Are there any players who are very leery of non consensual PVP?


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 268 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade Goblinworks Executive Founder

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


ElyasRavenwood wrote:


Are there players out there who would prefer that there be little to no PVP in the pathfinder online game?

Thanks

As I put it somewere else, I'd like to have a choice. If both players declare that they want to fight each other its ok.

However I don't want to be constantly and randomly attacked by overpowered x-men.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
ElyasRavenwood wrote:

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?

Quite simply, I have given up any hope that the Pathfinder online game will be playable - I *hate* the idea on non-consensual play.

Having designated areas where PVP is permitted - fine - I'll stay out of those areas. But if it covers the whole game, then I won't be there. End of story.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not at all interested in non consensual PvP. I'll certainly still keep an eye on developments to find out how they're setting up the game, but from the details that I've seen so far it doesn't really appeal to me very much. Hopefully the game finds an audience though, whether I like the end product or not a popular MMORPG would be a great way to get the Pathfinder brand out there.


ElyasRavenwood wrote:


Are there players out there who would prefer that there be little to no PVP in the pathfinder online game?

I do not mind PvP as long as there are safe zones and it is reasonable. Most times, PvP is unreasonable because the controls that are normally in place are not and so the low self-esteem who want to kill for fun, do so. Therefore, we need controls. I surely want controls so I do not have to worry about being jumped when I am doing basic character maintenance.

Now Fallout Online maybe a little different because it fits the world and game play more.

ElyasRavenwood wrote:


Are there players out there who find the prospect of non consensual PVP cause for concern?

Yes, it has to be consensual, and/or area based, and/or level based. Some people are die hard PVE'ers and do not want to deal with PvP. If you make a game strictly PvP, Goblinworks will lose market share just like if they make this game a mirror image of any current popular MMO.

ElyasRavenwood wrote:


Do those players find that the prospect of non consensual PVP makes Pathfinder Online for them an unattractive choice?

Yes, because this is not Fallout. However, I bet Fallout Online will have PvP controls in place as well because they know they would lose the PvE crowd.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ElyasRavenwood wrote:

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

Let me put it this way. I have played the last MMORG I will ever play that followed the Lineage 2 model for PVP. I do however have no problems with the way Blizzard set it up. i.e.the choice of PVP servers where you ARE in PVP mode any time you step out of your home territory, and PVE servers in which PVP is consensual.

In other words, why not offer BOTH options as Blizzard has done?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For me, RPGs are all cooperative, not competitive. If I ever get into MMOs, and PFO could accomplish that, there has to be a way to play without being involved in PvP.

Especially since non-martial roles are apparently part of the whole thing. What use is making a great blacksmith character if warrior characters keep attacking me?

Lantern Lodge Goblin Squad Member

I don't know if this has been brought up in any of the PvP threads, but here's my little bit of input . . .

I've been playing MMOs since EQ1, and I've NEVER liked PvP. Never. That is, not until I was introduced to the system that they used in Warhammer Online. Basically, they DO have open PvP, but the zones are tiered, and entering into the lower-leveled zones with the intent of "ganking," or even casual exploration results in you being temporarily transformed into a harmless chicken. There are clearly delineated open "Warfront" areas where random PvP can and will likely happen, but you get an onscreen notice with a few seconds warning before you get flagged for PvP, and thus before that mage hiding behind that tree can fireball you. Of course, everyone roamed around the PvP areas in large groups, so you were almost never alone unless you got unlucky or just plain suicidal.

They also have queue-able battlegrounds-type instances, and I think contested dungeons / raids. In any case, the game took PvP very seriously and came up with an enjoyable, workable model. Incorporating those elements into a game with an equivalent focus on PvE would make for one helluva gaming experience.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

None consensual PVP would pretty much be a complete deal breaker for me. Every occasion Ive experianced it has ruined the game for me.

Frog God Games

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just wanted to point out that the folks saying "I'd like PvP if [insert conditions here]" are describing ways of making PvP consensual. I don't think that anyone really has a problem with PvP if they can opt out of it. It's non-consensual PvP that is ruffling feathers.

I would simply like to have a server where non-consensual PvP isn't allowed... but has provisions for consensual PvP. Non-consensual PvPers can have their own servers


The more i read about the game the more i see that i can make a living anyway i want. However if i don't play a combat monkey Non-consenual PVP would prohibit my merchant from going to his cousins wedding without dying repeatedly or worse paying what will probably be outlandish prices* for having someone protect me.

*based on experiences with other MMO's and the cost of hiring someone to help you cross an area.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Here's the thing. I actually enjoy PvP. No, really, I do. I like it in the current Guild Wars, and LOVED it in Warhammer Online, and I even enjoyed the Battlegrounds in WoW.

