A board divided


Pathfinder Online

51 to 100 of 239 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

pdboddy wrote:

And yet despite these barriers, I have on numerous occasions "grouped" with an Alliance character and successfully completed quests with them. As players, we both knew what the quest was, how tough the mobs were and how to beat them. We took turns killing and picking up the items, and in almost all cases, neither of us backstabbed the other at the end.

Also, all of the barriers are instantly destroyed by Skype, Ventrillo, TeamSpeak, etc. :P

Well not saying that can't be worked around in game, but I'm saying the design of the game is certainly not about encouraging this style of play. As sharing Teamspeak/skype information means you had to either make an allience character, to exchange that information. I am just saying it is legitimate and understandable for people to be heartless jerks to random people of the other faction, because the game more or less tells them they are supposed to.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Icyshadow wrote:


@KaeYoss: I would give your post +9001 if I could.

Like the ISO certification thing? Ew! ;-P

I just had enough of people trying to "win" an argument by ridiculing the other side. If I wanted that crap, I'd follow politics.


Onishi wrote:
Well not saying that can't be worked around in game, but I'm saying the design of the game is certainly not about encouraging this style of play. As sharing Teamspeak/skype information means you had to either make an allience character, to exchange that information. I am just saying it is legitimate and understandable for people to be heartless jerks to random people of the other faction, because the game more or less tells them they are supposed to.

I believe people are jerks like that online because they can get away with it. Even if they could talk to others, group with others, and play nicely with them, people will still act like jerks because they have little to no connection to the other players. It's way easier to act like that when you can't see how upset the other person is. And for some, it's even more fun when the other person starts ranting and raving because they just got killed for the 234905863475th time in a row.

The game doesn't have to tell them anything, they already know how to act like jerks. :P

And I find that using a VoiP program makes gaming a bit better. You have a bit more of a connection with people. Even if they are playing on the other side, you eventually get to know them, what country they live in, what they do for a living, all sorts of things that normal friends learn of each other over time. You can't learn most of that stuff trying to type it, 'cause you can't type and raid at the same time. :P


KaeYoss wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:


@KaeYoss: I would give your post +9001 if I could.

Like the ISO certification thing? Ew! ;-P

I just had enough of people trying to "win" an argument by ridiculing the other side. If I wanted that crap, I'd follow politics.

Just Google "it's over 9000". Then you will know. :P

Goblin Squad Member

pdboddy wrote:


I believe people are jerks like that online because they can get away with it. Even if they could talk to others, group with others, and play nicely with them, people will still act like jerks because they have little to no connection to the other players. It's way easier to act like that when you can't see how upset the other person is. And for some, it's even more fun when the other person starts ranting and raving because they just got killed for the 234905863475th time in a row.

Exactly, jerks will be jerks, but the game and playerbase can punish them. Assuming 80% or more of the population is non-jerks, and the game requires allies to progress, then the jerks will not progress far, and only become a threat to new players without alliances to back them. Throw in a week of newbie protection where players cannot be attacked at first to give the newbies a chance to find allies etc... and the problem becomes nearly negligible. Add in a percentage based death penalty that is based on how far you have progressed, and you will look at the jerks, rapidly shrinking in power, unable to accomplish almost anything.

Now if you make the death penalty unnoticeable, the ability to acquire power 100% alone equally fast to solo, the ability to be considered protected by a side regardless of if they like you or not, then you have a recipe for jerks to become a great thriving force of annoyance. You make actual success require diplomacy, they become mosquito's.


pdboddy wrote:

I think an interesting way to sort of bridge the PvP issue is to use a +1/-1 system. It could enhance roleplaying as well.

Each character could have a player-set group of guidelines. If your character hates thieves, for instance, for whatever reason, then you would give thieves a -1. Now, you wouldn't know if a person is a thief, mind you, unless they've told you, or you find out information somehow that the specific character is part of the Thieves Guild.

If a character has enough negatives, this could allow your character to take certain actions with a certain amount of impunity, but only if your character has enough knowledge. Actions could range from being able to yell for the guards to arrest the character, or hire an assassin to go after the character, or even go after the character yourself.

A player could also rate other characters with a +1/-1, but with a limit. The limit can be whatever arbitrary limit the game devs decide upon.

