Goblinworks Founder
|
Anyway, I did 4 years in EvE. Ran a 1500 person alliance in Vale for a year, and recently died along with Morsus Mhi when the rest of the universe decided our run of 0.0 dominance was over :) So I do know how EvE works :).
First, I want to appologize for jumping down your throat at 2am this morning ;)
Secondly, I have a question for you.
A lot of people are concerned that what they build in PFO will come crashing down around them. From your experience in EvE, how did it feel lose that portion of null sec that you had dominated with your alliance?
How long had it taken to acquire the personnel and resources to be able to hold it?
I'm only asking so I can put a few things into perspective. I find the idea absolutely fascinating.
Goblin Squad Member
|
A lot of people seem to be under the impression that in PFO PvP will be everywhere and unavoidable 24/7.
This will most likely NOT be the case.
There will be save zones where you can gather in peace and gathering, crafting and building are THE most important things in this game because else there wouldn't be anything to fight over.
It is just that by fighting you actually carve a demand for those crafters and give players something to do after they build their castle.
The only thing why I think PFO will not appeal to a certain type of players is that you will very likely not get far by soloing. You HAVE to have friends. PFO will likely be a real MMO where interaction matters more than just for the next 20 minutes it takes to clear that dungeon with the random peeps I probably will never see again.
We wouldn't know until we see that. Also, I think the problem here is that this safe zone concept makes PvE players feel discriminated. However, I agree with you that World of Warcraft took a wrong turn with the whole random dungeon thing. It made people in dungeons even dumber than before, because they could ninja loot and do stupid s*** without worry, "because I will never see this moron again after this dungeon", so yeah.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Even noncombatants have a major place in pvp lands, highly valued for production of war materials constantly expended.
In EVE? LOL, no.
No one want a carebear (and that term is used when they going soft on him) in 0.0. People there actually don't need them as what not combatant do is better done in high sec as transportation of finished products is easy.
What resource gathering is done in 0.0 is mostly done by legitimate automate devices for moon mining and by non legitimate bots for regular mining. Actual, live, resource gatherers are an oddity.
Traders get an even harsher reaction. You are considered a profiteer even if you sell at the same price of the main trade hubs, worse if you ask a surcharge for the risk involved in transporting the goods.
Transportation is relatively easy and even if you can't move the good usually you can find a friend willing to do it for you, so there is very little interest in accepting merchants.
I really hope PFO will not suffer from the same problem, with crafters and gatherers all huddled up in the almost safe zone while what gathering is done in the non safe zones is done by bots.
Hopefully we will not be capable of very fast transportation, so local gathering and processing will be important in the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
...
I think it is not as hard to achieve them as some realize either. It's pretty simple, the penelty for dying has to be something that makes them rapidly become worse at PKing, and to undo anything they may have gained from the process. Secondly getting to the point of being able to PK reasonably has to take time.
Yes if you make it so that a freshly created character has a high chance of killing someone out of the gate, he will. Now if you make it so that the HP to damage ratio, makes it take at least 30 seconds with a brand new character, make guards able to 1 shot a new character, then that method will be out the door instantly, griefing by low level throw away characters is completely out the window at this point.
Onishi, if a just created character can kill an experienced character in 30 seconds, 30 new characters will kill him with a hail of arrows in 1 second.
Make it three as even on vent they will not be perfectly coordinated and transmission lag will affect the fight.As the server reaction to events is never instantaneous they only need to find the sweet spot were they can kill the target before the law enforcement disable them.
A death penalty only mean that the target will get more damage. The new characters will be replaced by other, newly created characters, while the old ones get deleted.
Looting will suffer from the same problem. The new characters will only use low cost weapons and armor and a alt will loot whatever fall from the experienced character.
So it is hard to find the right balance. Minimizing that because you think it will be great don't help your cause.
It is more useful trying to think what could work and what will not.
Looting and equipment destruction is important or the player driven economy will grind to a stop in no time but at the same time death losses for targets, especially soft ones like characters specialized in crafting or gathering and not in combat skills need to be moderated enough that they will not make the game unplayable for that kind of player.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...I really hope PFO will not suffer from the same problem...
