| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PvP, if well implemented, can be the life-blood of a good MMO. Nothing will sustain a game longer than the presence of a never-ending battle. Content will wear thin after a time, but battle-lust will never fade.
That said, WoW's implementation of "loss-less" or "risk-less" PvP was an enormous mistake, especially after they herded the better PvP'ers into battlegrounds and arenas. World PvP is a great thing. Wars can pop up overnight and rage for days or weeks. If the concept was codified into the game, with something to be won or lost, the pull would be even greater. The idea is to channel griefing and ganking into a part of the game, turning them instead into assassins and berserkers that must be dealt with.
UO dealt with this by adding bounties and ousting murderers out of city life. And IMO, UO had one of the best PvP systems in gaming history. Turn the guilds into kingdoms, and allow war, politics, and trade to emerge between them.
One final note: If you aren't playing an MMO for large-scale social gaming, please find a single-player RPG more suited to you. UO was ruined by players who wanted a super-safe single player experience where they could farm and do basically nothing, while ignoring the largest portion of the game: other players. I pray PFO will not repeat the mistake of destroying PvP in favor of trying to capture those who want to play Recettear Online.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have read his posts, they all seem to confirm PFO will be all about PvP.Which is a pity, I love the world and was interested, but not if I have to put up with PvP players attacking me when I have no interest in PvP.
The OP asked if anyone was leery, and I am more then leery. The CEO's posts makes me more leery and less likely to play, it does not "put to rest" any consurnes I have. I wish em luck but this is not my type of game based on where it seems to be going.
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
I'm pretty sure that isn't the definition of griefing.
Goblinworks Founder
|
PvP, if well implemented, can be the life-blood of a good MMO. Nothing will sustain a game longer than the presence of a never-ending battle. Content will wear thin after a time, but battle-lust will never fade.
That said, WoW's implementation of "loss-less" or "risk-less" PvP was an enormous mistake, especially after they herded the better PvP'ers into battlegrounds and arenas. World PvP is a great thing. Wars can pop up overnight and rage for days or weeks. If the concept was codified into the game, with something to be won or lost, the pull would be even greater. The idea is to channel griefing and ganking into a part of the game, turning them instead into assassins and berserkers that must be dealt with.
UO dealt with this by adding bounties and ousting murderers out of city life. And IMO, UO had one of the best PvP systems in gaming history. Turn the guilds into kingdoms, and allow war, politics, and trade to emerge between them.
One final note: If you aren't playing an MMO for large-scale social gaming, please find a single-player RPG more suited to you. UO was ruined by players who wanted a super-safe single player experience where they could farm and do basically nothing, while ignoring the largest portion of the game: other players. I pray PFO will not repeat the mistake of destroying PvP in favor of trying to capture those who want to play Recettear Online.
I cannot agree more.
I hope that someone out there actually makes a single player or coop game for Pathfinder as well to be honest. I am definitely looking forward to Pathfinder Online, but I would not hesitate to buy and play a single player coop Pathfinder game if both were available.
@Martin... Nothing will ever be able to truly replicate table top gaming. I would always choose playing PnP with friends, beers and BBQ. It beats working on my nerd-glow tan in front of an LED screen any day.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm pretty sure that isn't the definition of griefing.
A griefer is a player in a multiplayer video game that deliberately irritates and harasses other players.
Are you not a griefer if you grief one who is griefing? Playstyles are subjective.
For every random player killer in a non-consensual PvP game, there exists an equal if not larger number of anti player killers. They are and have been (for the record) far nastier to their respective enemy in my own experiences.
This is arguing for the sake of arguing lol.
People will find a way to grief each other whether an online game is Tetris, Hello Kitty Island Adventure, or Mortal Kombat. PvP is an easy topic but even in strict PvE safe-zone scenarios Someone will make you go "ah... ______ that guy."
People will actively endeavor to make PvE and PvP less fun for you than it is for them. Humans are insane hairless apes, and most of them would stomp on your face at a Who concert before giving it a second thought. Plug them into the internet with an aire of anonymity and poof...e-jerks.
And because of/in spite of that, I love you all...what with all this holiday rum...er....cheer coursing through my veins.
Okay, now to add my 2 coppers to the discussion at hand. Goblinworks could solve all the PvP angst entirely by simply including a check box at character creation "PvP Enabled." Click yes or no. It's a permanent choice for that character. Then we go play alongside everyone else that may or may not have made the same choice we did.
TLDR; I'm for/against it depending on which side you are on and whether or not you want to argue with me. Also...who wants a hug?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
People will find a way to grief each other whether an online game is Tetris, Hello Kitty Island Adventure, or Mortal Kombat. PvP is an easy topic but even in strict PvE safe-zone scenarios Someone will make you go "ah... ______ that guy."
People will actively endeavor to make PvE and PvP less fun for you than it is for them. Humans are insane hairless apes, and most of them would stomp on your face at a Who concert before giving it a second thought. Plug them into the internet with an aire of anonymity and poof...e-jerks.
And because of/in spite of that, I love you all...what with all this holiday rum...er....cheer coursing through my veins.