But I hate non-consensual PvP. I just do. If Pathfinder Online makes non-consensual PvP a fundamental game mechanic, I just won't play it. Nothing ruins your day like getting killed by someone in a safe area for essentially no reason. It's just annoying, and it wastes time.


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 to raid gear for the privledge of entering 5-hour dungeons with 25 people to kill some mega dragon. It's about carving your own place in the world as a part of competing nation states. Whether you support gank-anywhere or not, competition on some level is the very point of the game. It's what drives the drama and conflict in the absence of hordes of quest content that WoW provides. Asking for PvE servers is asking for servers with no content.

There may be an argument that the full-time craftsman should be insulated from combat PvP, but such a character will constantly be haggling, i.e. hoodwinking other players into paying more for less, in order to build a profit from their activities. On a player-driven market the worth of your currency depends upon how hard it is for everyone to get it, so you try to maximize yourself getting as much as easily as possible in order to purchase desirable goods others have worked to make. Additionally many of the materials being created by the craftsman will be desired precisely for their power to aid or protect from ganking. Even if straight ganking is inappropriate, the craftsman is still very engaged in competition.

Silver Crusade Goblinworks Executive Founder

First off I wanted to thank you all for your posts.

As you might have guessed, I am extremely leery of non-consensual PVP. Yee Koss makes a very good point. RPGs are at their heart cooperative not competitive games.

The Pathfinder RPG is at its heart a cooperative game where the GM sets the "stage" the story, and his characters the players and their PCs put together a group of characters that specialize in a particular area of expertise. By working together they can overcome the obstacles the GM puts in front of the group.

Chuck Wright I also think you have hit the nail on the head...its the non consensual PVP that has everyone's including my own ruffled.

Thanks for your posts.... I always find something interesting I haven't thought of yet.

Scarab Sages

FoxBat_ wrote:
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 to raid gear for the privledge of entering 5-hour dungeons with 25 people to kill some mega dragon. It's about carving your own place in the world as a part of competing nation states. Whether you support gank-anywhere or not, competition on some level is the very point of the game. It's what drives the drama and conflict in the absence of hordes of quest content that WoW provides. Asking for PvE servers is asking for servers with no content.

And if you had perused some of the other threads, you would know that almost none of the people in this sub-forum want WoW-type content. However, that doesn't mean we support ganking and griefing. You can have quests that don't revolve around killing X number of Y without creating a scenario in which Open PvP is a requirement.

If you want to make player versus player conflict the primary source of content in your game, you need to prepare for one of two situations:

1) You'll need to create PvE content that exists outside of Player vs. Player conflict.

or

2) You'll need to prepare for losing a LOT of subscriptions to people who just don't want to deal with that crap.

Again, you can create dynamic, exciting world-building content that even includes an emphasis on PvP, but there have to be options for people that don't want to, otherwise you're just cutting off part of your consumer base.

Silver Crusade

I have to agree. If you are paying money to subscribe to a game (and many people here obviously like the idea of playing in Golarion as an MMO) you want the game to be enjoyable.

If you want to have as many subscribers as possible (I cannot imagine a company that would willingly turn subscribers away as a business model) then I imagine you need to cater for a broad audience. I may well be wrong, since I never trouble myself with how MMOs come about or are run (I am no expert on their creation or maintenance).

Now if I did not want to participate in non-consensual PvP, but want to explore the game world, I would hope there would be options to allow me to do that in PFO. Sitting around crafting all day sounds really, really boring.

However, if I do not want to craft, and I do not want to run around avoiding PvP scenarios, I hope there is some way to toggle off PvP. Make the game full of benefits for non-PvP play and PvP play.

It sounds to me that if you do not want to experience non-consensual PvP, your only option in PFO is to sit at home making furniture or something. Admittedly, I do need to finish reading through some of the threads where there has been feedback from GW and Paizo.

Personally, I am into PvP and will probably like PFO because of it. However, after reading through the experiences of others in MMOs I have not played, I can see there needing to a PvP toggle.


I do hate non-consensual PvP.

Every occurance of me PKing anyone was always retaliation for uprovoked attack. A few times in response to attack I used a crowd control ability and backed off - tactic that wasn't viable at times(either hadn't cc ability, attacker didn't get the clue or I was dead before I could react - often the third option).

In fact when playing in areas that allowed for PvP I had /shoo -ed other players instead of attacking them when they were getting in my way.