EVEs unique zone layout with systems and jump gates caused many of the problems you mention. So I hope with a more organic approach of a landscape with few chokepoints transportation will and can matter more and the need for an ultra save zone to do almost everything else is greatly lessened while at the same time botting will become much harder.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
[Though it also does not guarantee that 100% of the sandbox content is PVP. It could full and well imply that 70% is building up and creating things, while 30% involves actual disputes. There are 2 portions to a sandbox game after all, building things up, and taking things. Sandbox does not necessarily mean everyone will be butting heads 100% of the time, sandbox means people will have the potential to butt heads, and there will be things worth fighting over.
"Market combat" is PvP the same. More agreeable than killing the guy in the street, but still a test of Player against Player skills (more than character skills).
A good merchant in EVE can reap billions and make other people lose billions.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Onishi, if a just created character can kill an experienced character in 30 seconds, 30 new characters will kill him with a hail of arrows in 1 second.
Make it three as even on vent they will not be perfectly coordinated and transmission lag will affect the fight.
As the server reaction to events is never instantaneous they only need to find the sweet spot were they can kill the target before the law enforcement disable them.A death penalty only mean that the target will get more damage. The new characters will be replaced by other, newly created characters, while the old ones get deleted.
Looting will suffer from the same...
Well first of all, accuracy etc... would very likely come into play, odds of 30 inexperienced players hitting a high level player with 100% should be low, second I have always been opposed to the idea of gaining significant loot from PKing, I am thinking more like gaining 1/4th of the XP/Skill penalty that is caused to the player (which would be divided between the apparently 30 people in cahoots in this example) , and a reasonable amount of the persons carried gold and/or resources. Gathering 30 people just to grief and go for a small handful of gold will not likely be a common activity. (yes I know eve at one time had one major gathering of people at once just to attack 1 titan, that was more of a result of outrage of people annoyed by one ludicrously powerful ship that was added to the game if I recall). Personally if killing costs more then it gains in both directions, it will be far more likely to be used for political battles rather then just mindless robbing and ganking 24/7.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Having been in a fleet of maybe 300 battle cruisers that pinned down a titan and whittled it down till the pilot was forced to use its area damaging main weapon (with long recharge time) so that the ready wave of batteleships could jump without risking annihilation I can assure you that it is possible to assemble powerful fleets. but that was 0.0, not high security space.
What people do in high security outside a war is to have the right number of character with the appropriate gear to be capable to attack a paying target and kill him before the law enforcement intervene.
The key is how much people you need against what kind of target and at what cost. That are the variable that determine how common ganking would be.
Before my time in EVE a corporation called M00 was capable to lay siege to the main trading hub (in high security space) for hours. That forced CCP to increase the law enforcement strength.
CCP reduced several times the time before police intervention as the ganking tactics were refined again and again and bigger targets did become easy targets.
Currently Goonswarm is "laying siege" to high sec ice production in the Galletne region of space. Ice gathering ships are relatively weak and only a few systems have ice belts, so they only need to have a relatively small number of characters ready to suicide gank the ice mining ships in each of the appropriate systems.
That way they have almost cornered the market of Gallente ice products (there are 4 kinds of ice in game and you need the right kind to fuel some ship and structure) as they have a few friendly ships mining that kind of ice.
While I can applaud the creativity and the drive in controlling the market, the problem is that the ice miners can do almost nothing against the gankers.
They can't fire first as the police will kill them (and their ships are weak combatants). Friend can't help them killing the ganekrs as they will either: a) get killed by the police if they fire first; b) be slower than the police is firing only after the attack has started.
The only way to protect yourself is to spend billions in increasing your ship tank and hope the attackers will underestimate your resistance (a very bad tactic as if it fail you will lose billions instead of hundreds of millions, and it will fail sooner or later) or leave the area.
Balancing that kind of situation so that it is possible to do this kind of maneuver but that at the same time the targets aren't pushed out of the game is hard, very, very hard.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks.
But I also didn't say PvE should be less important than PvP - far from it!
It is just that to make a Sandbox game work, PvP is an integral part and this encompasses the chance to get some PvP while you are out to PvE.
Look at EvE. PvE is VERY important there and many many player mainly do PvE. But still they need to be prepared to do some PvP.
So, I guess that if your vision of PFO is 99% PvP (gankfest) vs. next to no PvE then i understand what you are saying, but it has never been stated that this will be so and EvE isn't as well.
Actualy I would take issue with the idea that PvP is a neccesary element for a sandbox. Heck...combat of any kind isn't a neccesary element for sandbox games. Look at something like "A Tale in the Desert" which is a sandbox style game with zero combat.