Okay, now to add my 2 coppers to the discussion at hand. Goblinworks could solve all the PvP angst entirely by simply including a check box at character creation "PvP Enabled." Click yes or no. It's a permanent choice for that character. Then we go play alongside everyone else that may or may not have made the same choice we did.
TLDR; I'm for/against it depending on which side you are on and whether or not you want to argue with me. Also...who wants a hug?
The tick idea will not work unless a PVP disabled character is also exempt from primary function for the kingdom (IE protected resources land etc...) The general idea is IF the game is to have PVP, there MUST be something that needs to be controlled/guarded/managed via PVP, and thus a non-PK player should not be able to access it (as they can't be stopped from accessing them). Now if the dev's were to change their mind and decide they would rather make something without PVP, that I'm also cool with, but that is up to them not me. The general idea however is, a game that mechanically splits PVP and PVE into servers etc... will not work, unless they write 2 different games.
The idea of PVP safe zones, or making it impractical and extremely improbable to be killed in player territory is highly possible. There is a browser game I play called pardus, it is full PVP enabled, I have been playing it for 2 years. In a 2 year timeframe because I had no interest in participating in PVP and stuck to the safeish areas. I have been PKed a total of 2 times in 2 years. Now in the game there are numerous areas of high contest, areas of low security etc... Players out there who have killed and been killed hundreds of times, and their contribution to the story makes the game more interesting for me, even if I have never set foot on a battlefield myself. There are ways to have PVP in a way that it will be practically unnoticeable to people who dislike them, that do not involve gimping the game to where it does not exist for those who do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm pretty sure that isn't the definition of griefing.A griefer is a player in a multiplayer video game that deliberately irritates and harasses other players.
Are you not a griefer if you grief one who is griefing? Playstyles are subjective.
For every random player killer in a non-consensual PvP game, there exists an equal if not larger number of anti player killers. They are and have been (for the record) far nastier to their respective enemy in my own experiences.
This is arguing for the sake of arguing lol.
If you grief a griefer than you are griefer. However, griefing a griefer is different because you aren't harrassing the player at random for no reasonable reason to drive them out (and destroy the game), but because they showed themselves to be a deliberate and active threat to you.
I'm pressing this specifically because there has been a bit of abuse of the term griefer on this forum that would try to make griefers not look as bad or use it to try to describe all players as guilty of "griefing." Griefers are very bad and the worst type of player the game will draw.
One final note: If you aren't playing an MMO for large-scale social gaming, please find a single-player RPG more suited to you. UO was ruined by players who wanted a super-safe single player experience where they could farm and do basically nothing, while ignoring the largest portion of the game: other players. I pray PFO will not repeat the mistake of destroying PvP in favor of trying to capture those who want to play Recettear Online.
I would want to play an MMO for large-scale, social, co-operative gaming.
Just because you like PvP does not mean that is the only reason for wanting to play an MMO, nor is it a license to insult those who do not share your preferred play style.
So, on a final note: Don't tell me what to play because you do not prefer to play in an immersive, cooperative, social, role-playing experience without the ability to murder your fellow players.
I'm pretty sure that isn't the definition of griefing.A griefer is a player in a multiplayer video game that deliberately irritates and harasses other players.
Are you not a griefer if you grief one who is griefing? Playstyles are subjective.
For every random player killer in a non-consensual PvP game, there exists an equal if not larger number of anti player killers. They are and have been (for the record) far nastier to their respective enemy in my own experiences.
This is arguing for the sake of arguing lol.
If you grief a griefer than you are griefer. However, griefing a griefer is different because you aren't harrassing the player at random for no reasonable reason to drive them out (and destroy the game), but because they showed themselves to be a deliberate and active threat to you.
I'm pressing this specifically because there has been a bit of abuse of the term griefer on this forum that would try to make griefers not look as bad or use it to try to describe all players as guilty of "griefing." Griefers are very bad and the worst type of player the game will draw.
This argument has cropped up a few times. It's like a thief suing the police for restricting his freedoms once he's arrested.
It's highly disingenuous and, I believe, stated only for the sake of argument and to frustrate. It's a debate technique, not a discussion technique.
Fixed.
One final note: If you aren't playing an MMO for large-scale social gaming, please find a single-player RPG more suited to you. UO was ruined by players who wanted a super-safe single player experience where they could farm and do basically nothing, while ignoring the largest portion of the game: other players. I pray PFO will not repeat the mistake of destroying PvP in favor of trying to capture those who want to play Recettear Online.
The mistake you are making is assuming large-scale social gaming means PvP. This is simply not the case.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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?
Yes. It's like having an opinion about a movie you've never seen based on what your friends heard about it while waiting in line to buy a ticket.
You COULD try it yourself, as trial accounts are free. Then you'd at least have an opinion like someone who sat through the first 5 minutes of the film.
The biggest issue I have is the idea that of the "Greater risk for greater reward" statment brought up often, it seems to imply that the greatest risk is PvP, therefore if you want to excel you HAVE to PvP. This is the if you don't PvP you are a Carebear mentality, of there being NO risk if PvP isn't involved, and that's just not true. You have just as much to lose losing to the machine as you do to another player. How is it more risky?