Yep, some kind of "reputation" stat will be very cool addition and might work for "flagging" PK'ers and being some kind of punishment for them (Like being able to use only player driven towns, bounties or other things which will discourage most PK'ers)

We should also remember(Somebody came up with this point just while ago) that PFO PvP won't really look like WoW, as we don't deal with two fighting factions (which are red to each other by default)


SmartCheetah wrote:
We should also remember(Somebody came up with this point just while ago) that PFO PvP won't really look like WoW, as we don't deal with two fighting factions (which are red to each other by default)

Yes, instead it will be red vs blue vs yellow vs black vs green vs skull thingy vs...

Basically, it's a free for all.


pdboddy wrote:
SmartCheetah wrote:
We should also remember(Somebody came up with this point just while ago) that PFO PvP won't really look like WoW, as we don't deal with two fighting factions (which are red to each other by default)

Yes, instead it will be red vs blue vs yellow vs black vs green vs skull thingy vs...

Basically, it's a free for all.

It's a bold new world out there pardner, filled with opportunity and opposition.


pdboddy wrote:
SmartCheetah wrote:
We should also remember(Somebody came up with this point just while ago) that PFO PvP won't really look like WoW, as we don't deal with two fighting factions (which are red to each other by default)

Yes, instead it will be red vs blue vs yellow vs black vs green vs skull thingy vs...

Basically, it's a free for all.

But in case of factionless system punishments make sense, while killing a guy from enemy faction in red/blue is rather a "good and encouraged behaviour" :P

Goblin Squad Member

pdboddy wrote:
SmartCheetah wrote:
We should also remember(Somebody came up with this point just while ago) that PFO PvP won't really look like WoW, as we don't deal with two fighting factions (which are red to each other by default)

Yes, instead it will be red vs blue vs yellow vs black vs green vs skull thingy vs...

Basically, it's a free for all.

The difference is they don't have to be at war with each-other forever, and it could be made unfeasible for them to be. If actually being at war were costly, Caused a serious drain on resources and advancement for all sides involved, Then the sides would intend to not be at war except when a specific issue to be in conflict over is up, and in fact would likely punish/expel players that were killing out of turn so as to avoid starting an unwanted war.

In real war as long as the battle is being fought, each side is losing far more then they are gaining, and as a result Very few countries intend to stay in war forever, the ones that do either wind up either being technologically decades behind other nations or in debt up to their eyeballs.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

All the fighting I've seen on this board over the PvP issue has me thoroughly convinced that going with only one server with one style of play is a very bad idea. Some people want a game where you can attack anybody and everyone is in competition. Others want a game where they can team up and fight NPCs, not other players. Neither is wrong, and I don't think it would hurt to have a non-consensual PvP server and a consensual PvP server. It works for a lot of other games.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
Some people want a game where you can attack anybody and everyone is in competition. Others want a game where they can team up and fight NPCs, not other players.

Indeed. And I am one of the latter; but to be fair - that kind of game already exists in ready supplies.

True, it wouldn't be Paizo or Golarion, but if we DO want a game like that, we do have options.

The real point is not that "if we want a game like that" because they do exists, but does Paizo/Goblinworks "want our money for a game?"

It's not even going to follow the Pathfinder class-based D20 system mechanics that they've rescued and championed; so really the only Paizo-ish thing about it is the River Kingdom territory.

The way I am looking at it is - if it winds up being a type of game that....whatever it is that I don't like....I do have other options of games I do like, some that are done quite well, and I'm not REALLY losing out on a lot of "Paizo" or "Golarion" material, should I choose to play a different game more to my liking; I'll only lose out on the River Kingdoms.

If on the other hand the game was significantly more robust in the way of areas explorable in Golarian, (Cheliax, Varisia, Andoran, Taldor to name a few of the big ones) and included the amazing mechanics of D20 3.5 OGL that they polished up nicely as well as added some great ideas for other classes, and Archtypes - THEN I would probably feel real jaded if it was designed only to cater to a smaller sect of MMO gamer philosophies.

Robert


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Day in and day out you see it. People crying for consensual PvP only! show us the world without the risk!

Your inability to comprehend my desire to not have my game interrupted by being killed by you is pretty much the precise reason why I can't tolerate you having the ability to kill me.

Said differently: I humbly submit that those people who insist a game must have non-consensual PvP are precisely those people who should least have access to it.