Sandbox, IMO, simply implies that the players play a significant role in the creative aspect of the game atmosphere. PvP is one way to do that...it's certainly not the only wany.....and there are plenty of PvP centric games that have nothing at all to do with sandboxes (the PvP occurs but has little or any effect on shaping the game environment).
Note, that they have been pretty clear about the direction they intended to take this game.....and I'm not opposed to the concept...but I am rather concerned about the implimentation. I've seen alot of developers espouse the same design goals...but really had problems achieving them in implimentation. Alot of those games did become, in fact, 99% gankfests with very small & unfreindly communities.
So I think it's a fair question for some of us who MAY have some interest in the game to try to understand exactly what the environment will feel like...and if it can potentialy fit into our play style.
Personaly.... I'm fine with some level of player conflict as long as there is SOME level of perdictability as who is the enemy and SOME level of predictability as to what areas one is likely to come into conflict in....doesn't have to be perfect predictabilty...just should be mostly accurate.
What I'm not interested in is being ganked by a mob of 20 players within 30 seconds every time I even poke my nose out of time unless I travel with my own mob of 20 players....nor every 2nd person I meet being a closet sociopath ready to stab me in the back the second it's turned.
It's an open question to me exactly where Pathfinder Online will end up falling on that spectrum.
I removed some bickering. Flag it and move on, folks.
|
I played WoW for a couple years and I really liked that they had separate PvP and PvE servers. You just play on the type of server you want with other players who want that type of experience as well. I went for the PvE because I'm not going to spend my time and money providing griefer a-holes with opportunities to be, well, a-holes. If PFO has uncontrolled, non-consensual PvP I won't waste any time on it. Frankly I'd rather play the tabletop version of Pathfinder anyway. I basically stopped playing WoW so that I could play Pathfinder instead.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm not sure some people here get the point of this game. It isn't about following kill 10 X quests as you level up
Exactly! There won't be developer-created content that you follow to level up.
I hate getting griefed/ganked as much as the next guy, but I've long recognized the absolute necessity of non-consensual PvP. And for all the people who think there's a difference between being killed by a player versus being killed by an NPC, wouldn't it just be utterly fantastic if PFO was so good that you couldn't really tell the difference between NPCs and players? At least insofar as players would be able to pass for NPCs if they chose?
Non-consensual PvP doesn't have to mean ganking/griefing. In fact, I think it's a consequence of being the first generation to experience some MMOs that had some very bad game mechanics that rewarded ganking/griefing that have made so many of us so opposed to the mere idea of PvP. It may take a generation or two to eventually right the ship, but I remain utterly convinced that when the ship is fully righted, there will be non-consensual PvP, but it will bear consequences, just like in the real world, that will keep most people from doing it for trivial reasons.
I don't believe there will be developer-created content that will keep you busy in PFO. If you want to play PFO they way the creators are envisioning it (if I understand correctly), then you're going to be creating things in the world that will be subject to the actions of other players. Whether it's an army of players coming to pillage the kingdom you've spent a year building up, or whether it's a gang of raiders trying to rob the wagon of goods you're driving from Farm to Market.
I truly hope PFO succeeds in balancing the consequences of griefer behavior so that it is really minimized. But even if it doesn't, someone else will eventually. The future of MMOs will be non-consensual PvP. It's simply not cost-effective to try to create a never-ending Theme Park on rails. But there is a very motivated base of players who want nothing more than to inhabit a world where they can *BE* the theme park.
Good Luck Goblinworks! From the bottom of my heart.
Haven't read the whole thread, just responding to the OP.
For me, and by no means anyone else, PvP in MMOGs is why I turn away from MMOGs and have a very elitist and disdaining view of MMOGs. If PvP is allowed, I'd rather see PvP zones and non-PvP zones. Or restrict it so that it is impossible until (to use 4E terminology) borderline Paragon-Epic tier character levels AND find ways to keep it so that Side A has a like number of players as Side B AND no PvP if one side is more than 2 levels above you. Again, this is my own perspective and by no means appealing to or indicative of anyone else. PvP is not enjoyable for me. Many, many others...yes, not me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Haven't read the whole thread, just responding to the OP.
For me, and by no means anyone else, PvP in MMOGs is why I turn away from MMOGs and have a very elitist and disdaining view of MMOGs. If PvP is allowed, I'd rather see PvP zones and non-PvP zones. Or restrict it so that it is impossible until (to use 4E terminology) borderline Paragon-Epic tier character levels AND find ways to keep it so that Side A has a like number of players as Side B AND no PvP if one side is more than 2 levels above you. Again, this is my own perspective and by no means appealing to or indicative of anyone else. PvP is not enjoyable for me. Many, many others...yes, not me.