Or what about the people that don't want to have to stick to being a crafter or a merchant or stay in town, yet still play the lion's share of the game world. I like risk, and like to push the envelope, so I PvE against tougher things than I'm expected to handle. Why do I have to fight other player's characters to be considered taking risks worth the greater rewards. You are no more risk-taking fighting other players of equal power, than fighting the Monsters/NPC's of equal power.
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
The biggest issue I have is the idea that of the "Greater risk for greater reward" statment brought up often, it seems to imply that the greatest risk is PvP, therefore if you want to excel you HAVE to PvP. This is the if you don't PvP you are a Carebear mentality, of there being NO risk if PvP isn't involved, and that's just not true. You have just as much to lose losing to the machine as you do to another player. How is it more risky?
Or what about the people that don't want to have to stick to being a crafter or a merchant or stay in town, yet still play the lion's share of the game world. I like risk, and like to push the envelope, so I PvE against tougher things than I'm expected to handle. Why do I have to fight other player's characters to be considered taking risks worth the greater rewards. You are no more risk-taking fighting other players of equal power, than fighting the Monsters/NPC's of equal power.
A risk is when you spend 2 years turning a grassy knoll into a thriving metropolis through countless hours of harvesting in hostile territory and protecting your friends and family. One evening you log on to see a message in your interface from a nearby rival clan demanding a tribute of your hard earned resources or they will annihilate your metropolis, two years of hard work could be decimated if you choose to defy them.
How is PvE more risky?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
I have played it from 2006 onward, so my reply is obviously "it is not a cesspool" and "you are unfair and inaccurate" ;-)
Maybe my parameters for the evaluation are unusual as I have played in a low number of other MMORPG and never in WOW.
The main problem in EVE is one of "critical mass", I think. It is a single, permanent, universe played on a single, massive server.
That mean that jerks endure and continue to be a pain and they have a tendency of finding each other, so the problem isn't player XX like to kill players characters (or their ships) for LULZ and maybe gain, but but XX, XY, YX, YY and ZZ like to do that and have banded together to be more efficient at that.
so unless you can gather enough people to defeat 5 of them at the same time you will be on the losing side, and as they specialize in killing people you need a large number of non specialized characters to efficiently fight back.
At the same time this has killed the sportsmanship of the PvPers interested in good fights and not in pure gang killing.
They have learned that the guy that they want to fight one against one has always a gang that will support him, so they don't try to find balanced fights but go for the sure and fast kill.
Market scamming has the same problem. The percentage of people trying it is low, but as they congregate in a few big trading hubs you always see a lot of them, so you get the perception of a large quantity of market scams. Add that people constantly create throw away alts to perpetrate those scams and you get the perception of a huge population of scammers when the number of players actively doing that is way lower.
All said I love the game, especially as it is internet spaceships. It is not so user friendly for people that don't like the adrenaline rush (but I too don't like it) but it is entertaining.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A risk is when you spend 2 years turning a grassy knoll into a thriving metropolis through countless hours of harvesting in hostile territory and protecting your friends and family. One evening you log on to see a message in your interface from a nearby rival clan demanding a tribute of your hard earned resources or they will annihilate your metropolis, two years of hard work could be decimated if you choose to defy them.How is PvE more risky?
In that situation you have (hopefully) the resources to fight back.
The problem is when you have build you first 2 houses on that grassy knoll and the 2 year old adjacent kingdom step in and say: "Pay 505 of all you gain or we will raze your hamlet to the ground"At that point your choices are: abandon what you have done or pay and be sure that you will never amount to anything in game as you aren't even a vassal state, you are only a protection ring target.
Again, it is a problem of critical mass.
If the density of population is low enough that you can find a location where you can set up your little castle and get the time to build it and create a decent sized community before being attacked, good.
If you get the visit of the Mafia emissary while you are doing the first survey of the terrain no good at all.
So, based off Diego's description it sounds like an afterschool free-for-all fight by the bike rack, where in the end the one with the most friends wins. And if you don't make friends with one of the two major cliques, then there is no point in trying to make a stand in the first place?
EDIT: If they are two warring nations, then they are not griefing, and if yu happen to be unwilling to bow down to either of their superiority of mass numbers, then you are just collateral damage in a war which you care nothing about. It could be a good game, and many PvP, or PvEers may enjoy it... I just seriously dn't think the concept actually captures the SPIRIT of Golarion, Pathfinder, or any of the AP's that I appreciate the Paizo name for.
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
In that situation you have (hopefully) the resources to fight back.
The problem is when you have build you first 2 houses on that grassy knoll and the 2 year old adjacent kingdom step in and say: "Pay 505 of all you gain or we will raze your hamlet to the ground"At that point your choices are: abandon what you have done or pay and be sure that you will never amount to anything in game as you aren't even a vassal state, you are only a protection ring target.
Again, it is a problem of critical mass.
If the density of population is low enough that you can find a location where you can set up your little castle and get the time to build it and create a decent sized community before being attacked, good.