I would prefer if PFO would either allow toggling PvP off (perhaps in a way that would prevent immediate toggling it on and attacking unsuspecting opponent that noticed you are at no-PvP and wasn't bothering with your) or just set at least one serwer with such toggle available without going for "you can't see whole content of the game without agreeing to PvP" - as it is in EVE.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Speaking for my own preferences, there can be all the PvP anyone wants, so long as it's consensual. But I'm just not interested in putting even time, much less money, into a game where I could be forced into PvP if I didn't want it.

So far what I've read of Mr Dancy's answers to questions about the game plans indicate that there isn't going to be any choice and PvP is going to be if anything actively encouraged, which pretty much eliminates me as a potential customer right at the start of development. It's not that there's something wrong with what Goblinworks seems to have in mind, it just doesn't look like it's supposed to be the kind of game I enjoy.


I have a question for the 'no non-consensual pvp' crowd, and I figure this could be a good place to ask it rather than starting up a new thread.

How would you react to Pathfinder Online in the month or two following launch, if it DID have full non-consensual PvP with various restrictions in place and proved itself to not be the horror you all believe it will be.

Feel free to include pessimistic "not possible" stuff in your posts if you see fit, but please be sure to also include an answer to the "what if" I presented.

Silver Crusade

Paul Ryan wrote:
It's not that there's something wrong with what Goblinworks seems to have in mind, it just doesn't look like it's supposed to be the kind of game I enjoy.

That is what I see as crazy. Why alienate potential subscribers? I am not a business person or even business minded, but I imagine catering to all styles of gaming is better than alienating a bunch of people from the beginning.

Alright, it will cost time and money to develop, but I imagine PFO would benefit from allowing Player A a way of avoiding PvP while allowing Player B to revel in it. Objectives and rewards in the game should cater for either style of play.


kyrt-ryder wrote:

I have a question for the 'no non-consensual pvp' crowd, and I figure this could be a good place to ask it rather than starting up a new thread.

How would you react to Pathfinder Online in the month or two following launch, if it DID have full non-consensual PvP with various restrictions in place and proved itself to not be the horror you all believe it will be.

Feel free to include pessimistic "not possible" stuff in your posts if you see fit, but please be sure to also include an answer to the "what if" I presented.

I am in favor of non-consensual PvP because I like the gameplay and social possibilities it will present. I think many people on both sides are taking things to their worst possible extremes: "non-consensual PvP" means the world will be an apocalyptic wasteland with griefers waiting every 10 feet. "PvE with consensual PvP" is just another WoW clone for people who already have more than enough games of that type to choose from.

Chubbs McGee wrote:
Paul Ryan wrote:
It's not that there's something wrong with what Goblinworks seems to have in mind, it just doesn't look like it's supposed to be the kind of game I enjoy.
That is what I see as crazy. Why alienate potential subscribers?

Potential customers are alienated in every market and in every industry. You have to make tough choices and choose what type of customer you want to make your product for.

Quote:
I am not a business person or even business minded, but I imagine catering to all styles of gaming is better than alienating a bunch of people from the beginning.

Not necessarily. Sometimes taking the middle road and trying to please everyone ends up pleasing nobody. Both sides may end up despising the mediocrity that's offered for their playstyle and just leave for a game that's more slanted for what they prefer.

Here's the big question: Do you try to take a smaller slice from a big pie, or take a bigger slice from a smaller pie?

Quote:
Alright, it will cost time and money to develop, but I imagine PFO would benefit from allowing Player A a way of avoiding PvP while allowing Player B to revel in it. Objectives and rewards in the game should cater for either style of play.

I don't disagree. If it has to be so, I think the best solution is servers with separate rulesets. Carving up the landscape into PvE/PvP regions on a server would not be ideal, IMO. ("I can't kill anyone on that side!" and "I can't explore and quest on that side without getting killed!")

Silver Crusade

Urlithani wrote:
Potential customers are alienated in every market and in every industry. You have to make tough choices and choose what type of customer you want to make your product for.

Too true. But may be trying to expand the options means a greater slice of the pie, so to speak?

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

My first problem with non-consensual Pvp with supposed areas where there are going to be harsh penalties are either the penalties do not work/ are unenforcable or the solutions in place to enforce penalties break immersion way more than needing to have consensual pvp.

My second is it can be quite difficult to tell the diffrence between the person who is killing my character becuase he is roleplaying an Assasin/Bandit/etc and the one that is doing it because he is just being a jerk especially when both are making the claim that they are roleplaying a bandit/assasin/etc.

Goblin Squad Member

kyrt-ryder wrote:

I have a question for the 'no non-consensual pvp' crowd, and I figure this could be a good place to ask it rather than starting up a new thread.