Well I believe in your case the game just may not be for you. The idea behind the sandbox open PVP world, is a litteral shaping of the world via the PVP side of things. Arena PVP, and specific sides etc... has it's place more or less as a mini-game in a PVE built game. That is what is the key difference between WoW's style of PVP servers, it isn't actually a part of the world, it's an extra thing put to the side, that has no meaningful effect on anything else in the game.
For PVP to be meaningful, it has to actually have effect on the whole course of the game. Now in PFO they are planning an area that is considered high security, where either NPC guards will immediately destroy anyone who attacks another player, or possibly PK just flat out disabled in the area. But as a low/risk area, it will also have the lowest rewards for the time invested compared to the areas where you do have to face danger and defend them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The future of MMOs will be non-consensual PvP. It's simply not cost-effective to try to create a never-ending Theme Park on rails. But there is a very motivated base of players who want nothing more than to inhabit a world where they can *BE* the theme park.I call contest on that statement. There is no ONE SIZE FITS ALL to the future of MMO's.
You're right, of course.
But I don't believe it's possible to make a game where players can meaningfully impact their environment without there being a foundation of non-consensual, but rare and consequence-laden, PvP.
I very dearly want to build a tower in the wilderness, warded with arcane spells. The thought that some other player might try to sneak in and steal something of value from me fills me with delight. This is the dynamic environment I believe most of us want to play in, and it will never be realized with developer-created content.
I don't want to be mercilessly ganked and griefed, but I very much want to immerse myself in a world, and I want that world to feel as realistic (within the fantasy genre) as possible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You have to look at things in EvE in terms of net gain as opposed to continual gain with never any losses.
Yes! One of the beauties of adventuring in a game world where other people actually have an impact on what happens is that it's possible to be surprised. I expect I will find it vastly more fulfilling to overcome real challenges in PFO than I find it riding the rails of SWTOR (and don't get me wrong, I'm loving playing SWTOR right now).
Hmmm, if they go with non-consensual PvP, then I would want the consequences to be very high indeed. Plain and simple, if you initiate the combat and lose, that character and all his holdings are gone...permanently. You have to create a new character and start again. The pro-open PvP claim that open PvP in the only mechanic that players can make a meaningful impact on the game. I'll agree and take it to the next level. Death makes a great impact as it is irreversible. I think that making death permanent for the aggressor character, should he lose, would reduce the chance for griefing. And, it fits well with the risk vs. reward system that they approve of for use of staying or leaving safe zones.
Oh, and one final caveat for the open PvP...you should only be able to initiate combat with like sized or larger parties who are of the same level or higher than you.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Hmmm, if they go with non-consensual PvP, then I would want the consequences to be very high indeed. Plain and simple, if you initiate the combat and lose, that character and all his holdings are gone...permanently. You have to create a new character and start again. The pro-open PvP claim that open PvP in the only mechanic that players can make a meaningful impact on the game. I'll agree and take it to the next level. Death makes a great impact as it is irreversible. I think that making death permanent for the aggressor character, should he lose, would reduce the chance for griefing. And, it fits well with the risk vs. reward system that they approve of for use of staying or leaving safe zones.
Oh, and one final caveat for the open PvP...you should only be able to initiate combat with like sized or larger parties who are of the same level or higher than you.
So, if I build a castle, nobody tougher than me can enter it? Clearly, trespassing or invading player territory is going to be the definition of 'aggression' if territory exists.
I don't think that being low-level should be the best way to hold uncontested territory. Especially once people learn the system and create the most powerful low-level characters possible, or otherwise learn to maximize their ability to win the fights they can initiate.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Prior to changes the last couple years, it required a significant amount of effort to keep defensive player owned stations and moon mining operations rolling as they required constant attention and fueling.
Don't remind me. I was the sole fool who ran fuel to a Wormhole station. That was tedious, annoying, and rather pointless as almost one in the corp/alliance used it.
Lets be honest, EVE's whole PvP setup is designed around being dark and dystopian... and rightly for people who don't like having their "escapism" stabbed with nihilism, it sucks.
@Stormanne, that works until you get griefers using social engineering tricks to game the system and get someone to aggress first. The boop, goodbye character, as the other guy sings trolllol la lol lol la lol.