If you get the visit of the Mafia emissary while you are doing the first survey of the terrain no good at all.
I am honestly hoping that there might be a system where solo players or small guilds might be able to purchase a plot of land within one of those large scale cities. Say a keep is initially built on claimed land. That land claim might extend for a few miles and could be subdivided into portions that the players can then lease to non-guilded players.
If the non-guilded players do not pay their lease or tax, then the owners of the keep do not need to protect them or they could evict them. Leases would be for the land they build on, and taxes could be to help the keep build more roads and walls and hire NPC guards for off peak times.Coldman created an off topic thread earlier today mentioning that the new Korean MMO Archeage will have a Backpack system for carrying heavy resources. When carrying Ore, Lumber or stone, a back pack appears on the player character and his movement is reduced. This adds an element of strategy when attacking supply lines of large organizations or kingdoms. Wagons, Carts, Ferries and Caravels would be required for carting resources over long distance.
That kind of system demands at least partial activity, something that not everyone has. Casual players are a large group, and they're just that, "casual". They aren't obsessed with stats or any other such things, they wanna take it easy and have fun with the game without getting stuck to it. If they decide to take a break only to come back and notice a sign speaking of eviction, that's a serious dealbreaker for the casual player who might not care for the inner politics of PvE vs. PvP.
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
So, based off Diego's description it sounds like an afterschool free-for-all fight by the bike rack, where in the end the one with the most friends wins. And if you don't make friends with one of the two major cliques, then there is no point in trying to make a stand in the first place?
EDIT: If they are two warring nations, then they are not griefing, and if yu happen to be unwilling to bow down to either of their superiority of mass numbers, then you are just collateral damage in a war which you care nothing about. It could be a good game, and many PvP, or PvEers may enjoy it... I just seriously dn't think the concept actually captures the SPIRIT of Golarion, Pathfinder, or any of the AP's that I appreciate the Paizo name for.
I don't think this is all the game is going to be offering.
If guild vs guild combat was all the game offered then it wouldn't be the most enthralling game for anyone that isn't on the winning team.|
Goblinworks Founder
|
That kind of system demands at least partial activity, something that not everyone has. Casual players are a large group, and they're just that, "casual". They aren't obsessed with stats or any other such things, they wanna take it easy and have fun with the game without getting stuck to it. If they decide to take a break only to come back and notice a sign speaking of eviction, that's a serious dealbreaker for the casual player who might not care for the inner politics of PvE vs. PvP.
Then the casual player need only to build/rent a house in non-player cities. Why should they free-load off of people that put in the effort and risk?
I am a casual player and I have no drama whatsoever with this kind of content because I can see the longevity that it brings to a game.
I'm also hoping there are sufficient "themepark elements" that can entertain people that are less interested in the wars of kings and more interested in the slaying of monsters.
I don't think this is all the game is going to be offering.
If guild vs guild combat was all the game offered then it wouldn't be the most enthralling game for anyone that isn't on the winning team.
Isn't this roughly what EVE has become? GvG. Is there new stuff to explore? new quests? adventure to stave off a secret cults plan to revive dead gods (whatever the space equivalent is)? Or do you mean for people that like to craft and commodities?
Because I HATE crafting, and I HATE having to play the market. I want to adventure. What do you think will prevent these from merely being side projects when the GvG stuff isn't in full swing?
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
I don't think this is all the game is going to be offering.
If guild vs guild combat was all the game offered then it wouldn't be the most enthralling game for anyone that isn't on the winning team.Isn't this roughly what EVE has become? GvG. Is there new stuff to explore? new quests? adventure to stave off a secret cults plan to revive dead gods (whatever the space equivalent is)? Or do you mean for people that like to craft and commodities?
Because I HATE crafting, and I HATE having to play the market. I want to adventure. What do you think will prevent these from merely being side projects when the GvG stuff isn't in full swing?
There's only a few people that are on this forum that can answer your questions. I'm not one of them.
I do know that EvE hardly had any themepark PvE so to speak. It's a space sandbox, they had a few missions in space ports for the solo player but nothing like what World of Warcraft or Lord of the Rings Online would offer.
Maybe Ryan will pop in today and let you know a few things they are mulling over. We're yet to hear of the PvE content at this time except that they will have it.
With the regulated PvP system presented, I can't tell how often it would happen that a character is killed in a safe city. I'm not certain how aggressive and significant PvP will be outside of safe towns. If I walk out of town to collect mushrooms, will my character's death be certain? I'm not even certain what the game will be shooting for in these areas. I don't know how much punishment death will be in the game so I can't even say how much death will be too much for me.I think that it is something that not even the Developers know. They can have an opinion on how often it will happen, but the population density will make a lot of difference.
Another think that will make a strong difference is the existence and quantity of choke points.To make an example:
If the safe area is approximately circular and the player can leave it in any direction and any direction offer equally interesting opportunities the people seeking targets will have some difficulty in finding them.
On the other hand if there are only 4 road leaving a safe area it will become easy to block them and to amass a relatively high number of characters ready to kill everyone that try to leave the safe area.Similarly if one direction is "location of the first mid level quest" and the other is "featureless plain" you can be sure that you would have a cluster of killers ready to attack anyone that leave for the first mid level quest, while the other route will be way less dangerous.