Said still differently: if you can't have fun without killing me when I don't want to be killed then I don't want to play with you.

Said differently yet again: if the only way you can get your jollies is by ruining mine, we don't game together.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Two can play that game Anguish, as seen below-

Anguish wrote:

Your inability to comprehend my desire to not have my game interrupted by being killed by you is pretty much the precise reason why I can't tolerate you having the ability to kill me.

Said differently: I humbly submit that those people who insist a game must have non-consensual PvP are precisely those people who should least have access to it.

Said still differently: if you can't have fun without killing me when I don't want to be killed then I don't want to play with you.

Said differently yet again: if the only way you can get your jollies is by ruining mine, we don't game together.

Your inability to comprehend my desire to not have my game interrupted by being unable to enter into a combat with you created by the nature of whatever roleplay events are going on - to have my immersion spoiled by someone who is going to abuse my inability to actually do what my character would do. Mock my honor? Attack my (social-ethical) character? Spread filthy rumors to block my access to PC-run services? 'Kill steal' a quest boss and snag the loot/exp (which, personally, really aren't that big of a deal to me but included for completeness.) All of which is pretty much the precise reason I can't tolerate not having the ability to kill you.

Said differently: I humbly submit that those people who insist a game must prevent non-consensual PvP are precisely those people who should be restrained by it.

Said still differently: if you can't have fun without the risk of recompense for your actions against me, then I don't want to play with you.

Said differently yet again: if the only way you can get your jollies is by ruining mine without so much as giving me the recourse to defend myself, we don't game together.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

Sounds good. I'm perfectly able to amuse myself in predator-less environments.

Someone calls you names... kill 'em. Calls you names to other people... kill 'em. Somehow convinces others you're an undesirable... kill 'em. Steals from you... kill 'em.

Yup. You've cleared up how you're not anyone I'd have trouble getting along with. <Grin>

There's PvP.

But seriously, you've been a reasonable guy in forum-land, so I know we're just coming at a contentious issue that's a hot-button for both of us. Here's the thing... I believe the game can evolve a happy medium that doesn't involve PvP. I believe it needs to, to have maximum player exposure. I simply won't pay to be ganked by some Korean guy who spends 19 hours a day honing his homicidal skills when I want to log on for a half-hour a week to hunt dragons and save princesses. My $x/month is as valid as his, but my only use is as a victim. Sorry, but I'm not going to pay to be a victim. Won't pay.


For what it's worth, you won't have to pay to test the waters. Pathfinder Online has been stated to be using a Free to Play model, meaning you can try things out, see just how much (or little) 'ganking' happens in which areas and what can be done to prevent it.

Unfortunately, a lot of these specifics are still up in the air.


Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
All the fighting I've seen on this board over the PvP issue has me thoroughly convinced that going with only one server with one style of play is a very bad idea. Some people want a game where you can attack anybody and everyone is in competition. Others want a game where they can team up and fight NPCs, not other players. Neither is wrong, and I don't think it would hurt to have a non-consensual PvP server and a consensual PvP server. It works for a lot of other games.

I just find it odd that you call what people are doing here "fighting". This sort of argument has happened in lots of different places online, and many are way, way more angsty and antagonistic than this thread has been.

Folks have been golden here.

No one has disagreed that one or the other is wrong, really, just whether or not it (non-consensual PvP) should exist in the same framework as consensual PvP and PvE.

I mean, I've been waiting for someone to call someone else a poopie-head, and it's just not happening. This popcorn is going to waste, people! :P

In pondering this for a while, I think it is possible to just have one server type and have something for everyone. You make PvP arenas for the arena junkies, make most of the world a PvE only zone where the danger comes from the monsters, and have a select few areas be completely open PvP. Everyone would know which areas are which, and that risking PvP comes with good bonuses (loot!).


Steve Geddes wrote:


That didn't seem the assumption in the OP though.

Yep you're right. People can't even read the FAQ or any dev posts at all.

It's kinda Paizo's fault though, the PnP fan base is not one that will be dominated by PvPers..


Sorry pdboddy, you should probably read Ryan's post on non-consensual PvP (if you haven't already.) Currently the plan appears to be for the majority to be open PvP with more dangerous and safer regions (perhaps with a few small safe zones where it's impossible to be attacked, aka a building blessed against violence or whatnot.)

