Goblin Squad Member
|
Unless there's incentive in it, I really don't see this being prevalent.
f there is a viable role of being a murderer and murderers do exist as a force, the reward for such a role will be that of a monetary incentive; players gear. Should this be the case and has been demonstrated in past games, players will in fact form Anti-PK guilds as the monetary reward works both ways.
...that and bounties! ^^
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Unless there's incentive in it, I really don't see this being prevalent.f there is a viable role of being a murderer and murderers do exist as a force, the reward for such a role will be that of a monetary incentive; players gear. Should this be the case and has been demonstrated in past games, players will in fact form Anti-PK guilds as the monetary reward works both ways.
...that and bounties! ^^
I guess it's just tough for me to see this as being an advocate for the "little guy." It's not going to really be feasible to return any "stolen" money, so to my mind what you're describing is just banditry of a different flavor - one step up in the food chain.
Bounties are another matter entirely, but worthwhile bounties aren't going to be posted by the "little guy," because if he had the cash to afford a substantial bounty he wouldn't be the "little guy" in the first place.
|
I guess it's just tough for me to see this as being an advocate for the "little guy." It's not going to really be feasible to return any "stolen" money, so to my mind what you're describing is just banditry of a different flavor - one step up in the food chain.
Bounties are another matter entirely, but worthwhile bounties aren't going to be posted by the "little guy," because if he had the cash to afford a substantial bounty he wouldn't be the "little guy" in the first place.
However if you want to encourage trade in your kingdom, you may wish to put bounties out on bandits, if only to discourage banditry.
If resources are spread out over large areas, people will have to go between these areas to exchange them. Keeping these trade routes open is a benefit. Running a caravan is a benefit.
And of course, raiding a caravan is a benefit.
The little guy isn't really going to be leaving areas that aren't safe until he is strong enough to do so. Relatively safe areas can be created with NPC guards and such. In fact, I fully expect that part of building a fortification will include NPC guards of some sort or another.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Unless there's incentive in it, I really don't see this being prevalent.f there is a viable role of being a murderer and murderers do exist as a force, the reward for such a role will be that of a monetary incentive; players gear. Should this be the case and has been demonstrated in past games, players will in fact form Anti-PK guilds as the monetary reward works both ways.
...that and bounties! ^^
From the descriptions everyone has given, and correct me if I'm wrong, that isn't what has been demonstrated in Eve.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From the descriptions everyone has given, and correct me if I'm wrong, that isn't what has been demonstrated in Eve.Unless there's incentive in it, I really don't see this being prevalent.f there is a viable role of being a murderer and murderers do exist as a force, the reward for such a role will be that of a monetary incentive; players gear. Should this be the case and has been demonstrated in past games, players will in fact form Anti-PK guilds as the monetary reward works both ways.
...that and bounties! ^^
Nope, you're correct. If you're not part of the same corp or alliance, you're tolerated at best. No one is going to go out of their way to protect you or get revenge on the guys who ganked you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
something about kid glovesThat is clearly not what is being said.
The issue is causal gamers being jumped by online thugs. In short the issue is not PvP, but nonconsentual PvP.Maybe if you jump a PvE'er they should have the right to turn off your ability to PvP for a certain amount of time*, but that is wrong because they are forceing you to not be allowed to play as you like. Well by jumping a nonPVP'er the same thing is taking place.
*Maybe that can be an option if they happen to kill you. I think 100 game hours might work.
Anything short of non-con PvP (open PvP) is kid gloves. Your situation of removing someone's ability to do something for 100 game hours just won't work. If the situation was reversed, and your ability to PvE was turned off for 100 game hours, you wouldn't be too happy. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure people would quit in droves. Taking away people's ability to play how they choose is just not a good option.
You can try to make the argument that non-con PvP does the same thing. It takes away the victims ability to play how you want. But here's the thing: The second you step into a high-risk unprotected area, you're accepting the fact that you might die. And you might die to a player. You are not FORCED to go out there. You choose to. And people will CHOOSE to come along and kill you. There's always the high security areas.
It's already been said that you can play through the game in safety. You just won't get the same reward as someone who actually puts themselves at risk.This I can agree with. I just can't find the source of the info. By all the aruging I guess a lot of other people can't either. I think a source should be noted.
The source is right here: LINKY
And for those too lazy to click:
Will I be able to play through the game doing quests and exploring dungeons without ever engaging in PVP if I have no interest in joining a kingdom or faction or claiming territory or resources for myself?Your ability to do so will result in your character getting the lowest reward for the time spent - low (or no) risk means low reward.
