryan has said his intentions are, Someone initiating PVP near towns is almost certain to die almost imidiately based on every description he has had of the concept, and he has made it clear that he was aware of the fact that the game needed to have a way to play wtihout engaging in regular PVP
I'm secondarily concerned with ensuring that people who choose a low risk / low reward course of play are able to do so without regular interruption by those seeking to gain enjoyment from interfering with them as they go about their business.What I want is for people to clearly know that the more risk they accept, the higher the rewards they may be able to achieve, and to be able to assess the risk of the area they are in and the actions they are taking with reasonable ease. Nobody should be surprised to discover they're in a PvP free-for-all subject to being attacked by hordes of well-prepared opponents. On the other hand, it should be clear to those same players that if they really want to find those super-rare resources, or track down that really tough monster, or explore beyond a border claimed and patrolled by hostile forces, that they're accepting the risk that entails.
Players should be able to operate in an area of risk/reward that makes them feel most comfortable.
I know pvp is a hot topic and an area where things have the most potential to go wrong, but I think this subject needs to rest until we have more information. I'd say the dev's are more then aware of the controversy, as well we've hit about 500 posts on this subject divided between the 4 threads about this subject. One of the threads was started by Ryan to try and clear up some of the panic (apparently fairly unsuccessfully. The bottom line is we won't know for a while. Mainly because everything is relative. How low risk is low risk, and how low reward is low reward. Well since we don't even know what the systems will be for leveling and getting gear, we know even less of what items are worth or how bad losing anything is, or how active guards are, or how well patrolled a safeish zone will be, etc...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For those talking about worrying about your blacksmith getting stabbed in the face and robbed. Even the scraps that Ryan has implied about the game, pretty much show that isn't going to be possible. He's more or less shown the idea of tiers of safety. In a town, that will be a 99.99% safe zone. IE anyone attempting to PK or harm someone in the town, will be unlikely to pull anything off before the guards jump him he is flagged as a criminal and instantly attacked by dozens of strong NPCs in addition to pretty much any PC in the city, and he will be guaranteed to lose far more then what he gains in any circumstance, Areas near a town will be Low risk areas, as in anyone attempting to PK there will have an 90% chance of getting crushed, as getting killed in that area will immediately warn all members of the players kingdom (or possibly just whatever kingdoms turf he is in, Ryan also implied something of a fast travel option to allow them to get to the scene of the crime quickly).
Basically what these 2 mean is that your non-combat blacksmith, will more or less be absolutely safe when in town, and in minimal danger when traveling between towns (though he could hire an escort if he is carrying excessively valuable things).
Where are you getting these numbers because I haven't seen anything noting how safe a town would be. I haven't seen any indication of how long it would take for a person to kill a character or how quick the response would be to them attacking another character. Are those situations describing only a single character doing the killing or do they account for a large group of people launching a coordinated attack?
I would even say that the majority of requests asking for PvP options are completely counter to those values of safety.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Where are you getting these numbers because I haven't seen anything noting how safe a town would be. I haven't seen any indication of how long it would take for a person to kill a character or how quick the response would be to them attacking another character. Are those situations describing only a single character doing the killing or do they account for a large group of people launching a coordinated attack?
I would even say that the majority of requests asking for PvP options are completely counter to those values of safety.
ConsequencesIf a character attacks another (assuming the two are not at War), several things happen:
* The attacking character's Alignment may shift
* If the victim dies from the attack, the attacker may be assigned a Bounty
* The attacker will be Flagged as a Criminal
* The members of the victim's Party, Settlement and Player Nation will be alerted to the attack if they are in the same Region and will be able to use Fast Travel to get to the battle site to render assistance quickly
* If the attack takes place in territory protected by a lawful, neutral or good NPC Faction, a team of NPC Marshals will be dispatched to destroy the criminal.The intention of this design is to permit the potential for a player to attack another, but for the consequences of doing so to escalate the closer the attack occurs to territory that enforces laws against murder. At some point the speed of the retribution for such actions should discourage all but the most egregious criminal activity.