What I believe would be the a better idea is to make non-consenting players behave like Mobs. They don't technically "die" have use whatever PFO uses for a respawn mechanic. Instead they drop 'loot' in concert with the challenge they actually presented in the fight. That would include tracking of many different variables... which the game could already be tracking, but this is the only fair way I see. Such "loot" drops can be balanced to "framing" PvEers is no more profitable then farming normal Mobs. The risk/reward for PvPer vs PvEer is much lower to both parties.
@Daniel- This problem is easily solved by making the majority of items either user created or bound to character. That means the player has to move beyond the "safety" of their small hold to build up wealth. Another solution would be have the size of the players holding dependent upon their level/experience.
@Dorje- Talking about being baited into aggressive action? If you are foolish enough to be drawn in and act rashly, then you get what you get. I'm sure there will be game masters to report harassing or abusive behavior to instead of falling for the bait. This is the internet and it has been around long enough for us all to have a thick enough skin and cool enough head to realize when we're being taunted or baited.
The approach to PvP shouldn't be putting the onus on the potential victim. The victim may be transporting goods he's crafted or raw materials that he's taken time to gather. For a predatory player, there is little risk compared to the possible reward. The potential victim has to carry what he needs to do his tasks plus be prepared for possible attack by a predatory character. On top of that, should the victim succeed in defending himself, his resources would be possibly depleted enough that he would be even more vulnerable to another predatory character who may be in the area. The predatory character only has to carry what he believes he needs to successfully defeat his particular victim. And, even if he loses, he loses only the holdings that are on his person at that time. Quite frankly, the risk should be even, therefore the aggressor should stand to lose just as much as his mark if he fails.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have not read this entire thread. I apologize if my ideas have been brought up previously.
PvP in video games is always a difficult subject to tackle. In any fantasy novel you read or any adventure you partake in with your friends while P&P role playing, bandits are a mainstay. Someone is ravaging the caravan route. Characters are needed to end the threat or protect the next caravan.
To me, straight PvP is not griefing. Griefing occurs when one side continually attacks and kills the other side's character. Typically upon the "resurrection". I am not aware of how Goblinworks will handle this aspect of MMOs. If we will be allowed to rez at the location, then maybe you could put a timer on. Say, you were just defeated, you cannot be targeted for the next 15 minutes or something.
Now, some people would say: Why do this to the person who just wanted to mine some ore? Well, based on the way events unfolded, you went to this location without enough protection. You lost the encounter. Come back with more bodies and you can claim the ore.
With the timer I propose you have enough time to leave the area and get back to a "safer" area. Maybe you can use a quick travel option, if we get those.
What say y'all? did I repeat an idea that someone else came up with?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Could you add an alignment system? That way, it would be possible for PvP, but that would move your alignment toward evil, and mean that guards attack you, merchants refuse you business, etc.
I don't know what the exact balance would be, but it's a way to tip the balance in favor of the defender. Make it costly to be evil. Not impossible, but hard.
And, should you run into that wandering high-level paladin, well...
If you did a great job of being pious, good, whatever, you should also get rewards from people of similar faction.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@Daniel- This problem is easily solved by making the majority of items either user created or bound to character. That means the player has to move beyond the "safety" of their small hold to build up wealth. Another solution would be have the size of the players holding dependent upon their level/experience.
So, in order to build a castle, I have to quarry the stone myself? And the purpose of this is to ensure that I'm tough enough that there are some people who aren't disqualified from siege because they would win?
How about, you build the castle to claim the territory by right of force majeur. By doing that, you open yourself to anybody who wants to contest your superior force with their own. Don't want to fight for your right to control land? Pay rent to someone who is willing to fight for their right to collect rent from you.
@Daniel- This problem is easily solved by making the majority of items either user created or bound to character. That means the player has to move beyond the "safety" of their small hold to build up wealth. Another solution would be have the size of the players holding dependent upon their level/experience.So, in order to build a castle, I have to quarry the stone myself? And the purpose of this is to ensure that I'm tough enough that there are some people who aren't disqualified from siege because they would win?
How about, you build the castle to claim the territory by right of force majeur. By doing that, you open yourself to anybody who wants to contest your superior force with their own. Don't want to fight for your right to control land? Pay rent to someone who is willing to fight for their right to collect rent from you.