EDIT: and a note for Steve Geddes and FoxBat, I did read the FAQ and have kept abreast of the Dev posts. I was just getting very disheartened by all the opposition I'm constantly seeing on the boards and was curious about the solutions we could come up with. I'd prefer we all be on one superserver with open PvP of varying degrees, but the masses are very divided on the subject.

Frog God Games

pdboddy wrote:

I just find it odd that you call what people are doing here "fighting". This sort of argument has happened in lots of different places online, and many are way, way more angsty and antagonistic than this thread has been.

Folks have been golden here.

No one has disagreed that one or the other is wrong, really, just whether or not it (non-consensual PvP) should exist in the same framework as consensual PvP and PvE.

I mean, I've been waiting for someone to call someone else a poopie-head, and it's just not happening. This popcorn is going to waste, people! :P

In pondering this for a while, I think it is possible to just have one server type and have something for everyone. You make PvP arenas for the arena junkies, make most of the world a PvE only zone where the danger comes from the monsters, and have a select few areas be completely open PvP. Everyone would know which areas are which, and that risking PvP comes with good bonuses (loot!).

poopie head

Goblinworks Founder

FoxBat_ wrote:

Yep you're right. People can't even read the FAQ or any dev posts at all.

It's kinda Paizo's fault though, the PnP fan base is not one that will be dominated by PvPers..

You speak for the entire PnP Fanbase?

I didn't get the memo.


Elth wrote:

You speak for the entire PnP Fanbase?

I didn't get the memo.

Me neither.


Operative word is "dominated." I don't see much in the way of the noncon-PvP crowd 'dominating' these threads by sheer weight of numbers, so even if one does not assume that the majority of PnP Pathfinder gamers are opposed to nonconsensual PvP, the faction in favor of nonconsensual PvP does not constitute such a clear majority that it could be said to be the dominant faction.


You also have to keep in mind all the Pen and Paper fans who don't come to these threads.

I know LOTS of roleplayers that are interested in non-consensual MMO PvP. Some Pathfinder people, some WoD people, some 4E people, some Warhammer Fantasy RP/Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader people, and my BattleTech buddies.


I can understand why there's opposition to non-consensual PvP.

In parties we've always tried to work together. Attempting to hinder peoples' characters tends to get the party dead.

And in my experience, a GM doesn't usually run more than one face to face group at the same time, simultaneously.

So in the pen'n'paper world, there's not a lot of actual PvP, is my guess. And when there is, it can get pretty bitter because well, there's no anonymity, you know that guy who's character is trying to kill yours. And damn, he's being a massive jerk right now. I'm not driving him home. :P

Goblin Squad Member

kyrt-ryder wrote:
EDIT: and a note for Steve Geddes and FoxBat, I did read the FAQ and have kept abreast of the Dev posts. I was just getting very disheartened by all the opposition I'm constantly seeing on the boards and was curious about the solutions we could come up with. I'd prefer we all be on one superserver with open PvP of varying degrees, but the masses are very divided on the subject.

Understood. I gave my opinion within your assumptions:

Spoiler:
Quote:

I think two separate instances of the same world would be best, personally. I certainly take your point that, although I'm not interested in playing in a game where you might kill me and take my stuff, I can nonetheless sympathise that you want a world full of people you can kill and take their stuff with no jarring moments of "Oh this person is a 'special' kind of person who is impervious to attack".

I think an irrevocable choice at character creation would work fine - you then play in whichever of two initially identical worlds you wish - I dont really see who loses then. Admittedly there's a good chance there are fewer players in each than there otherwise would be, but at least the people who arent there are people who likely wouldnt have enjoyed it anyhow. Of course, I have no idea on the feasibility of this, nor whether it's worthwhile or possible to just port over a world and implement (or disable) a 'cannot attack' flag.

I dont really see who loses if they can manage to create two disjoint 'universes'. Of course "if they can manage to create.." may be the problem - since presumably it's not trivial to create one game and just change a 1 to a 0 and make PvP legal/illegal.

Goblin Squad Member

Steve Geddes wrote:

[/spoiler]

I dont really see who loses if they can manage to create two disjoint 'universes'. Of course "if they can manage to create.." may be the problem - since presumably it's not trivial to create one game and just change a 1 to a 0 and make PvP legal/illegal.