How would you react to Pathfinder Online in the month or two following launch, if it DID have full non-consensual PvP with various restrictions in place and proved itself to not be the horror you all believe it will be.

Feel free to include pessimistic "not possible" stuff in your posts if you see fit, but please be sure to also include an answer to the "what if" I presented.

If I can last 2 months exploring Golarion (or the part of it that will be in PFO) without wanting to punch through my monitor due to gankers/greifers I will be very pleasantly surprised.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

kyrt-ryder wrote:

I have a question for the 'no non-consensual pvp' crowd, and I figure this could be a good place to ask it rather than starting up a new thread.

How would you react to Pathfinder Online in the month or two following launch, if it DID have full non-consensual PvP with various restrictions in place and proved itself to not be the horror you all believe it will be.

Feel free to include pessimistic "not possible" stuff in your posts if you see fit, but please be sure to also include an answer to the "what if" I presented.

Believe it or not I would be quite happy to be proved wrong but as Ive already said above all the games and servers ive been on that promise such things have never seemed to work.


Davor wrote:

You can have quests that don't revolve around killing X number of Y without creating a scenario in which Open PvP is a requirement.

WoW was just a specific example, but if you want to speak more broadly: I mean quests of any kind, as in scripted tasks and scenarios created by game devs, are not the real content. That doesn't mean there aren't tons of PvE things to do; it does mean however that most of them have to tie back into the broader competitive picture somehow. Whether you can be killed on the open road or not, the movers and shakers in this world are not those who can organize and grind through difficult PvE content, but instead those at the lead of player kingdoms fighting each other for glory.

So far devs talk about stratifying risk versus reward, with "risk" principly coming from other players. So you can farm some goods near a town and be relatively safe, but heading deep out into the wilderness in search of rare goods, expect to be waylaid by bandit players. Those kinds of competitions are what drive the entire system, of which the safe farmers play a proportionally small part in, due to their low generated rewards. You could make the game have more "safe zones", or make those safe zones absolute (cannot be attacked) but the entire system rests on their being some dangerous zones where resources are actively contested; i.e. not-exactly-consenting PvP.

You also have to consider that player kingdoms are presumably not permanent entities (whatever can be created and takes up space in a sandbox need also be destroyed), so there must be a way to attack them directly or indirectly and effect a change in leadership or destroying them outright. This isn't incompatible with absolute safe zones, but you need a way to transition those safe zones into unsafe ones and vice versa. Assuming you come up with an intuitive way to do that which is easily read by the players, and yet still supporting of groups conquering towns... you have to wonder if you've really met the point of absolute safe zones at all, when that zone around your player's home or store may well be gone tommorrow, and you will get occasionally ganked regardless.

I'm quite aware that most people here aren't going to like this kind of vision, and its profitability is also questionable. It seems pretty core to the goals the designer has laid out though. This is just not a player versus AI game at its core, so removing player conflict from the equation invalidates just about everything else the devs have laid out as goals. Whatever kind of limitations you want to set on it, PvP somewhere in the open world is core to PFO. Like the OP suggested, sure be uncomfortable; but I wouldn't expect it to change.

Goblin Squad Member

kyrt-ryder wrote:

I have a question for the 'no non-consensual pvp' crowd, and I figure this could be a good place to ask it rather than starting up a new thread.

How would you react to Pathfinder Online in the month or two following launch, if it DID have full non-consensual PvP with various restrictions in place and proved itself to not be the horror you all believe it will be.

Feel free to include pessimistic "not possible" stuff in your posts if you see fit, but please be sure to also include an answer to the "what if" I presented.

I'm not certain that is a fair question. It would be analogous to asking, "how would you react if it WAS that horrible after the release because of non-consensual PvP?" It seems ultimately preloaded with an answer.

If I have fun because of or despite non-consensual PvP then I will be happy to play and have fun.

I'm not getting a clear enough picture of the world for me to have a solid idea how the feel of the game might be. The posts by Vic Wertz and Ryan Dancey have helped me understand some of it, but some people are just generating a lot of noise that muddies the issue for me.

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.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

@Foxbat This is exactly what i worry about I work 40+ hours a week and am married with a 3 year old. I would love to play but if i can't become a legandary (insert occupation here) because i don't have the time to outdo a legion of teenage jerks who enjoy killing me everytime i walk past the guards and then stealing everything i worked to get,there by increasing the power gap as i now have to start over, then I can't many mature players with limited time coming to the game.

Goblin Squad Member

kyrt-ryder wrote:

I have a question for the 'no non-consensual pvp' crowd, and I figure this could be a good place to ask it rather than starting up a new thread.