By right of force majeur? So, what about the new player? You're all for telling them to "F" off since you were there first and had time to gather strength and resources. The way you want to approach PvP will make sure that the only audience for the game are those that start at launch. Anyone who is late to the party is going to be screwed by the human nature to abuse what power they have. There would have to be a mechanism in place to have a level playing field otherwise the power gap between the haves and have nots becomes such that the have nots say to hell with it and leave the game.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
By right of force majeur? So, what about the new player? You're all for telling them to "F" off since you were there first and had time to gather strength and resources. The way you want to approach PvP will make sure that the only audience for the game are those that start at launch. Anyone who is late to the party is going to be screwed by the human nature to abuse what power they have. There would have to be a mechanism in place to have a level playing field otherwise the power gap between the haves and have nots becomes such that the have nots say to hell with it and leave the game.@Daniel- This problem is easily solved by making the majority of items either user created or bound to character. That means the player has to move beyond the "safety" of their small hold to build up wealth. Another solution would be have the size of the players holding dependent upon their level/experience.So, in order to build a castle, I have to quarry the stone myself? And the purpose of this is to ensure that I'm tough enough that there are some people who aren't disqualified from siege because they would win?
How about, you build the castle to claim the territory by right of force majeur. By doing that, you open yourself to anybody who wants to contest your superior force with their own. Don't want to fight for your right to control land? Pay rent to someone who is willing to fight for their right to collect rent from you.
Why should the new player have advantages over the established player? If the results of two years of crafting, starting with making an anvil from scratch and ending with shiny pointy things of doom, doesn't make the group much more effective that people who don't have those things, why bother? If a character that has been developed for two years doesn't have a significant advantage over a new one, why bother?
Of course, running a large fief will incur lots of expenses. Border disputes with the neighbors won't always be decided by the old guard, especially if there are people with less experience who want to participate. New players shouldn't be single-handedly sieging established castles, they should be raiding and defending outlying locations, interrupting or defending supply convoys, and otherwise engaging with equally matched players. Eventually, if the local threats are driven off, out of business, or absorbed, the player faction will expand into new territory, and need new people to expand and defend in this new territory. The goal of the new player could be to rise in the ranks of his organization and be put in charge of an area. A player could also just want only the glory with none of the high-level responsibility, and that is fine also.
New players shouldn't be single-handedly sieging established castles, they should be raiding and defending outlying locations, interrupting or defending supply convoys, and otherwise engaging with equally matched players.
You say this, but what about the more powerful, predatory player who will be preying on the new player and preventing them from accomplishing anything? Let alone a group of predatory players. When I say a mechanic to level the playing field, I mean something that prevents a high level player from attacking a low level player. And quite frankly, no amount of low level players will do enough damage to a high level to prevent him or his group from wiping them out. This is to be a game, played for fun. There is no fun when it is impossible to advance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
New players shouldn't be single-handedly sieging established castles, they should be raiding and defending outlying locations, interrupting or defending supply convoys, and otherwise engaging with equally matched players.You say this, but what about the more powerful, predatory player who will be preying on the new player and preventing them from accomplishing anything? Let alone a group of predatory players. When I say a mechanic to level the playing field, I mean something that prevents a high level player from attacking a low level player. And quite frankly, no amount of low level players will do enough damage to a high level to prevent him or his group from wiping them out. This is to be a game, played for fun. There is no fun when it is impossible to advance.
I believe many of us, at least myself have been calling for a lesser power curve, IE not a wow grade curve, I think the most fair example someone gave was the idea of level more or less being an equivelent of how many people you should match, IE a level 20 is about at the same power level as 20 level 1's, or 2 level 10s, 4 level 5's etc... (above 20 you are just expanding flexibility so actual power isn't increasing noticeably), and yes at extremely low levels the players should be in the equivalent of high security land, in which either high level NPCs will deal with unwarranted PKers swiftly, or ryan has implied that if they proved ineffective he may even consider flat out disabling PK in that territory depending on how things work.
So basically with a combination of the lower power level system, and the higher security zone that probably would only be beneficial to leave after the equivalent of level 5ish, then you would be looking at the absolute most people you need to be on even terms with even the best players as 4:1. Also keeping in mind that in high risk PK lands, people will be founding cities, that odds are gravitating out into said territory, you will be either good enough to be running a city, or working with a group that is running a city. Meaning your lower level people will be along side higher level people, and have the benefit of their protection.
This game isn't going to be like theme park MMO's where territory X is where level 30's go to level and the only reason a level 80 would be there is to gank. So a ganker has no area that is a free lunch of only characters weaker then himself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the most fair example someone gave was the idea of level more or less being an equivelent of how many people you should match, IE a level 20 is about at the same power level as 20 level 1's, or 2 level 10s, 4 level 5's etc...