Hopefully the developers will not institute choke points as a way to increase "interaction" as in reality they make easier to grief weak targets.
When Age of Conan first came out this was an issue you would see heavily. or at least I did). The very first open PVP area (game has zones of non consensual pvp or did) was one of the first dungeons outside of the city. The issue was simple, there was ONE entrance/exit in a small room and if you died, that was also the respawn spot. The normality became these groups of 7 or more 20th level rangers (max for the area I think) who would stealth in the room and bombard anyone who spawned/entered. They would open with a pinning shot move that rooted you in place and then just waylaid you. As soon as you respawned they would do it again. There was nothing to gain out of this, just their amusement at your expense.
I also found a glitch as I found a questgiver in the middle of a desert area and when I talked to him he went into a kind of cutscene that I couldn't escape until the conversation ended. As he talked on and on a player attacked me and beat me to death while I couldn't move...In WoW the hot thing used to be to go to quest zones way below your level, and kill quest givers or especially escort npcs (Defias Traitor I'm looking at you!) just to laugh at the low level guys who cant stop you... and when the high levels rolled in to stop them they'd die just to ruin your quest...
These are the things that make me upset in pvp games.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You make valid points, but again, these issues are signs of poor design. Games exist with no PvP what so ever, yet players can still grief one another.
I play on a MMORPG on a server in which the rules dictate that a anyone can attack anyone outside of any city. Why are there not player killers outside of every city gate? Because there are systems and rules in place which dissuade such a role from being easily accessible. Griefing is as possible as it is in any other platform to which players share a space, but it does not come through PvP.
One can join a faction or war guild and be freely attackable anywhere; the aggressor will not face a punishment for killing this player. This is consensual open PvP.
If a player killer or murderer is killed in this game, it is problematic for him to become resurrected. Should he be killed by a paladin (player character who protects the people and possesses skills which aid him in hunting murderers), he will face permanent stat loss which is a large set back, he can pay a very large sum of money to avoid this set back or similar costly methods can be employed. In this environment, player killers and murderers only exist in the far reaches of the game and will not venture to populated areas; they face a massively increased risk versus the reward of killing other players.
Open PvP and subsequently full loot, do not need to go hand in hand with griefing. Risk versus reward deters griefing. It is the essence of open PvP which deters griefing if the game is designed intelligently. Current incarnations of PvP in games such as AoC and WoW are examples of bad game design. Can anyone tell me why it was a good idea to allow level 60's to kill quest givers, and offer no risk in doing so? Or allow corpse camping, res killing? Such problems have numerous solutions in alternate design decisions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, based off Diego's description it sounds like an afterschool free-for-all fight by the bike rack, where in the end the one with the most friends wins. And if you don't make friends with one of the two major cliques, then there is no point in trying to make a stand in the first place?
EDIT: If they are two warring nations, then they are not griefing, and if yu happen to be unwilling to bow down to either of their superiority of mass numbers, then you are just collateral damage in a war which you care nothing about. It could be a good game, and many PvP, or PvEers may enjoy it... I just seriously dn't think the concept actually captures the SPIRIT of Golarion, Pathfinder, or any of the AP's that I appreciate the Paizo name for.
If you are speaking of EVE, yes, now that there are 350.000 or more characters on one serve and one universe, that is true enough. CCP has done something to mitigate it adding wormhole space.
Previously, when you had a lower total population it was better in that regard.Hopefully Pathfinder will have plenty of available space for years of development if they go the single server route (something that we don't know). And then they will open new areas or find other solutions.
If they go the multiple server route they can decide what is the optimal population density for a server and limit access to that kind of numbers. With a limited population on each server the problem of new people not finding a area where they could settle down will be mitigated because after a time you would not have new players on that server.
I don't like much that idea, as teaching the ropes to a new players (it he is interested) is something that create strong and positive binds.
Probably the best things would be a mechanic that discourage unlimited expansion of the territory of a kingdom.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you are speaking of EVE, yes, now that there are 350.000 or more characters on one serve and one universe, that is true enough. CCP has done something to mitigate it adding wormhole space.
Previously, when you had a lower total population it was better in that regard.Hopefully Pathfinder will have plenty of available space for years of development if they go the single server route (something that we don't know). And then they will open new areas or find other solutions.
If they go the multiple server route they can decide what is the optimal population density for a server and limit access to that kind of numbers. With a limited population on each server the problem of new people not finding a area where they could settle down will be mitigated because after a time you would not have new players on that server.
I don't like much that idea, as teaching the ropes to a new players (it he is interested) is something that create strong and positive binds.Probably the best things would be a mechanic that discourage unlimited expansion of the territory of a kingdom.
Population control itself is an impossible mechanic to meet. You can half way influence which server people go on, but there are 2 factors preventing actual controlling of it.
1. In-active players, say your goal is 100k, at 90k you try and start encouraging server 2. That works, now 1/4th of server 1's population goes inactive. If you encourage new players to go to server 1, but the oldies start back up then you have too many.