Nope, you're correct. If you're not part of the same corp or alliance, you're tolerated at best. No one is going to go out of their way to protect you or get revenge on the guys who ganked you.
I think this is where PFO can make a huge improvement over the EVE system.
If there were significant incentives for encouraging outsiders to visit your area (trade, bonuses based on zone population, etc.) then I think you might see a very different situation regarding policing ones own lands and playing cooperatively, and yet still hold the power to evict by force any non-allied players if you choose.
Thinking in terms of punishments for the guilty can be replaced by coming up with rewards of this type. Goblinworks is not going to send PKers to jail for a RL day, or allow one player to turn off another players ability to do anything for 100 hours. It won't happen, period. But they might put in adequate rewards for helping defend those who travel your lands, resulting in potentially many more NRDS areas than NBSI as Ryan described elsewhere.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can respect that. But people seem to think that they'll log in for the first time and get ganked. Immediately. That's not the case. It's already been said that you can play through the game in safety. You just won't get the same reward as someone who actually puts themselves at risk. Maybe I'm just jaded by the fact that the first MMO I ever stepped into was a high risk game.
No Dorgan, Ryan has clearly explained that attacking a player in the highest security areas will have consequences. Full stop.
It mean that the guy starting PvP will probably die at the hands of the guards, but in the emantime his target will be dead too.That is extremely different from "gaming in safety".
It is "It is practically guaranteed that some people will be ganked in the highest security area every few minutes". He can be you, he can be me or a Wormy, but someone will be ganked and it will happen regularly.
With experience in the game the risk and the consequences of being ganked in the high security areas will decrease, but they will always be there.
People will do all that is possible to get free attacks too, like putting themselves in your swings path or spell AoE if you were attacking an allowed target, baiting you offering "free stuff for the newbies" and then killing them for stealing and so on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can respect that. But people seem to think that they'll log in for the first time and get ganked. Immediately. That's not the case. It's already been said that you can play through the game in safety. You just won't get the same reward as someone who actually puts themselves at risk. Maybe I'm just jaded by the fact that the first MMO I ever stepped into was a high risk game.
No Dorgan, Ryan has clearly explained that attacking a player in the highest security areas will have consequences. Full stop.
It mean that the guy starting PvP will probably die at the hands of the guards, but in the emantime his target will be dead too.
That is extremely different from "gaming in safety".
It is "It is practically guaranteed that some people will be ganked in the highest security area every few minutes". He can be you, he can be me or a Wormy, but someone will be ganked and it will happen regularly.With experience in the game the risk and the consequences of being ganked in the high security areas will decrease, but they will always be there.
People will do all that is possible to get free attacks too, like putting themselves in your swings path or spell AoE if you were attacking an allowed target, baiting you offering "free stuff for the newbies" and then killing them for stealing and so on.
Please provide me a link to this quote.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No Dorgan, Ryan has clearly explained that attacking a player in the highest security areas will have consequences. Full stop.
This is true.
It mean that the guy starting PvP will probably die at the hands of the guards, but in the emantime his target will be dead too.
This is not. You are making assumptions based on the way other games work. I'd advise you to not do so.
RyanD
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It occurs to me that just being flagged a criminal is going to be a lot more of a big deal then in EVE. I mean you aren't going to be able to just warp off in 6 seconds or less, at least not unless you've got a handy (and expensive?) scroll of teleport. Nor are you going to be able to simply dock up and wait out your aggression timer. Simply having a persistent avatar creates a very different escape dynamic. That is, assuming you have a persistent avatar.
Well on one hand, we don't know how the game works, in general in MMO's your character does not remain persistant when you log out poof in most games, and if it did odds are there would be inn's etc... that would do the same thing as docks. On the other hand the development crew has years of having seen eve to learn from it's mistakes, they could allow the timer to not tick while offline or in an inn, etc...
One mistake people make in comparing it to eve, is pointing out mistakes and things that eve did wrong. This game is being made after eve, which means they have had the chance to know the issues, and avoid them before they happen. Even if the problem took 8 years, or hasn't even been fixed yet in Eve, it is far easier to fix a problem by not building it into the core, then to fix it after the fact. Fixing or removing a mechanic that the game was built on is difficult to impossible, not building the game on it to begin with is easy.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, there would have to be some sort of substantial negative to being "collected". As suggested in another thread the mark could be banished from the territory in which they offend for a period based on what they did and how often they've done it.
That could actually lead or be accomplished in a number of positive ways.
1. Territory walls, actually allow players to seal off areas, with gateways, allow explicit denial of people from enemy nations or known individual enemies of the kingdom. A known criminal could just be blacklisted from much of the area.