How would you react to Pathfinder Online in the month or two following launch, if it DID have full non-consensual PvP with various restrictions in place and proved itself to not be the horror you all believe it will be.

Feel free to include pessimistic "not possible" stuff in your posts if you see fit, but please be sure to also include an answer to the "what if" I presented.

I will have missed out. Essentially I won't be playing if PvP isnt regulated (formally - by making it impossible without my deliberate choice). As such, I'm not going to know if the game is one I would enjoy.

Maybe there's some clever way to do it where I'd enjoy it even though PvP is allowed, but I'm not interested in trying it out. Too cyncial and time poor, I'm afraid.

Goblinworks Founder

Blazej wrote:

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.

This is the important information that really needs to be cleared up before word of mouth gets out of control.

How safe is safe when you are in the safe zone?


ElyasRavenwood wrote:

Yee Koss

For that, I now wholeheartedly support enforced PvP!


Chubbs McGee wrote:


(I cannot imagine a company that would willingly turn subscribers away as a business model)

Oh, I have a relatively recent example from this very industry. It was worded as "firing their customers", but the end result was the same.

Chubbs McGee wrote:


Sitting around crafting all day sounds really, really boring.

Well, if the forced PvP stays in, you won't do that. You'll sit around part of the day crafting and the rest is spend defending yourself against characters with warrior skill sets who decided that they'd rather kill and loot you than pay you for a sword...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Urlithani wrote:
I think many people on both sides are taking things to their worst possible extremes: "non-consensual PvP" means the world will be an apocalyptic wasteland with griefers waiting every 10 feet.

We are talking about a game that will be played over the internet.


KaeYoss wrote:
ElyasRavenwood wrote:

Yee Koss

For that, I now wholeheartedly support enforced PvP!

One PK for wrong letter, one PK for each misplaced one?

KaeYoss wrote:
Urlithani wrote:
I think many people on both sides are taking things to their worst possible extremes: "non-consensual PvP" means the world will be an apocalyptic wasteland with griefers waiting every 10 feet.
We are talking about a game that will be played over the internet.

By internauts, no less.

And no, it won't be apocalyptic wasteland - there will be lots of beautiful River Kingdoms scenery around with griefers spaced as close to 10 feet of each other as actual landscape and conflicts between PKs over best turf will allow.

The Exchange

KaeYoss wrote:
Urlithani wrote:
I think many people on both sides are taking things to their worst possible extremes: "non-consensual PvP" means the world will be an apocalyptic wasteland with griefers waiting every 10 feet.
We are talking about a game that will be played over the internet.

yup, exactly. Full of faceless people not caring if yours or my day is ruined. I spent a year playing Evony online, a city-building type game with resource management and troops and such, and there was no way to avoid getting wasted while you weren't online without paying for vacation days or buying 12 hour truces. I was very strong (top 200 player) in a top 5 alliance and I went online one morning to find out that every city I had was sacked, all my millions of troops gone, all my resources taken, and 8 of my 9 cities were gone (can't take a player's last city). My alliance tried to fortify me overnight but too few were on to help.

If this is what is going to happen on PFO, count me out. Whether it's my character's life or my character's stronghold that is being hit by another player, I do not want it. Not in a game where money spent and time played gives the biggest advantage because I can't spend a ton of money and I have a 40+ hour/wk job, a wife and 2 kids, and I just want to explore Golarion a couple hours a night to see the world I want to see.

I will be extremely upset if PFO doesn't allow me to play the way I want to.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Blazej wrote:


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.


Fake Healer wrote:
Full of faceless people not caring if yours or my day is ruined.

That's not a very truthful depiction of the internet. Those people care. They're sitting in front of their PCs, giggling at your misfortune until their sides split.

They probably compete with each other to see if they can't drive a player to commit suicide...

Silver Crusade Goblinworks Executive Founder

Thank you all for your thoughts.

Davor you make a good point about with an emphasis on pvp you are cutting out a portion of your consumer base

Chubbs Mcgee, good point about the need for a toggle to turn off the PVP option.

Paul Ryan I agree with your point and opinion.

Kyrt-ryder for me the non consentual PVP for me is simply a deal breaker. But not necessarily for the reasons you may think. While I don’t want to have to worry about other PCs, and think I’ll have enough to deal with facing the environment.

There is another reason why I am Vehemently against non-consensual PVP.

The Pathfinder RPG is at its heart a cooperative game not a competitive game. It is a game where the GM sets the "stage" the story, and his characters the players and their PCs put together a group of characters that specialize in a particular area of expertise. By working together they can overcome the obstacles the GM puts in front of the group. I feel that, well my opinion is that, PVP fundamentally changes this cooperative nature of the Pathfinder RPG. It turns it into a competitive game.