Player Settlements, of course, are responsible for enforcing law as they see fit. :)
Perhaps he hasn't given an indication yet of how quickly someone can be killed, but the phrasing as "discourage all but the most egregious criminal activity" seems to imply to me that even considering attacking someone inside the walls of a lawful town, is flat out suicidal and can bring you little to nothing good, even if you manage to successfully kill the target person before your inevitable demise.
It makes me uneasy.
I concede that there maybe some ways to make it enjoyable for me, but I have yet to see one.
I do not like making a new character and getting jumped within a few minutes by camping player-killers. It's just not my idea of a good time.
What happens if a group of high level characters decides to try and kill all of the guards or they are all dead before killing the players through a mob.
I wonder if they are sewers will those not be as safe an area?
Also the safe area should be what the character attacked is in not what the attacker is in otherwise people would snipe from a pvp zone characters in a safe zone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Perhaps he hasn't given an indication yet of how quickly someone can be killed, but the phrasing as "discourage all but the most egregious criminal activity" seems to imply to me that even considering attacking someone inside the walls of a lawful town, is flat out suicidal and can bring you little to nothing good, even if you manage to successfully kill the target person before your inevitable demise.
But the phrasing "discourage all but the most egregious criminal activity" would also indicate that egregious criminal activity wouldn't be stopped by that. The question comes up, what happens with a band of 50 characters attack a lawful town? It is pretty much suicidal and will they lose within minutes of their attack? Or, with enough power, can someone effectively hold a town as long as the group is willing.
If it even remotely possible for them to hold that city, then that 99.9% or 90% safety is going to be meaningless when you are facing an army who just want to ruin fun for other people.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What happens if a group of high level characters decides to try and kill all of the guards or they are all dead before killing the players through a mob.
I wonder if they are sewers will those not be as safe an area?
Also the safe area should be what the character attacked is in not what the attacker is in otherwise people would snipe from a pvp zone characters in a safe zone.
I'd imagine the intention of the guard is to be something that players of any level cannot easily or consistently beat without a full army, they were described as a troop, and there is nothing to say they will limit it to 1 fleet if guards start dropping, also that is forgetting part 2.
* The members of the victim's Party, Settlement and Player Nation will be alerted to the attack if they are in the same Region and will be able to use Fast Travel to get to the battle site to render assistance quickly
The guards should stall long enough for the high level players of that nation to arrive. Now if we are talking large groups of players, then they are inevitably going to be from a rivaling kingdom, which means that would be a full and complete act of war. A kingdom that picks several unprovoked wars, is a kingdom that is about to be ganged up on by every other kingdom until it is a pile of rubble. Unless random unprovoked wars is the norm, and in that case the community is a cesspool and the game is doomed no matter what.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Onishi:
and?
To explain what I mean:
Why I should care if the monk that has killed my crafter get killed by the local police? Especially if his rogue friend get to loot my corpse/shop while I respawn? (and that assume that for me respawning is free of charge).
If I have something valuable enough (like the aforementioned swords I have crafted) it is a total loss for me.
I have a lot of experience with EVE, one of the system cited by Ryan as an example of some of the ideas he want to borrow. 3 days ago they have made a nice Dev blog about PvP and the kills in game in the last 3 years.
The location with the second highest death count is Jita, the major trading hub and high security space (the equivalent of Absalom in Golarion).
The 1st, 3rd, 4th and 9th positions are held by low security systems that border high security space and operate as choke points where traders or new players have the tendency to pass.
With all the mystic in game about "huge battles to control 0.0 (no security) space", the most dangerous locations are in NPC controlled space where there is some level of security or even high security.
Edit:
EVE Concord (the police) is unbeatable. Avoiding them is an exploit and is punished with a ban from the game.
It has not stopped people from ganking in high sec, it only mean the will factor the loss of their ship in the costs of the operations.
That is why I used a monk in my example above. His only losss will eb raising the character, if he even want to raise the character,a s probably a newly created monk (or a few of them) can easily kill a crafter.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Onishi:
and?
To explain what I mean:
Why I should care if the monk that has killed my crafter get killed by the local police? Especially if his rogue friend get to loot my corpse/shop while I respawn? (and that assume that for me respawning is free of charge).
If I have something valuable enough (like the aforementioned swords I have crafted) it is a total loss for me.I have a lot of experience with EVE, one of the system cited by Ryan as an example of some of the ideas he want to borrow. 3 days ago they have made a nice Dev blog about PvP and the kills in game in the last 3 years.