Exactly, honestly myself I am completely against NC PVP in games not made for it, I wouldn't be caught dead on a WoW PVP server, though I would not even consider eve as a PVE only game. I will most likely rarely venture into unsafe territory if the game is PVP. That still doesn't make me oppose PVP, but if it is going to be added, it has to be done with purpose. If there is no purpose to make it a necessary mechanic then it will be a nusance and it will be only used for griefing.

I still think the easiest route to go is, 1. Make war hell, make it a bane to the point where 2 kingdoms at war, will rapidly fall behind 2 kingdoms at peace with each-other. 2. Make being part of any kingdom critical to success and power (IE someone who is not in a kingdom will most likely be unable to be a threat to anyone). With those 2 pre-reqs, people will not kill unless it is in the interest of their kingdom, and for a kingdom they better darn well have something huge to go after in order to want war. Allowing 1 serial killer to remain a citizen would be a huge liability that a kingdom would not want to keep, as it could result in a rapid re-paving of their system if he causes a war with multiple kingdoms.


Onishi wrote:


I still think the easiest route to go is, 1. Make war hell, make it a bane to the point where 2 kingdoms at war, will rapidly fall behind 2 kingdoms at peace with each-other.

This as presented can't work. If war will rapidly push both kingdoms behind then war won't happen nearly as often as many of us would like. Ideally there would be a balance involved, where the winner gets slightly ahead of 'peacetime growth.' Not enough to make the risk of war is something to constantly be involved in, but enough to make the wages of war worthwhile.

Goblin Squad Member

kyrt-ryder wrote:
This as presented can't work. If war will rapidly push both kingdoms behind then war won't happen nearly as often as many of us would like. Ideally there would be a balance involved, where the winner gets slightly ahead of 'peacetime growth.' Not enough to make the risk of war is something to constantly be involved in, but enough to make the wages of war worthwhile.

Depends on the value of individual resource nodes. The post victory growth could be enough to make war worthwhile, but take a few weeks to make back what was lost, while the losing side just licks their wounds, could encorage a large reward at the end. As well nations could optionally declare certain locations, say a rare spawn or something, as a FFA between them, that they can fight over if both sides have a team after it at the same time. Rules of engagement to allow the option to fight without leading to a full fledged war.

War in the safeish and safe zones should be rare IMO If there's a war every day, then they never should be called safish zones. Anarchy and fights for survival should be common in the unsafe zones

Silver Crusade

Icyshadow wrote:
Sharoth still has a point. My friend went to that server NOT for the PvP, but because all her friends had their characters there. She never asked to be ganked and griefed, she just wanted to have a good time with her friends. Hell, she wanted to go raiding and primarily PvE, but the local populace of the server on the Horde side decided not to give her a chance.

You cannot choose a PvP server, for any reason, and then complain about being ganked and suffering grief. It comes with the territory and is in the accepted "rules" of the server that if you're attacked... too bad.


She didn't complain that much about the ganking (she had friends backing her up, after all). Her main concern was the IRL attitude the Horde and Alliance people had for one another by the end of it.

Either way, that's beside the point, and I am still cynical enough not to trust ANYONE if PFO did have non-consensual PvP, mostly because I'd be the only one playing it (none of my friends seem to care about it's existence) and I probably won't have that much time to play it anyway.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:

Day in and day out you see it. People crying for consensual PvP only! show us the world without the risk!

The more I read these threads, the more I fear our differences may be irreconcilable. That those in fear of a persistent world with a risk vs reward paradigm and interaction with other people who very well may be after what you hold dear will never yield on their position and will end up not playing what everyone is hoping will be an awesome game.

I know I envisioned Pathfinder Online as a persistent shared world, where everybody is in a single instance of the same world (perhaps using similar server technology to Eve, according to what I've heard of that game on the boards.) But if PvP can be turned off, that suddenly makes the game unfair to those who aren't hiding from everyone else (or worse, griefers who hide behind the inability to attack them to harass you in other ways.)

So does anybody (particularly Goblinworks Staff) have an idea of how to deal with this huge divide? Ignoring this segment of the market is frequently touted as a bad idea, though I can see reasons it might not be. Alternatively, perhaps alternate servers that are entirely isolated from eachother, such that they are independent worlds that develop apart from eachother (basically alternate universes of the River Kingdoms that starts from a common point in history before diverging.) Or something else entirely?