2. Scrying towers, Immidiate notification of a marked individual as soon as he approaches within X distance of a kingdom.
And yes I think death still needs to have a notable and significant consequence on the person dying. If there is no penelty for dying, then there is no reason any bounty of any kind is going to be harmful at worse, and it can be insanely helpful at best, (IE someone intentionally going into a kingdom for the sake of making as many people mad as possible, racking up a huge bounty, then having his team mate kill him, split the money). IMO the consequence for dying with or without a bounty, still has to be greater then the consequence for dying with any NPC earn-able bounty amount, and above what your average player would want to throw at people in normal situations, and I still think it needs to go up based on how powerful you are.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Onishi, the last thing we want are coke points. As Ryan pointed out in his comment about EVE, coke point are one of the things that have lead to huge swat of 0.0 being empty.
@Ryan, yes, I am making assumption based on EVE.
My assumption is that if a target can be attacked he can be killed if the attackers are determined enough, even in a high security area.
What the developers need to do is to find the "sweet spot" were there is a balance between that risk and the consequences the attackers will suffer.
Too little risk and the PvP aspect of the game suffer, too little consequences and the PvE aspect of the game suffer.
I think that will be one of the hardest tasks for the development team.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Onishi, the last thing we want are coke points. As Ryan pointed out in his comment about EVE, coke point are one of the things that have lead to huge swat of 0.0 being empty.
I wasn't talking about being able to block off things outside of your own territory. The issue with eve's choke points at least from what I can tell, is the actual mines and high value areas being sealed off by players outside of their home towns. I'm talking about the actual home town being secured, IE the low risk low reward area/trading hub as the area that has controlled access, not the mine 15 minutes away that people are competing for access to.
As well if a large army comes through with a battering ram, this wall will only slow them down.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I take as a given that almost all settlement will have some kind of wall. But a settlement is not a kingdom.
One of the problems is:
"How much security I will have in my kingdom territory?"
then
"In a friendly kingdom territory?"
then
"In a neutral kingdom territory?"
and
"In a NPC controlled territory?"
It will different? Automated? PC dependant?
My personal opinion is that we should have some level of automation and some level of PC generated security, probably at a cost in kingdom resources for a player controlled kingdom.
To make a very simple example:
Tower with guards armed with ranged weapons protecting the city gates, so that gatecamping the city gate will be almost impossible (unless you are besieging the city).
Strong and frequent patrols on the main kingdom roads and within a couple miles from the city.
Weaker and less frequent patrols on secondary roads and developed areas of the kingdom.
Rare or absent patrols in the undeveloped areas of the territory claimed by the kingdom unless led by a PC with an appropriate role in the kingdom hierarchy.
The cost should increase as you claim more territory, decrease near your cities. If the kingdom don't pay security will fail, to the point of the kingdom becoming totally lawless.
Essentially a mixture of player management and automated systems.
A purely automated systems will have weaknesses that can be gamed and be too strong in other situations, a purely PC driven system will eat too much player time to be enjoyable (at least in my experience, after a time doing guard duty in a game people start to hate it).
Some level of automated security is a must as there will be always the risk of being attacked or unlawful behaviour when all of the players responsible for the kingdom security are off line, especially at the start of a settlement, when the population will be low.
Also, ever wondered WHY so many MMORPGs focus on PvE rather than on PvP?That's simple. They all want a piece of Blizzards Cake.
Ever wondered why so many games that have focused on PvE since World of Warcraft have crashed and burned?Farmville has over 80 million players yet it doesn't feature any combat whatsoever. Should Goblinworks copy Farmville?
Leave all the combat and nation building to the NPC's, lets all grow some cabbage!
Fact: Everquest FOCUSED on PvE before WoW. But gave the option of PvP on 4 separate servers.
If Pathfinder Online has unlimited PvP, I won't play, lots and lots of people won't play it. PvP is stressful and some people either CAN'T deal with it due to anxiety issues, or just don't want to deal with stupid little kids griefing people cuz it's fun making other people miserable.
I play MMORPGs to relax from stress at work.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To put it in WoWspeak(which is clearly not a great analogy as the "faction" element makes this a false comparison)... say horde on horde violence is allowed and you(level 40) kill some poor level 10 while he's killing scorpids south of Orgrimmar. When you kill him you become KoS for all the guards of Org and all the small towns in the zone for 48 hours. All of a sudden killing that poor little scrub seems *way* less worth it, no?
in another Topic, I mentioned Banishment as a punishment for some criminal actions like PVP in a secure area... this is easily how it would be enforceable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That is a bad assumption.
@Ryan, yes, I am making assumption based on EVE.