The more I think about this, the more I like it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the most fair example someone gave was the idea of level more or less being an equivelent of how many people you should match, IE a level 20 is about at the same power level as 20 level 1's, or 2 level 10s, 4 level 5's etc...The more I think about this, the more I like it.
Exactly. A kobold may be a pitiful little creature. But 100 of em will take down quite a few adventurers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the most fair example someone gave was the idea of level more or less being an equivelent of how many people you should match, IE a level 20 is about at the same power level as 20 level 1's, or 2 level 10s, 4 level 5's etc...The more I think about this, the more I like it.
Oh yeah it was you who said it first :P
Sorry I try to give credit where credit was due, you were the first one to mention it, I just couldn't find the post in the huge messes that these threads rapidly degenerate into.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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 have the opposite concern, actually.
I'm a player who finds the prospect of requiring consent for PVP to make an MMO an unattractive choice.
I find it encourages players to be jerks without any repercussions. They can kill-steal, run ahead and loot the chests while you're stuck fighting off monsters, or stand there being incredibly rude without any fear that you're going to (with the help of your friends) gang up on them and kill them for it and take the stuff back.
If there's no PVP safeguards, then you can note their name, and login with your stronger character and torture them for a while for justice. Or you know, get help from a friend to kill them and take your stuff back.
But I'd also want "Hardcore Mode" servers with permanent deaths and the ability to loot absolutely everything off of a corpse. If its like that, you're going to have PVP causing death be for good reasons.
RPPVPHardcore.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How do you have a sandbox RPG where player interaction is part of the content where you just opt out of interacting with others?
People think that their actions are just their actions and that they don't affect others so others shouldn't affect them. The thing is... these same players probably do affect others just more indirectly.
For example lets say you are a player and you are gathering resources of some sort. Now you might think you are not hurting anyone else or affecting others, but in an open sandbox you just might be. If you are gathering MacGuffins, and selling MacGuffins, and I also gather and sell them, then your actions affect me. Heck it might even be part of market pvp (it is). It would be in my best interest to stop you from gathering those MacGuffins.
What sort of activities can people do where they are the only ones that is affected without being part of no risk with reward pvp (market or otherwise)?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, if I'm doing an instance with a few of my buddies, and we aren't doing an auction thing, that has a fairly negligible effect on you if youre not there.
But then, perhaps killing someone for collecting MacGuffins is something that would be frowned upon by other players, and you could get permakilled for murdering someone like that.
Think of applyinf real life style punishments to actions, except the dead can testify against you in your trial.
Personally I dont consider killing a jerk's character and taking his stuff to be any worse than kill-stealing, stealing other people's loot, or other jerk-like behavior you see online all the time these days.
People had better manners in Diablo 1 than they did in Diablo 2 or WoW, for example. Yeah some people were still Jerks, but if someone killed you in D1 and took your stuff like a jerk, you wrote down his account name, and you hunted him down for it later.
If you're feeling particularly vindictive, you set it up so he's killed by monsters instead of yourself, so you can take his weapons too, not just his money and his ear.
Oh how I loathe that word.
Guilds.
Nothing conjures up bad memories than my encounters with guilds. It would take a lot to change that, and yes I've had a rare good guild experience also. It will never make up for all the bad ones.
Furthermore, I don't like pvp much. Non-consensual pvp I don't like at all. For all the hypothetical talk of how it makes good groups of people and all, the fact remains that these are people on the internet, many of whom take an unholy delight in ruining someone else's day for kicks. This isn't Sun Tzu or Machiavelli, where guilds sit and debate on which target to attack for the maximum political gain, territory, and traction. It's pvp. A group of strong characters will band into a group and go killing anyone and everyone in their path and flee at the first sign of opposition. That's what they do. They prefer a 'contest' that is akin to a College senior playing dodgeball against a 2nd grader, with just as predictable an outcome. I could rant for hours on the topic...but I won't.