Safezones and consequences have thus far in discussions proven in-effective in garnering so much as a 'lets wait and see' from many people on that side of the fence, and I'm quite curious what can be done concerning them without breaking the game for the rest of us.

Actually I am all for non-consensual PvP WITH consequences though. If you go around killing other players then you WILL get ganked by the City Guard eventually too and or flag yourself for NPC aggro and that is something that if non-consensual should be implemented!

Golarion and Pathfinder RPG in general if you as a PC go up and kill an NPC or even another player, do you think that the GM is just going to straight up allow this? No, there are usually investigations and the like to find the murder of said NPC or PC. Hence you as a PvP non-consnesual player will and should see if you murder another player.

If that is what you want then I am all for it.. set yourself up as evil, run around killing anyone as you see fit and suffer the consequences.

You are right this Golarion is not a friendly place and should not be. But when you are walking around one thing you can count on is that if you get killed in the middle of anywhere, then yes.. there can and will be problems.. your reputation can proceed you!!

Goblin Squad Member

I see only one solution for this: Hats. Pointed Hats for Open PvPers, Round Hats for Flagged PvPers, Flat Hats for Non-PvPers, and Propeller Hats for those who support Crafting PvP.

That will fix everything.

On the other hand, I think the best non-hat solution would be to have part of the world as Flagged PvP-only and other part to be Open PvP. Both parts would be in the same instance (allowing seamless travel from one to the other) and include all the necessary amenities. That way, you can kill rats for their livers on either the Flag or Open PvP sides.

Sort of what WAR did with the RvR lakes, but with the PvP areas also having normal PvE content (with maybe some kind of extra reward to account for the risk, such as quests that provide better rewards. I believe this is the reason behind Open PvP areas in WoW -such as Wintergrasp- having better resources than Flagged PvP ones, in order to draw players in and foster conflict).


I hate gank fests in world pvp. Ganking someone who is herb farming is tantamount to murdering someone shopping at the produce stand. Very heroic. I'd like to see a game mechanic where the game doesn't forbid that kind of play, but just like killing the guy shopping, there are repercussions. If you get caught, your character has to spend a month in jail. You can't log on to that character for a month real time. You'd be free to play an alt, though.

Goblin Squad Member

JRR wrote:
I hate gank fests in world pvp. Ganking someone who is herb farming is tantamount to murdering someone shopping at the produce stand. Very heroic. I'd like to see a game mechanic where the game doesn't forbid that kind of play, but just like killing the guy shopping, there are repercussions. If you get caught, your character has to spend a month in jail. You can't log on to that character for a month real time. You'd be free to play an alt, though.

Well most the penalties I've suggested are similar to that, Every time you die you lose a percentage of your TOTAL XP and/or skills, (Not the nerfed percentage of distance between this level and the next, but actual total time playing). While technically not as much of a hinderance due to the level, you factor in for a new player, it is merely a few minutes setback, while for someone high leveled that could be days/weeks of work.

and yeah an exception to that rule should be during declared wars, which should take at least 24 hours of warning to go into effect (IE permit both sides to load up their defense warn their crafters to hide etc...

Goblinworks Founder

Onishi wrote:


Well most the penalties I've suggested are similar to that, Every time you die you lose a percentage of your TOTAL XP and/or skills, (Not the nerfed percentage of distance between this level and the next, but actual total time playing). While technically not as much of a hinderance due to the level, you factor in for a new player, it is merely a few minutes setback, while for someone high leveled that could be days/weeks of work.

and yeah an exception to that rule should be during declared wars, which should take at least 24 hours of warning to go into effect (IE permit both sides to load up their defense warn their crafters to hide etc...

I've always been in favour of something like this. I still like the idea of a permanent ability score loss from constitution for each death as a murderer. But still have a way to get that constitution back via an atonement quest of some kind.

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:

Well most the penalties I've suggested are similar to that, Every time you die you lose a percentage of your TOTAL XP and/or skills, (Not the nerfed percentage of distance between this level and the next, but actual total time playing). While technically not as much of a hinderance due to the level, you factor in for a new player, it is merely a few minutes setback, while for someone high leveled that could be days/weeks of work.

and yeah an exception to that rule should be during declared wars, which should take at least 24 hours of warning to go into effect (IE permit both sides to load up their defense warn their crafters to hide etc...