The location with the second highest death count is Jita, the major trading hub and high security space (the equivalent of Absalom in Golarion).
The 1st, 3rd, 4th and 9th positions are held by low security systems that border high security space and operate as choke points where traders or new players have the tendency to pass.
With all the mystic in game about "huge battles to control 0.0 (no security) space", the most dangerous locations are in NPC controlled space where there is some level of security or even high security.Edit:
EVE Concord (the police) is unbeatable. Avoiding them is an exploit and is punished with a ban from the game.
It has not stopped people from ganking in high sec, it only mean the will factor the loss of their ship in the costs of the operations.
That is why I used a monk in my example above. His only losss will eb raising the character, if he even want to raise the caracter,a s probably a newly created monk (or a few of them) can easily kill a crafter.
I highly doubt there will be direct looting of valubles as an option, 2. An unarmed low level monk should not have a reasonable chance at killing a player before his death by the guards, even a merchant who is crafting focused. Personally I am more in favor of a loss for dying = 3x gain for killing. IE lets say if you kill someone and manage to get 100 gold for it, that means they lost 300 gold for dying when factoring in armor repair etc... Basically you have to kill 3 equally valued players, before you are killed just to break even.
Also one other thing, this is going to be more skill based then class based, who says they are going to offer a route for strong attacks and defense while completely un-geared.
I completely agree the idea of killing you and taking all of your stuff, is just too high a reward for any situation of PK, and will lead to mass quantities of trying to figure out how to get away with it. If they were to allow any looting, I still think it should be at best gold only, and a specific amount based on level, rather then overall total. As well I would be in favor of a penelty for death = 1% of your total skill points. This basically makes the penalty negligible for low level players, and extreme for high level players who know what they are getting into. (during declared wars, these should be drastically reduced to .1%, or even .05%.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Thank you all for continuing to share your thoughts .
Kyt Ryder,
“@ Elyas- I get where you're coming from, really, I do, but there's something here that (I believe, though of course I could be mistaken) you're missing.
When you're playing D&D with a GM, and some people, be they bandits, or agents from an enemy country/faction, or other adventurers with opposing goals of your own are the opposition, who do you think those people are? They're the 'other players' in the game. You're competing against them for something, be that resources, rewards, or your very life.
In Pathfinder Online, you'll have plenty of opportunities for cooperative gaming. Guilds and personal alliances and such should abound, and that is where you get your 'party' with whom you cooperate. The rest of the world is simply the environment, from the "npc's" (other characters with whom your team generally doesn't fight, but who may support you in some way, such as goods and services, interaction, or the rare combat assist) to the "enemies" (other characters against whom your team fights.)
That's how I view it anyway my friend. Each character is a character, be they controlled by a person, the GM, or the AI. The only difference is how much 'processing power' they have for decision making and role”
Kyt Ryder, thank you for sharing your thoughts and point of view. I happen to have a different point of view. I think there is a big difference between a Player Character, a Non Player Character controlled by a Human Game Master and a NPC controlled by a program in a computer game, a MMorpg. KaeYoss I think has said what I was planning to say more eloquently.
“No, they're exactly not that. They aren't called "Non-player characters" for no reason.
They're not the opposition. They're a challenge. It's a significant difference in RPGs, because they are created/controlled by the GM to be a challenge. They're there for the express purpose of challenging you, not to win.
Plus, the environment of the average PnP game is perfectly controlled: There is a party that works together and is usually designed to be a functioning group. Not all of them are necessarily ace combatants, but as a group, they can take on the challenges the GM throws at them. They might include a character who has spent skill points and/or feats for character creation, but that generally works out.
Now, in an MMORPG, the opposition is opposition. They're controlled by different players, with no GM around to make sure things are fair. And they play to win.
That makes all the difference in the world.
So you're on with your crafter character, and a bunch of bandits with warrior skills attack you because f&#@ you. You probably have no chance, because you made a crafter character like the game advertised was perfectly doable, with no chance of fighting off the fighters.”