2. You can only nudge, (IE change the order of the list and let the players chose). Because if you actually hard locked the server at the optimum population, you'd have a bunch of people ticked off when they talk their friends into playing, and have the choice of start over or not play with their friends.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like the idea of non-consensual PvP, though I immediately understand the issues with it and why it doesn't appeal to people.
However, I like the idea that if you are an @$$hole, the community will at large band together, and kill you. Also that if you want to play a bandit in the woods, with a band of merry men, who rob those crossing the forest....you can. And if people don't like your b.s., they can appeal to the sheriff to get you out.
The problem comes when there is either A) a high ratio of a-holes, encouraged by the non-permanent nature of their condition to lash out against their betters or B) no immediate recourse when you are being accosted.
I hate the idea of non-consensual PvP, unless this was in a said PvP zone or if it was against various groups like obviously I'm sure if a Cleric of Zon-Kuthon entered Lastwall there would be a army of people ready to beat him into the ground or if someone decided to enter the hold of belkzen believing they can enter unharmed.
Or PvP could be allowed for one of the things that was mentioned, which was a caravan guard job and the enemy could fight to try and obtain the loot. The only problem I find with PvP is that if you don't want to take part and are new to the game even though the game is...let's say it's been out for a year and you are just walking along when all of a sudden a high-level a&%&$~% comes out of nowhere and kills you for fun isn't good. Maybe some sort of system where you are rewarded for defeating someone at a higher level than you or close to your level? Maybe some kind of level restriction?
I don't know, these are all suggestions as my PvP experience in roleplay games are: Runescape, WoW and City of Heroes/Villains (hm, that's a idea. If they implimented a area where good and evil players could hang out, meet, pvp and do quests together just like pocket D).
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
When Age of Conan first came out this was an issue you would see heavily. or at least I did). The very first open PVP area (game has zones of non consensual pvp or did) was one of the first dungeons outside of the city. The issue was simple, there was ONE entrance/exit in a small room and if you died, that was also the respawn spot. The normality became these groups of 7 or more 20th level rangers (max for the area I think) who would stealth in the room and bombard anyone who spawned/entered. They would open with a pinning shot move that rooted you in place and then just waylaid you. As soon as you respawned they would do it again. There was nothing to gain out of this, just their amusement at your expense.
I also found a glitch as I found a questgiver in the middle of a desert area and when I talked to him he went into a kind of cutscene that I couldn't escape until the conversation ended. As he talked on and on a player attacked me and beat me to death while I couldn't move...
In WoW the hot thing used to be to go to quest zones way below your level, and kill quest givers or especially escort npcs (Defias Traitor I'm looking at you!) just to laugh at the low level guys who cant stop you... and when the high levels rolled in to stop them they'd die just to ruin your quest...
These are the things that make me upset in pvp games.
I played Age of Conan for around 18 months. The issues you mention were a true design flaw that should have been addressed long before launch. That being said I thoroughly enjoyed the true feeling of danger when adventuring in Age of Conan. It was occasionally spoiled by the people that would kill you in cut-scenes or the twink groups in the low level open dungeons. Even though these things really did infuriate me at times, they were a mere few ripples in an ocean of good tides.
Three things bothered me the most with Age of Conan.
1. Asshats that trash talked people when they killed them.
2. Low level PvP areas being level capped at 25. This was a breeding ground for twinks they preyed on new blood and inexperienced players.
3. Cut scenes making the player vulnerable to attack with no control over it.
They were game breakers for a lot of people that actually wanted to play on PvP servers and there was no way to flag yourself for consensual PvP on the PvE servers.
As far as I am concerned Age of Conan should be used as an source of lessons learned. See what they did wrong to ensure it isn't replicated in future releases. It still has some endearing qualities though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Consensual PvP is not PvP but rather sports!
Sorry, you can tell me all that you want about how in WoW, Arenas and Battlegrounds are about fighting the other faction, but in reality this is only an e-sport option with no impact on the PvE game that is WoW.
So, for me, only non-consensual PvP is actual PvP and there are several ways in which this could be done to make sense:
1. Zone based
There are "wilderlands" zones that are important and sometimes, but not always, mandatory to enter where you could be attacked by other players. So these zones give a reason apart from PvP to enter them and thus non-consensual PvP will ensue.
2. Faction based
There are factions that you belong to. See these as kingdoms. You can not attack anyone from your own kingdom but you can attack and be attacked by members of other kingdoms that your kingdom is not allied with.
3. Event based
There are factions that can declare war upon one another. You can never attack anyone unless she belongs to a faction your faction is currently at war with.
4. mechanically balanced
You can be attacked almost anywhere and from anyone but the attacker suffers severe ingame drawbacks for being a bandit.
Note that all of the above could even be combined.
I hope that you can see that there are ways to build non-consensual PvP into PFO that do not mean you are getting griefed 24/7.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We're also going to ensure that there won't be startegic choke points in the core game regions that would let a group block access to critical resources or travel routes.
This assuage several of my fears.