Stat-loss is indeed an option, although I think it's a last ditch and extremely poorly thought out option. You have to then ask the question of how far you're going to go in terms of punishing someone's play style. Especially a play style the game permits. If you allow a server with Open PvP but penalize PvPers that heavily, likewise you should penalize PvEers with some equally significant form of death penalty. Either way, it will not stop people from continuing with either action.

The month in jail option is just silly. It'd be an easy way to lose a paying customer from a game. You might as well just not have any form of murdering if that's the case (and that's clearly not what's currently being planned for PFO).

Ultimately, I see the only true option to cure the division is to simply have separate servers with different rule sets. It's the only way to appease both sides. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the current business plan. From previous posts it seems that we'll be looking at a single server with a single set of mechanics and rules. Unless something changes, it looks like those who are on the consensual side of the fence will either have to stick to the safe areas, or be out of luck in general.


The month in jail could wotk, actually. The player could then have his friends stage a jailbreak. He might have a price on his head in certain zones after that. Lots of rp potential.


With short days (something under 4 hours if I recall correctly) a 'month' would be a long time, but not nearly as long as a real month. Furthermore, it only happens if they get caught (which should be pretty likely but potentially avoidable.)

Goblin Squad Member

JRR wrote:
The month in jail could wotk, actually. The player could then have his friends stage a jailbreak. He might have a price on his head in certain zones after that. Lots of rp potential.

For that to work you'd need prison and town guards that aren't that much of a threat. And then you turn towns into unsafe zones if your friends who are also murderers can just stroll in and start breaking into things. From the standpoint of a player, the month in jail just wouldn't work. Having my character unable to be played for a month because I was playing the game well within the ruleset of the game? No thanks. I'd quit. Most other people would too.

Edit: Also, kyrt brings up a point. Are you talking a real time month, or an in game month? And in game month (60ish hours?) is not that big a deal. And so small of a penalty as it can barely be called a penalty.

Goblin Squad Member

Doggan wrote:
Having my character unable to be played for a month because I was playing the game well within the ruleset of the game?

What is allowed within the mechanics of the game and what the game considers 'moral' are 2 different things. Allowing random player killing and allowing the RPK rights are two different things.

Risk versus reward is all that is required. Well implemented risk vs reward and intelligent punishments.

Goblin Squad Member

Coldman wrote:
Doggan wrote:
Having my character unable to be played for a month because I was playing the game well within the ruleset of the game?

What is allowed within the mechanics of the game and what the game considers 'moral' are 2 different things. Allowing random player killing and allowing the RPK rights are two different things.

Risk versus reward is all that is required. Well implemented risk vs reward and intelligent punishments.

I wouldn't classify this as intelligent punishment. Having a character essentially banned from taking part in the game in any fashion is a player penalty, not a character penalty. It's generally the sort of punishment reserved for things like exploiting, harassment, and quite a few other things that have nothing to do with killing other people.

Simply put, if the game allows people to kill one another, you shouldn't be harshly punished for doing so.


I imagine the game intends to support people killing one another outside the city limits Doggan. Within the 'safe zones' getting caught killing is a serious violation with severe punishments.

Goblin Squad Member

kyrt-ryder wrote:
I imagine the game intends to support people killing one another outside the city limits Doggan. Within the 'safe zones' getting caught killing is a serious violation with severe punishments.

Again, if PvP results in the essential temporary ban on characters, it's a foolish punishment. If the safe zones are meant to be safe, then program them to be so. Short of that, come up with a better punishment system.

Goblin Squad Member

the thing about non-consensual PVp and Griefers.. eventually you piss enough people off, and they get you. Ask any Local Rat gang in Eve.. mess wiht the wrong person and they can and wil look for way to get revenge... if they dont have the power, they may have the money... Bountys work... heck they create a in-game adventure that you can't google to find the answer...

Goblin Squad Member

kyrt-ryder wrote:
With short days (something under 4 hours if I recall correctly) a 'month' would be a long time, but not nearly as long as a real month. Furthermore, it only happens if they get caught (which should be pretty likely but potentially avoidable.)

Anything that involuntarily deprives a player of the ability to play the game for an extended period of time (or even a relatively short amount of time) is never, ever going to happen.

Ever.

Ever.