Chubbs Mcgee, I agree, I think there is room for both kind of players namely PVP players and PVE players…the non-consensual aspect removes options for PVE players, namely their choice.

Urathi, I suppose one of the other reasons I would rather not see non-consensual PVP, is because of the social possibilities. My assumptions that with the anonymous nature of the Internet, I think it will give vent to the worst of people’s impulses and will result in allot of bullying and thuggery. Now I don’t know this for a fact, but it is what I think will happen in such an environment. I don’t trust people to police themselves.

Foxbat, Thank you for your thoughtful answer.

“So far devs talk about stratifying risk versus reward, with "risk" principly coming from other players. So you can farm some goods near a town and be relatively safe, but heading deep out into the wilderness in search of rare goods, expect to be waylaid by bandit players. Those kinds of competitions are what drive the entire system, of which the safe farmers play a proportionally small part in, due to their low generated rewards. You could make the game have more "safe zones", or make those safe zones absolute (cannot be attacked) but the entire system rests on their being some dangerous zones where resources are actively contested; i.e. not-exactly-consenting PvP.”

I'm quite aware that most people here aren't going to like this kind of vision, and its profitability is also questionable. It seems pretty core to the goals the designer has laid out though. This is just not a player versus AI game at its core, so removing player conflict from the equation invalidates just about everything else the devs have laid out as goals. Whatever kind of limitations you want to set on it, PvP somewhere in the open world is core to PFO. Like the OP suggested, sure be uncomfortable; but I wouldn't expect it to change.”

This may very well be. It may very well be, that the Devs have non-consensual PVP at the heart of their vision of a competitive, player driven sand box and game. This is fine. It just means that this may very well be a game that I am not interested in. Personally I am not interested in seeing a “re skinned” EVE….i guess that ultimately what I am afraid that a game like that is in the works. Eve does not have a good reputation, a reputation for sociopathic behavior, not a good reputation. Now while I haven’t played this game myself, and all my information is anecdotal from long time friends I trust who have played EVE, they have told me enough that Eve would be a game I wouldn’t enjoy.

I need to read the rest of the thread to see what others have said.

Again thank you for all of your thoughts and ideas. Please keep them coming, and I glad that thus far it seems that we have been able to keep things civil.

Silver Crusade Goblinworks Executive Founder

TalonHawk, another good point…..and yet another very good and very valid reason to steer clear of non consentual PVP

Steve Geddes all I can say is that I hope they do limit PVP, In my opinion it would be very disappointing if they did not.

Elth, here is a link Perhaps this would be a good place to look to see what the develpper has in mind. Elth, yes instead of worrying what the rumors are, it would be better to see what the developer has in mind directly. I have to read his post very carefully to see what he is saying.

Kae Yoss, I had no idea my thoughts and words were so persuasive….
Ah now at a second glance I realize I have transposed the letters in your avatar’s name…..my apologies…….However I do like the Illusion that my words are very persuasive, I may hang on to it for a while.

Fake Healer I sympathise with your position….I have to admit if I logged onto Wow, and found my characters well naked with no cash or equitment, because they had been “mugged” and “robbed” while I was offline, well I would be pretty irritated too.

On Evony online How did people organize themselves and police themselves? Was it simply the rule of the strong?

Diego Rossi both examples you present with thugs waiting to waylay PCs I find very unattractive. I would probably not want to play Pathfinder Online if such conditions existed on the game.

Again thank you for your thoughts please keep them coming.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm not opposed to it in theory... but in practice I'm sure there would be many players who care about nothing but just running around and trying to kill any player they see.


Natan Linggod 972 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:

I have a question for the 'no non-consensual pvp' crowd, and I figure this could be a good place to ask it rather than starting up a new thread.

How would you react to Pathfinder Online in the month or two following launch, if it DID have full non-consensual PvP with various restrictions in place and proved itself to not be the horror you all believe it will be.

Feel free to include pessimistic "not possible" stuff in your posts if you see fit, but please be sure to also include an answer to the "what if" I presented.

If I can last 2 months exploring Golarion (or the part of it that will be in PFO) without wanting to punch through my monitor due to gankers/greifers I will be very pleasantly surprised.

I hope this includes griefers of a non-pvp variety. They are just as common, especially when PvP isn't available or isn't allowed in a given area.


kyrt-ryder wrote:
I hope this includes griefers of a non-pvp variety. They are just as common, especially when PvP isn't available or isn't allowed in a given area.