If you haven't seen it, read the new Goblinworks blog.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What use is making a great blacksmith character if warrior characters keep attacking me?I think this sums up the whole forced PvP issue. There would be no point in making this character at all, and that kills any chance at fun for players that would love to play non-combat roles in the game. I don't see where it would be that hard to give the players a choice.
That is one of the EVE problems, PvPers (and I don't mean gankers, but people that enjoy fighting other players, possibly on balanced terms) don't mix well with crafters/gatherers if the game support the need to protect them.
PvPers (or at least a large percentage of them) love the adrenaline rush of combat, the protector role often has long downtimes without combat, so the people with the largest experience in Player against Player combat are those that are less interested in spending time in the protector role.
A guy willing to fulfil the need of a protector for a long time is a rare beast. Same thing for someone that can really cover the fighter and crafter role in a guild (I don't mean character wise, but player wise) with the same efficiency.
In my experience PvPers will require a payback for their work (and it is only right) but agreeing what is the right payback for that between the crafter and the warrior is hard.
Both will feel that their work is undervalued and that the other is making a lot of money for very little work. I have seen plenty of attrition between players for that, to the point of seeing two guilds implode and break up for that reason.
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
These are all good solutions for helping to make PvP less grief driven. But there are just some people that don't want to be involved in non-consensual PvP in any way, shape or form. Allowing them to opt out with a simple flagging mechanic is no less a fair option. Why should some people be forced to play the game in a way that they just don't enjoy at all?
I don't understand why you feel forced to play a game that you will not enjoy. Player vs Player will be a part of this game, the sooner people accept this the sooner we can direct discussion to more important things.
Note: A flagging mechanic in a game based around large scale PvP between guilds is too exploitable. What wills top people from running through a zone unflagged until they see someone they want to gank? I can think of dozens of other scenarios like this that take place in Themepark MMO's on their PvE servers but I really can't be bothered discussing this topic any longer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Now perhaps this is like standing in the middle of a field, in full plate, holding a great sword over my head, in the middle of a thunderstorm and wondering if I'm not going to get hit by lightning.
Are there players out there who would prefer that there be little to no PVP in the pathfinder online game?
Are there players out there who find the prospect of non consensual PVP cause for concern?
Do those players find that the prospect of non consensual PVP makes Pathfinder Online for them an unattractive choice?
I hope we can keep this a civil discussion. If you do like PVP great, but for the purposes of this thread i am curious to hear the opinions of those who are extremely leery about non consensual PVP.
Thanks
The real problem with non-consentual PvP is that most games that try to impliment it lack sufficient controls to dissuade anti-social behavior. Hence they tend to devolve into "gank-fests" populated by players mimic-ing sociopathic behavior.
In real life, there are strong disincentives toward people that exhibit anti-social behavior (at least toward ones own group) and people that choose to engage in it despite those discincentives tend to be quickly and often permanently removed from thier societies. Thus, there simply aren't that many around.
In most internet games, the consequences for anti-social bahvior don't exist...or are so weak that they simply prove ineffective. Even if the consequences were permanently removing an anti-social players character from play (i.e. perma-death) that only prooves a sufficient deteriment if the player themselves is actualy invested in the character and not simply interested in creating mayhem within the game.
My own personal preferences are for Realm vs Realm style PvP over FFA with only consentual PvP allowed within a Realm. That model allows for enough dramatic tension in player conflict....without destroying the sense of community and support and society that is important to players.
Note that I think it may be POSSIBLE to design a FFA game with strong enough discentives to keep anti-social behavior in check. It's just that to date most Dev's that have tried haven't been able to succeed at it.
Such a game would have to make sure that individuals within a society would be heavly dependant upon each other for success....as well as have controls in place that really hurt those that routienely acted in opposition to the groups accepted mores. It would also have to do something about those who were simply interested in griefing the GAME (i.e. bans....and possibly some limitation on new accounts/characters before they had the opportunity to engage in hostile actions toward others).
If I remember correctly, Star Wars Galaxies had a simple solution to this age old problem.
PvP could be toggled on and off. That way, people who didn't want to PvP couldn't be attacked unless they toggled it on, and people who did where always at risk of being attacked.
I think this worked really well and I'm puzzled why developers haven't included this in recent MMO releases.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think this worked really well and I'm puzzled why developers haven't included this in recent MMO releases.
Non-consensual PvP offers far more to a game than a simple mechanic governing who can attack who. It extends to resource allocation and entitlement, the working of the economy through the shift and loss of items etc.
It's not a mere matter of if you can be killed or not, it governs large aspects of the game and governs your entitlement to almost everything.
A primitive way of looking at it; nature is in equilibrium due to both predators and prey. If the animal kingdom adopted the rules of consensual PvP, think how it would change.
The big picture for PFO is conquest and world building at end game. Think how that would change given a PvP switch.
Most are ignoring the fact that punishment and geographical security operate as effective PvP switches. You will not be killed if the punishment is efficiently high. You will not be killed if the security is sufficiently high in the areas you need or desire to operate in.