One thing I have noticed, in a Pathfinder or D&D before it, when the GM is running the “opposition” be they monsters with tusks and horns, or monsters clad in human form, the GM, the skilled ones, are managing the monsters to challenge the Player Characters.
When I have seen the “opposition” run by someone other then the GM, another player, they are run to win against the other players.
When I have seen Players go after each other either because of a disagreement (the thief thieving from the party) or if the Player Characters have characters on opposing sides, they go for the jugular, they do their best to put down their opponent as quickly and efficiently as possible.
One other thought I have is this, one of the basic assumptions of the Pathfinder Role Playing game, and 3.5 D&D and its predecessors, was that the player Characters were generally going to be good aligned and play the role of heroes defending those who can’t defend themselves, and righting injustices. These Heroes would often defend the village, and kill the thieving bandits who are terrorizing the area, and take the bandit’s loot.
Now of course this is merely one possible way to play Pathfinder and there are many ways to play the game.
I think that Non consensual PVP changes this dynamic considerably, in my opinion, because my basic assumption, is that people when left to their own devices will resort to “the larges gang rules” and be thugs.
Lazer x
of course there are plenty of people who would like an Eve online type of game. To me, granted because, of what my friends have told me of the game from their experience, Eve has a very poor reputation, that of being a cesspool of sociopathic behavior. I may be wrong, my friends may be wrong.
But of course Paizo will go down the road of making a quality game they feel they can stand behind.
I guess I just think there are some very simple solutions that can work for people on both sides of the “non consensual PVP” divide. One of the simplest solutions would be to have servers available for those who would like an EVE sort of game, and to provide a server for those who do not wish to have “non consensual PVP”. I am merely expressing my opinion and commenting on one “small” thing I would like to see.
But of course Paizo will go down the road of making a quality game they feel they can stand behind. I realize it may not be a game that I like. That is fine. It won’t impact my playing of their role playing game. Either way I wish them success and good luck, and hopefully I will enjoy the game.
I havent had time to get through all of the posts on this thread. again thank you all for your posts, and when i have time ill read through the rest. Im sure there are lots of good thoughts on here. Please keep them coming
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Dieago Rossi, as someone who playes EvE perhaps you can shed some light on something.
I have described EVE as a cesspool of socioathic behavior. I have no direct experience with EVE, only the stories my friends who have palyed EVE have told me.
Am I being unfair and inaacurate with my colorful description of EVE?
Onishi thank you for you thoughtful post. If I understand, you think that a non consentual PVP server, and another server with limits Put on PVP and a non PVP server wont work. And this has to do with the distribution of resources?
Not that WoW is a model for all things, but this is how they handle resource distribution: by time spent. The time spent to level a 85th level character. The time it takes to farm.
All of the regions are tiered by level. The monsters within are also tiered by level. The danger you face is relative to your character’s level compaired to the area level and the monsters within.
Coming from a D&D background I never much like seing kobolts in level 79 areas, where Level is tied to creature type.
The second way to gain access to materiels is through the AH.
So my understanding Onishi, if the resources is only available in a particular area, and with a Non consentual PVP, it is much more risky to optain the resource, because not only do you have to go out there to get it and deal with the monster population, presumably you have to deal with other PCs as well. (other PCs might not bother to mine, but mug the mining pcs to get what they want)
You are saying non pvp wont work because the ownership, will be determeined by first com first serve, and those who arrive first will never leave.
This of course assumes the resource only appears in one spot, If the resources is available throughout an entire region, a non pvp, or consentual PVP model will work because all you will need to do then is navigate the area. Now perhaps Im missing something.
But again thank you for your post.
Ah I have read your second post. Having resources gathered like a Real time Stratagy game…an interesting proposition.
Elth thank you for posting this FAQ it will be very useful to read
Robert Brambly, well said, more concisely then I could have put things
Kelsey Arwen Macalibert, I agree, my thoughts exactly, with two sand boxes, everyone can have fun.
Ragadorf yeah, I agree, if I constantly have to deal with idiots who are intent on simply dumping a fire ball on my 1st level PC because they can, what is the point of the game? It wont be any fun, especially for those who only have an hour or two to play every few days.
Stephen hill, that would be an interesting way of dealing with is it “corpse camping”? I kind of like the idea of locking up and "desintagrating" a character for behaving badly
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can say I am leery. I have zero interest in a game where I need to watch my back the whole time I am playing for other players who gank me for giggles and LULZ.