I haven't seen any such in Lord Of The Rings Online or Runes Of Magic - how do they bother others?


kyrt-ryder wrote:


I hope this includes griefers of a non-pvp variety. They are just as common, especially when PvP isn't available or isn't allowed in a given area.

Those guys are what ignore buttons are for.


There are too many replies to keep dumping posts to address them, so I will use this post to deal with as many of them as seems reasonable.

@ Blazej- this is the second or third time my statements have apparently come off as loaded against your position, and for that I apologize.

I'm glad to see that you would be willing to play it if it were fun, despite your concerns regarding non-consensual PvP.

There is indeed a lot of obscurity on the issue (and who knows how much of this stuff we're theorizing over the development staff has even addressed for themselves yet) so it will be a while before anything can be certain.

@ Steve- that's too bad. If PFO doesn't provide an option to avoid PvP by game mechanic rather than by caution you will be missed. Thanks for your voice.

@ Elyas- I get where you're coming from, really, I do, but there's something here that (I believe, though of course I could be mistaken) you're missing.

When you're playing D&D with a GM, and some people, be they bandits, or agents from an enemy country/faction, or other adventurers with opposing goals of your own are the opposition, who do you think those people are? They're the 'other players' in the game. You're competing against them for something, be that resources, rewards, or your very life.

In Pathfinder Online, you'll have plenty of opportunities for cooperative gaming. Guilds and personal alliances and such should abound, and that is where you get your 'party' with whom you cooperate. The rest of the world is simply the environment, from the "npc's" (other characters with whom your team generally doesn't fight, but who may support you in some way, such as goods and services, interaction, or the rare combat assist) to the "enemies" (other characters against whom your team fights.)

That's how I view it anyway my friend. Each character is a character, be they controlled by a person, the GM, or the AI. The only difference is how much 'processing power' they have for decision making and roleplay.


Diego Rossi wrote:
Hopefully the developers will not institute choke points as a way to increase "interaction" as in reality they make easier to grief weak targets.

I am in agreement with you there Diego. Especially concerning having a large circlish (not really a word... but I mean close to a circle) exit border region.

While I DO feel that there will be some pseudo choke points (bridges, roads through forests, [possibly mountain passes if the game expands into a mountainous region] etc), any path should be possible even if it's a bit slower.

So the choice becomes: Do I cross the bridge and risk an encounter with the troll, or do I ford the river somewhere else/use a raft.


Uninvited Ghost wrote:
I'm sure there would be many players who care about nothing but just running around and trying to kill any player they see.

It's a given.

I see similar behaviour all the time, in games where you have a lot less freedom:

  • There was Crysis 2, a train wreck of a game with more errors than features. In the beginning (and up to the point where I stopped playing because of all the errors they never fixed), the game was really crappy at protecting players against cheaters.

    A lot of the time you could forget a server because someone locked on, flew into the sky (there is no flying whatsoever in this game), and started killing people with perfect aiming (i.e. aimbot). Nothing you could do, except watch your statistics go to hell as someone else got to 100 kills in less time it usually takes you to shoot 100 bullets.

    And that doesn't include the easy loophole where you could pad your stats by working together to constantly grab the flag, drop it, and have someone from the other team releasing it. There were lots of servers where they did nothing else, no matter when you logged on. And when you tried to play, you were insulted for stopping their scheme.

  • In Battlefield 3, a game that is a lot better at weeding out cheats, there's still lots of people who will do nothing but keep spamming grenades from the grenade launcher or rockets from a RPG. Not the tactical use of these things, but basically making certain corridors impassable. Annoys people to no end, but what can you do?

    There's lots of stuff like that in all kinds of first person shooters.

    A lot of it is minor, true, but people make the most use of the tools they're given.

    Now put them into a sandbox with no real supervision. Anyone thinks they won't be trampling sandboxes?


  • 1 person marked this as a favorite.
    kyrt-ryder wrote:
    When you're playing D&D with a GM, and some people, be they bandits, or agents from an enemy country/faction, or other adventurers with opposing goals of your own are the opposition, who do you think those people are? They're the 'other players' in the game.

    No, they're exactly not that. They aren't called "Non-player characters" for no reason.

    They're not the opposition. They're a challenge. It's a significant difference in RPGs, because they are created/controlled by the GM to be a challenge. They're there for the express purpose of challenging you, not to win.

    Plus, the environment of the average PnP game is perfectly controlled: There is a party that works together and is usually designed to be a functioning group. Not all of them are necessarily ace combatants, but as a group, they can take on the challenges the GM throws at them. They might include a character who has spent skill points and/or feats for character creation, but that generally works out.