My assumption is that if a target can be attacked he can be killed if the attackers are determined enough, even in a high security area.
This is a very interesting answer. You can expand on it or it is too early?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is a very interesting answer. You can expand on it or it is too early?
We are not bound by EVE's self-imposed game design rule that there is no such thing as a 100% safe zone. We may very well have such zones. Or we may have game design elements that enable a character to become 100% safe. Or we may have a game design element that makes it impossible to kill a target before The Law terminates the aggressor.
Using EVE as a starting point for assumptions about this kind of thing is not a good way to generate assumptions.
RyanD
Fact: Everquest FOCUSED on PvE before WoW. But gave the option of PvP on 4 separate servers.
If Pathfinder Online has unlimited PvP, I won't play, lots and lots of people won't play it. PvP is stressful and some people either CAN'T deal with it due to anxiety issues, or just don't want to deal with stupid little kids griefing people cuz it's fun making other people miserable.
I play MMORPGs to relax from stress at work.
those people that won't play because there is open pvp will just be replaced with a lot of people who enjoy open pvp so its no real loss to the game
EQ and WoW are PvE themepark mmo's with pvp as a afterthought, PFO is a sandbox mmo with PvP as a big focus, you can't have a sandbox pvp mmo without open pvp, this means that some people will get ganked when they leave the safer zones
now you can either deal with the game world being dangerous outside of safe zones, play smart and avoid parts of the game that will get you killed or you can just not play
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
those people that won't play because there is open pvp will just be replaced with a lot of people who enjoy open pvp so its no real loss to the game
It's your opinion that the number of people who will not play a game with unrestricted PvP is less than or equal to the number of people who will play a game they otherwise would not if it features unrestricted PvP?
It's your opinion that the number of people who will not play a game with unrestricted PvP is less than or equal to the number of people who will play a game they otherwise would not if it features unrestricted PvP?
its hard to tell but PFO seems to be going in the direction of having fairly open pvp and i very much doubt the game will fail because it hasn't catered to the people who don't want that
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's your opinion that the number of people who will not play a game with unrestricted PvP is less than or equal to the number of people who will play a game they otherwise would not if it features unrestricted PvP?
It would be fair to say that I feel that the risk of making a game with restricted PvP (doing the same thing Age of Conan, Warhammer, Aion, Rift, etc. are doing) and expecting a different result ( a meaningful return on the investment and comittment required to make the game) is less.
A "restricted" PvP game is a PvE game, because the dynamic of play won't enable PvP to be meaningful. And PvE games require a massive investment in content, etc. etc. etc. (see blog :) )
We're not making Pathfinder Online to appeal to the largest possible audience. That strategy doesn't work. We're making Pathfinder Online to appeal to the audience that generates the "long, slow growth" model that does.
RyanD
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree with Ryan. In making a game that emulates the Warcraft model, you have to beat Blizzard at their own game. It would be difficult and require huge investment. Instead, continual development would build on the strengths and permit Goblinworks to weed out the weaknesses while building a loyal, staunch fan base. See Eve for an example of this model working.
Anything short of non-con PvP (open PvP) is kid gloves. Your situation of removing someone's ability to do something for 100 game hours just won't work. If the situation was reversed, and your ability to PvE was turned off for 100 game hours, you wouldn't be too happy. As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure people would quit in droves. Taking away people's ability to play how they choose is just not a good option.
By forcing someone to do PvP aka allow them to get jumped you are already turning off PvE only play, and my point was to put the shoe on the other foot, which my your response I seemed to have done. I don't think it is a realistic idea, but the point got across. What is kid gloves is subjective by the way.
You can try to make the argument that non-con PvP does the same thing. It takes away the victims ability to play how you want. But here's the thing: The second you step into a high-risk unprotected area, you're accepting the fact that you might die. And you might die to a player. You are not FORCED to go out there. You choose to. And people will CHOOSE to come along and kill you. There's always the high security areas.
Having high risk PvP areas and non PvP areas is also a good option. I may have misunderstood you, but I thought you were advocating a game system where PvE only players had no way to avoid the situation at all. I see no reason for such as system when both sides can get what they want, and it allows those who want do it sometimes to switch up at will.
It's already been said that you can play through the game in safety. You just won't get the same reward as someone who actually puts themselves at risk.This I can agree with. I just can't find the source of the info. By all the arguing I guess a lot of other people can't either. I think a source should be noted.
The source is right here: LINKY
And for those too lazy to click:
Thanks. That seems like a good option. Take the risk reap the benefits. :)
edit:The only reason I am leaving the rest of the post up before "thanks" is to allow others to see more reasoning as to why this is a good idea.