I understand peoples worries and requirement to be told 'you cannot be killed', but there are ways to design your 'safety' other than to make you invulnerable. Such an eventuality in which it is possible for a player to be made 'invulnerable' would have radical effects on the rest of the game you would most likely never participate in.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If I remember correctly, Star Wars Galaxies had a simple solution to this age old problem.
PvP could be toggled on and off. That way, people who didn't want to PvP couldn't be attacked unless they toggled it on, and people who did where always at risk of being attacked.
I think this worked really well and I'm puzzled why developers haven't included this in recent MMO releases.
For an actual game built with PVP as a focus of the game, a switch or parallel servers will not work, period. The entire concept is that there are things that one side, should be keeping other sides from and vice versa. Players being able to opt out, need to also be forced to opt out of kingdom ownership or control of any resources within the game, as one cannot have ownership, without risk of losing them.
A game that can survive having PVP turned off, is a game that has no reason to have PVP at all, it's only potential purpose is to grief in that scenario.
Controlling PVP is possible with the right controls, with the right implementation actually getting PKed can be something that is unlikely to happen more then once every 6 months unless you intentionally go into high risk areas, or chose to participate in wars. Being able to turn it off altogether, means the wars themselves are now meaningless to the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am completely fine with areas of the game being open PvP (think wild west). Indeed I'm fine if those PvP areas have dungeons with high-quality loot (risk/reward) but like you I would prefer open PvP only on PvP-designated servers, with limited PvP on PvE focused servers
Its not as such a case of allowing the wild west; the wild west represents a sense of lawlessness and chaos. This isn't the case.
Ryan has stated that the law will be enforced, punishments will be bestowed upon those who do wrong and the world will function as a world governed by law. Conquest and territorial warfare do not fall under the compass of law enforcement and thus will go on unabated.
The problem I'm trying to make clear to people, is in allowing PvP and PvE servers, you are in fact allowing a server of invulnerables and a wild west. Through their exclusion of each other, they seriously undermine each others integrity.
What we should be aiming for is a universal server to which the law in enforced similar to that of a contemporary society. You can do wrong but you risk everything. You can join an army and goto war. Nobody is vindicating Open PvP everywhere. I am simply against a PvP switch or allowing open pvp in a minority of zones. Allow a minority of safe zones, but allow risk and reward to dictate the security of vast regions beyond these (think Eve Online).
Yes people get murdered here and there, yes we are subject to criminal activity, but the criminals and murderers are punished and life is that much more special because we are not invulnerable. I do not consider myself 'griefed' by serial killers or burglars.
♠ Join the Pathfinder Online community in IRC | Server: irc.stratics.com (6667) Channel: #pfo | We'll see you there! ♠
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think this worked really well and I'm puzzled why developers haven't included this in recent MMO releases.Non-consensual PvP offers far more to a game than a simple mechanic governing who can attack who. It extends to resource allocation and entitlement, the working of the economy through the shift and loss of items etc.
It's not a mere matter of if you can be killed or not, it governs large aspects of the game and governs your entitlement to almost everything.
A primitive way of looking at it; nature is in equilibrium due to both predators and prey. If the animal kingdom adopted the rules of consensual PvP, think how it would change.
The big picture for PFO is conquest and world building at end game. Think how that would change given a PvP switch.
Most are ignoring the fact that punishment and geographical security operate as effective PvP switches. You will not be killed if the punishment is efficiently high. You will not be killed if the security is sufficiently high in the areas you need or desire to operate in.
I understand peoples worries and requirement to be told 'you cannot be killed', but there are ways to design your 'safety' other than to make you invulnerable. Such an eventuality in which it is possible for a player to be made 'invulnerable' would have radical effects on the rest of the game you would most likely never participate in.
Although I'm not convinced it's impossible to create mechanics that effectively create the situation you are describing, it's much harder to actualy achieve then most realize. Almost every developer of a FFA PvP game states the exact same intentions in thier design goals that you desrcribe....and Almost every one of them fails to accomplish mechanisms that come close to meeting thier goals.
Just a small example....it's not much of a deteriment to a PK'er that Guards will kill them quickly if they murder someone in a safe zone if they don't much care about the consequences of being killed.
It's also not much of a consequence to a PK'er if their PKing character suffers social consequences (i.e. not being able to trade at a towns merchants for example) if that character is simple an ALTERNATE ACCOUNT designed specificaly for the purposes of PKing...and they just use another character for all the things they need to do in town.
Most Developers fail to account for those sort of scenerio's in thier control mechanisms.
I actualy like the idea of conflict between Player Kingdoms and Player Factions. The problem with FFA mechanics they often work to hinder enough social/community cooperation for such Kingdoms or Groups to form in the first place.....as lack of strong controls on anti-social behavior create a bedlam where paranoia and chaos rules and those strong group bonds are difficult to form in the first place...and new players are few and far between as they generaly percieve the community as cold and unwelcoming.
If you look at Team based FPS games in contrast....they tend to avoid alot of that specificaly because players are pre-placed onto a built-in Team (i.e. support base) and generaly actions that are directly antagonistic toward other members of the Team are mechanicaly prevented.... along with the ability to "kick" those who find ways to circumvent such restrictions off of the server.