    Now, in an MMORPG, the opposition is opposition. They're controlled by different players, with no GM around to make sure things are fair. And they play to win.

    That makes all the difference in the world.

    So you're on with your crafter character, and a bunch of bandits with warrior skills attack you because f+&& you. You probably have no chance, because you made a crafter character like the game advertised was perfectly doable, with no chance of fighting off the fighters.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    KaeYoss wrote:

    No, they're exactly not that. They aren't called "Non-player characters" for no reason.

    They're not the opposition. They're a challenge. It's a significant difference in RPGs, because they are created/controlled by the GM to be a challenge. They're there for the express purpose of challenging you, not to win.

    It seems you and I have an irreconcilable difference in regards to gaming philosophy my friend. In my games, 'non-player characters' are just that, characters who just so happen to not have a player. Michael of the city watch, along with his wife Shaina and their daughter Elaine are every bit as 'real' as the PC's.

    When NPC's happen to fight the PC's, make no mistake, it is to win. They have goals, dreams, and purpose riding on the outcome of the fight (not to mention not dying) and they're going to fight tooth and toenail to come out on top, aka they play to win. (Note I say they, being the NPC's, not myself as GM. I'm just here to neutrally run the world and let the party interact with it.)

    Sure the PC's have the advantage 95% of the time (though that varies from cakewalk to near-even match) but the NPC's aren't just there to be a roadblock. They're living breathing parts of an interactive world, just like the PC's.

    There's a reason I don't use a GM screen to hide my rolls :P

    Goblinworks Founder

    KaeYoss wrote:
    Uninvited Ghost wrote:
    I'm sure there would be many players who care about nothing but just running around and trying to kill any player they see.

    It's a given.

    I see similar behaviour all the time, in games where you have a lot less freedom:

  • There was Crysis 2, a train wreck of a game with more errors than features. In the beginning (and up to the point where I stopped playing because of all the errors they never fixed), the game was really crappy at protecting players against cheaters.

    A lot of the time you could forget a server because someone locked on, flew into the sky (there is no flying whatsoever in this game), and started killing people with perfect aiming (i.e. aimbot). Nothing you could do, except watch your statistics go to hell as someone else got to 100 kills in less time it usually takes you to shoot 100 bullets.

    And that doesn't include the easy loophole where you could pad your stats by working together to constantly grab the flag, drop it, and have someone from the other team releasing it. There were lots of servers where they did nothing else, no matter when you logged on. And when you tried to play, you were insulted for stopping their scheme.

  • In Battlefield 3, a game that is a lot better at weeding out cheats, there's still lots of people who will do nothing but keep spamming grenades from the grenade launcher or rockets from a RPG. Not the tactical use of these things, but basically making certain corridors impassable. Annoys people to no end, but what can you do?

    There's lots of stuff like that in all kinds of first person shooters.

    A lot of it is minor, true, but people make the most use of the tools they're given.

    Now put them into a sandbox with no real supervision. Anyone thinks they won't be trampling sandboxes?

  • These are failures by the game developers for their game mechanics.

    Crisis 2 (among many other MP FPS Games) failed by not being secure.

    Battlefield 3, whilst being secure, failed in game design by making Rockets, Grenades and Grenade launchers easily replenished. The best way to stop rocket spam? Make ammunition finite and add encumbrance to things like rocket launchers and HMGs. The anti-matter rifles that snipers use in BF3 require a healthy amount of time to set up in real life (They're also a lot more powerful than they are in the game).

    Grand Lodge

    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    ElyasRavenwood wrote:

    Thank you all for your thoughts.

    Davor you make a good point about with an emphasis on pvp you are cutting out a portion of your consumer base

    Chubbs Mcgee, good point about the need for a toggle to turn off the PVP option.

    Paul Ryan I agree with your point and opinion.

    Kyrt-ryder for me the non consentual PVP for me is simply a deal breaker. But not necessarily for the reasons you may think. While I don’t want to have to worry about other PCs, and think I’ll have enough to deal with facing the environment.

    There is another reason why I am Vehemently against non-consensual PVP.

    There are people who like that sort of game, so I'm not going to tell Paizo what they should or should not come out with. Whatever they do, it won't be a WOW-killer or acheive that level of success, because that window's been closed long ago. They will make the game they choose to make partly on player feedback, but mostly on the aesthetics they choose to implement, just as Blizzard or any other game maker with a vision chose to do. If the EVE online philsopy is to to be the philosophy of this game, I'm sure there will be people that enjoy it. Just because I'm not one of them, isn't a reason by itself for Paizo not to go down that road if they so choose.

    1 to 50 of 268 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Are there any players who are very leery of non consensual PVP? All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.