Goblin Squad Member

Doggan wrote:
Simply put, if the game allows people to kill one another, you shouldn't be harshly punished for doing so.

I apologize, I was not suggesting that jail time be a suitable punishment. Far from it. Was just refering to your post directly (should have read above).

I agree, jail time is excessive. I do however condone permanent stat loss as being a useful deterant in seperating the men from the children in regards to who wishes to play a random player killer.

One system I have high regard for is punishing murderers through means of resurrection (requires a ghost system of death ala UO/WoW/Mortal Online). Should they be resurrected by another player (the easy way), the murderer must accept permanent stat loss of some or all of his skills. The player who heals him will also lose some alignment or whatnot dependent on the severity of the player killers negative alignment. His other option would be to run his spirit to one of few points on the map which house a spiritual stone, healer or some such 'thing' which will return him to life and cause temporary stat loss for say 30 minutes. These locations will be in the heart of the games most dangerous and distant zones. Geography is a b%*&! isn't it.

Allow people the opportunity to player random player killers. Just make it hard as nails and exciting for both us and them. If you want to murder people and have free reign to their gear, put yourself at risk too.

If you want open systems of PvP with less risk, war another guild or join a warring faction. Giving random player killers an easy ride = bad game.

Goblin Squad Member

One of the problems I have with penalties being imposed when killing other players is that you are sending the message that PvP is a bad thing, and if you do it you will be punished by the game. So if you are going to labbel Open PvP a bad thing, then why add it to the game at all?

If you want the game to feature Open PvP, then let it be Open PvP; players should police each other (remember the mercenary guilds back in UO, where you could pay people to handle troublesome PKers? That's the stuff), rather than depending on arbitrary penalties for doing something the game is supposed to let you do.

Instead, I would much prefer mechanisms that would reflect the natural effects of a marauding assassin, such as a feature that allows victims of said PKer to set up a bounty on him, reputation issues with lawful factions (and possibly reputation benefits with the lawless ones), and stuff like that.

I truly enjoy Open PvP (though I dislike ganking and never do it myself. I enjoy Open PvP because it makes the game world a dangerous, risky, and surprising place... and because casting PoM-Pyroblasts from your flying machine onto an unsuspecting orc hundreds of feet in the air above Blade's Edge Mountains and watching him plummet to death while you enjoy your Slow Fall ride is one of the reasons I give thanks to God for having been born in this day and age), but I dislike when done in a passive-aggressive way.

So either have proper Open PvP, or have it seccluded to pre-determined areas. But whichever option is taken, it has to be done with the idea that it is supposed to be a desired thing for the game, not a burden.

Goblin Squad Member

Coldman wrote:

Allow people the opportunity to player random player killers. Just make it hard as nails and exciting for both us and them. If you want to murder people and have free reign to their gear, put yourself at risk too.

If you want open systems of PvP with less risk, war another guild or join a warring faction. Giving random player killers an easy ride = bad game.

Temporary stat loss is fine. I have no issue with that. Permanent stat loss, on the other hand, is a completely different issue. I don't know if you were playing UO at the time that statloss was introduced, but if you were you will probably remember that it completely decimated PvP. That started the rise of alts, and people grey flagging to bait people.

Every murderer is immediately at risk. Saying "put yourself at risk too" is a fairly empty statement. Let's put this in the perspective of UO. As a murderer, you lost the ability to enter towns, interact with NPCs, tame animals, use banks (aside from Buc's Den), took stat loss for a time, couldn't be rezzed other than by players or Chaos Shrines. All the while you were able to be freely attacked by anyone at any time. As a murderer, you're taking ALL of the risk, for often very little reward.

Easy ride would be if random PKs had all of the rights and privileges that normal players do. Somehow I doubt that is going to happen. However, if you're going to add punishment upon punishment upon punishment, you're effectively removing any reason to have an open pvp environment and you might as well just make it consensual. Permanent stat loss is not the answer here, especially when the murderers are the ones taking all of the risk.

Goblin Squad Member

Scott Betts wrote:

Anything that involuntarily deprives a player of the ability to play the game for an extended period of time (or even a relatively short amount of time) is never, ever going to happen.

Ever.

Ever.

Presumably you mean as a punishment 'within the game'?

I could easily imagine people getting banned or suspended for varying periods for account fraud or something else against the rules. No?

51 to 100 of 239 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / A board divided All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.