PFO looks to be not a game I want much to do with so far.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can say I am leery. I have zero interest in a game where I need to watch my back the whole time I am playing for other players who gank me for giggles and LULZ.
PFO looks to be not a game I want much to do with so far.
What is known of the game thus far player safety will be relative to the areas in which he chooses to play. Killing another player will come with a harsh penalty, presumably one which players will not undertake lightly unless you've given someone a good reason to kill you, or he enjoys playerkilling so much that he just can't help himself.
Everything I have heard from Ryan and Mark suggest that the game will not be a kill zone. Modern day themepark games accommodate griefing as there is no mechanic dissuading the griefer to stop corpse camping you, or the player to stop trying to resurrect. Both parties have nothing to lose and they can annoy each other indefinitely forever. If you told me that I could stand in front of a person's car in the road and not move, free from the risk of them beating me up, being arrested, gaining a criminal record or being punished in any single way...why the hell not?
People often forget that everytime you kill a player killer you are griefing him from conducting his playstyle of feeding on the helpless; a well designed open pvp game places far greater risk on the playerkiller than on that of the helpless.
Open pvp and full loot, should it exist in it's fullest incarnation in PFO which it more than likely will not, will have an abundance of rules to control players griefing each other. Simply because these rules have vaguely been used since the early games of the late 90s, it does not mean that they will be implemented as poorly.
Losing your access to towns and cities, being preyed on by bounties, players and NPC hunters in higher security areas; these are the things I anticipate that the griefers and playerkillers will be facing and I don't understand why anyone thinks that they're going to get an easy ride.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So my understanding Onishi, if the resources is only available in a particular area, and with a Non consentual PVP, it is much more risky to optain the resource, because not only do you have to go out there to get it and deal with the monster population, presumably you have to deal with other PCs as well. (other PCs might not bother to mine, but mug the mining pcs to get what they want)
You are saying non pvp wont work because the ownership, will be determeined by first com first serve, and those who arrive first will never leave.
This of course assumes the resource only appears in one spot, If the resources is available throughout an entire region, a non pvp, or consentual PVP model will work because all you will need to do then is navigate the area. Now perhaps Im missing something.
But again thank you for your post.Ah I have read your second post. Having resources gathered like a Real...
Right what I'm saying is the main concept. A PVP game that has meaningful pvp, there has to be something that has to be fought for. If you are fighting for something that can just as easily be obtained elsewhere, well then you aren't really fighting for resources, your just being a jerk for the sake of being a jerk. That is why on WoW and other games designed with PVE at the core, most of the population on the PVP servers are jerks, because that is the only applicable use of world PVP in the game. When there are actually things worth fighting over, land/resources/citizens etc... Then you actually have PVP with a purpose and a meaning.
Too many people are citing PVP games that were designed where the only reason to PVP is for the purpose of being a jerk, and then assuming that everyone who wants PVP only wants it to be a jerk. Actually having something to fight for, and reasons to fight but also reasons to want peace, is what makes a real PVP game with depth. Throwing PVP on top of a PVE game, is what creates the stereotype that all PVP is just for jerks.
Honestly I could care less for the reason. I do not want non consensual PVP of any type. And by the looks of it PFO is gonna be all about PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Honestly I could care less for the reason. I do not want non consensual PVP of any type. And by the looks of it PFO is gonna be all about PvP.
It is going to be as much about killing players as it is killing monsters.
The reason there is an emphasis for PvP at end game is simply because PvP, territorial conflict and power struggles are some of the few things which grant a game longitivity at end game. Whether or not PvP is consensual or not will be to achieve this end game goal and not to create a royal rumble in all aspects of the game. Far from it.
Normal PvE and boss encounters will no doubt be a large feature of the game, not to mention a wealth of non combatant roles and, one hopes, a rich and diverse world where PvP is not the sole centricity.
Read through the CEO & CTO's posts; read through the FAQ. Just because the forum is debating murder and death 24/7, your forgetting that the game is not a reflection of the forums.
The game is based on Pathfinder and Pathfinder is based on killing NPC. Never forget this fact.