I'm willing to give it a shot - barely. I would like to see myself proven completely wrong. To find the joys that others seem to find in guilds and sandbox worlds. To see an actual player-run economy. But I'm very leery of it. Maybe I'm not a desirable customer for the product; that could well be. But I like the concept, I -love- Pathfinder, and I have found Paizo to do things that I haven't previously thought possible before, and I'll rely on that history here. Just don't forget us PVE players, that's all I ask. Some in these threads think we shouldn't have an opinion. That Skyrim is all we should do because some time, long ago, someone decided that playing with all their friends was great online...and somehow it got twisted to being the ONLY way to play online. I just don't, and won't, believe that that is true. I believe there is room for many playstyles in any game without it becoming a poor watered-down game. Sometimes you just have to look for it.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Well, if I'm doing an instance with a few of my buddies, and we aren't doing an auction thing, that has a fairly negligible effect on you if youre not there.
But then, perhaps killing someone for collecting MacGuffins is something that would be frowned upon by other players, and you could get permakilled for murdering someone like that.
Think of applyinf real life style punishments to actions, except the dead can testify against you in your trial.
Personally I dont consider killing a jerk's character and taking his stuff to be any worse than kill-stealing, stealing other people's loot, or other jerk-like behavior you see online all the time these days.
People had better manners in Diablo 1 than they did in Diablo 2 or WoW, for example. Yeah some people were still Jerks, but if someone killed you in D1 and took your stuff like a jerk, you wrote down his account name, and you hunted him down for it later.
If you're feeling particularly vindictive, you set it up so he's killed by monsters instead of yourself, so you can take his weapons too, not just his money and his ear.
Individual Instanced areas are the exact opposite of open PvP. You can't have both in the same game. PvP in Diablo quickly dropped to a metagame question of 'who has the better anti-anti-autokill', rather than anything about playing the game. PvP in both games was not part of the core gameplay. Same with WoW; the game simply wasn't designed for players to fight each other, but to fight alongside each other.
Design a game balanced for players to combat each other, and many of the problems associated with tacking it on to a cooperative/cocompetitive game simply don't exist. There isn't a huge gap between characters built for PvE and PvP, nor are there players who know how PvE works but not PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm leery of open, non-consensual PvP, but I don't see how you create an environment where two armies can contest territory without it.
I'm more hopeful that Paizo will get the balance right, where PvP is possible anywhere, but exceedingly rare in many areas. My buddy played Eve for years and never once got ganked. There's not a lot of difference between putting areas on a continuum between high and low security, and putting those areas at one end or the other. People who want to stay in non-PvP areas can, in both systems.
Another way I look at it is to look for the positives associated with open PvP. Specifically, I want to be able to build a Keep on the Borderlands and entice merchants and fighters and crafters and scholars to come there and found a city. And I want there to be a real sense of danger in doing so, where I might get attacked. And I want those attacks to be thoughtful and creative with a real chance of succeeding if my followers and I aren't good enough to repel them. That's a major positive, in my eyes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Another point on the difference between Open PvP and Griefing.
My wife and I play SWTOR, and are enjoying it quite a lot, but there's a bug where if you scan a resource node and then fail to loot it, the resource node stays on the map and never respawns, which means that other harvesters see it on their map but can't get it.
Someone in her area is going around hitting every node and not looting them as a way of griefing. That's only one example, but there are a multitude of examples of how Griefing can happen even without Open PvP.
I think a lot of people have had some very bad experiences, and have rightly learned to shun Open PvP as it's been implemented in the past. I share Apotheosis's hope that Paizo implements it better.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A couple of thoughts, likely have already been said ..
Have open-pvp servers, and closed-pvp servers.
Closed pvp is handled in a single zone/area in the world, easily accessible, and not easily stumbled upon. Players will have a HUGE warning about where they are entering. No outside pvp'ing, at all. None, not even duels can happen outside these areas.
PvE should be 100% P v E.
PvP should be 100% P v P.
This also falls appart on all levels in the same way that making seperate PVP and PVE servers does. It requires a completely seperate game with a completely seperate focus. The game you describe is no longer anything about territory control, kingdom building, protection etc... Which is fine but nothing to do with the game that goblin works is wanting to develop, with the exception of the fact that goblin works has talked about a PVE area of the game, IE the equivelant of high security land and considered the idea of flat out turning off PVP in that area in the event that the guards themselves cannot prevent it. In Ryans words, this area will provide the lowest rewards per time spent, due to it being the safest area to be.
In the higher more dangerous areas the game will be about controling and protecting things. In which case the mines produce more then the ones in the Higher security area, but they also can be depleted or something along those lines, so there are reasons that if you don't protect them, than you do not gain much benefit from them, and thus have to actually work to prevent others from depleting the items that are near your kingdom so that yours may prosper etc...