Goblin Squad Member
|
Unless you meant "human beings" other than yourself?
I meant "human beings" in general. That is: me, the community, the mods, etc.
Why not have a method in-game to deal with it automatically...?
Because automatic systems will be probed until loopholes are discovered, at which point the griefers will exploit those loopholes to use the automatic systems as the means of their griefing. Without human judgment in the mix, the systems will be turned around and used as tools of griefing.
The way that PFO will deal with the problems experienced in the other games you've mentioned is to give people plenty of other things to do other than griefing, and to use moderators to deal with the hard cases who refuse to engage the game conscientiously.
As well, regarding the statement that "PVP is central to the design of PFO", where is that design coming from?
Sorry if this sounds rude, but that design is coming from the people designing and building the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The fixation on the term murder is somewhat problematic, and over dramatizes the situation. We won't be looking at scenario where LIttle BunnyBun the Halfling Baker and creator of epic doilies is going to be consistently "murdered" by Greifey MacOrcButcher the Kellid sociopath. We don't know the specifics, so we can argue by filling in the blanks with any and every imaginable extreme both noble and diabolical and still be no closer to having a reasonable discussion. The absolutism just isn't really constructive.
There are two hexes where one can obtain Metal4. One hex is flagged 'murder-yes' while the other is not.Unlikely, as a vast majority of the world will have open PvP, but lets roll with it for the sake of discussion
metal is metal is metal, and should be extracted at the same pace everywhere. the metal from "safe-zone" would, and should, run out earlier, because the palyers there are experiencing far less risk to acquire it than those in danger-high zones
In your opinion, should the amount of Metal4 extractable from either in a given time frame be the same?
both hexes ideally would have the same percentage of random spawning resources as the same or similar, and barring that be in some way predictable. given that one hex is risk low, and the other risk high, i think they should be the same.
Should the amount of Metal4 extractable from either in a given time frame be higher for the 'murder-yes' hex, or higher for the hex NOT flagged 'murder-yes' ?
Finally, should Metal4 be obtainable in ANY hex not flagged 'murder-yes' ?
No, high value resources should be achievable in areas where danger is present, in a classic risk vs reward scenario.
It also seems strange to me that 'murder-yes' areas exist at all. When was the last time a player murdered a fellow adventurer while playing Pathfinder, the RPG, or in all the DnD games that have ever been played? I would bet a nickel it's a very low number, and yet PFO has this feature. Very odd. Maybe it should be renamed Pathfinder-PvP-Online, so people can make the distinction between that intellectual property and this one? >:) Ok ok, that was a low blow, but it does make the point.
This arguement really has no basis for a number of reasons; tabletop game play is not analogous to an mmo, in basic units of time, access, scale and innumerable other ways. This comment also belies a serious lack of understanding what the concept of Players as Content really means.
Lets take your Metal4 by example. You're a prospector, specializing in finding the elusive metal4, well geared and well equipped with a small cadre of camp supporters. You go into the wilds to strike a score, and that nefarious undercutter Gruffling is out there, in your prospecting zone, well under equipped, and looking to slice off a score of your metal4 claim before you're the wiser. You track him down, and then is it "murder" to clean him from your claim, with very little to zero profit on his part. Is it "murder" when Gruffling is back at it, in some other hex looking to claimjump metal3 and maybe some herb4 or the really valuable lumber6?
See how this can be far more interesting than rolling out into the woods and following quest arrows to murder and skin 18 bears for some reason retrieving their liver. On the way encountering someone who thinks its just funny to clean the world of bears, just because you're on that quest.
Systems vs Human interaction as a griefing deterrent: No system, and by this we define as a purely automated code based system, can reasonably prevent griefing without actually becoming a tool of griefing itself. Even the most complicated code/reporting system still should require a human interacting with the offended party to verify the claim.
In my example above; is it griefing, or just gameplay? Who's the aggrieved party?
It is confusing to me that Goblinworks has publicly committed to "use whatever means are necessary to avoid letting PFO degenerate into rampant anti-social behavior" and yet this blog describes a system which allow players to be murdered ~~anywhere, at any time.
It should be confusing when you try to use a quote about hopefully outlier, low percentage attempts at causing emotional stress on other players, with average gameplay pitting two more or less evenly matched players against each other. Again, its not murder, and its not anti-social (unless it really is, via a definition of griefing).
Goblinworks has decided to allow open PvP for a number of reasons, but I imagine first and foremost is because it allows them to create a large world, with lots of content, at a lower cost. Most themepark style (purely PvE) games require an enormous volume of work to create content that the modern MMO player base can devour at something along the lines of 10 bajillion percent faster then they can produce it. This ends with lots of physical resources devoted to a massive player base, that immediately begins to reduce as soon as the content is "used up" leaving wasteful empty servers that don't pay for themselves, leading to loss of revenue, and a broken business model.
A sandbox game with Players as Content is at its very heart much easier to provide content for. Every new player is in fact a new quest giver, quest taker, potential ally or enemy to however many factions may exist. Throw in PvE elements that are not the focus of the entirety of the game play, and you have, in my opinion, a well balanced and awesome sounding game. One that couldn't arrive soon enough.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Being murdered in a high security zone does not appear to be the proper context. Otherwise, why have a high security zone mechanic? Is it safe or not? As described, it is not safe. There is no security. Why is it called "high security" if security isn't high?
High security areas will have NPC marshals that rapidly arrive at the scene of a crime and kill the murderer, likely before he even takes down his target. They are powerful enough that there is no real hope of surviving. Right outside of town, thats middle security, and the marshals have a bit of travel time required to get there. If the bandit or murderer is very good and very quick, they might be able to kill you and get away, but they'll have to be on top of their game. Low security areas.....bring friends. Cause you know the bandits will.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From A Journey of a Thousand Miles Begins with a Single Step:
At launch, and for the first seven months following, we will cap new paying players at 4,500 per month...
After the first seven months, we'll raise the limit on new paying players to 12,000 per month. That will remain our goal for the next couple years of Pathfinder Online's life cycle.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
When we play, I'm virtually always the GM. But the players are not defeating me when they overcome a challenge. They're succeeding, sure, but I'm not failing.
That's because the goal of playing the PnP game isn't to have your characters win. The goal of PnP gaming is to have fun, and players and DMs can have fun regardless of whether the players live or die.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While I'm not generaly a fan of FFA PvP for many of the reasons that have been brought up, I'm not convinced that PFO will suffer from the same sort of anti-social atmosphere that many FFA PvP games have suffered.
The GW Developers certainly seem to have expressed a desire that it not do so and have repeatedly expressed awareness of the pitfalls that other games have experienced in that regard. They've also discussed a number of mechanisms for dealing with such issues, although those have not neccesarly been fully desribed or fleshed out. Therefore I remain cautiously hopefull that PFO will avoid the worst of such pitfalls.
One thing that I would like to bring forward to the discussion is that you don't generaly see people express such angst about being killed in FPS shooter games. Part of the reason why, I believe, is that players understand that death in such games is a fairly common occurance and the game mechanics take that into account. While death is a setback in an FPS shooter, it doesn't not significantly prevent the player from continuing to play and enjoy the game going forward. Secondly, the player has a reasonable expectation to kill/defeat his opponent, even if that opponent is a "veteran".... meaning the opponent is taking on considerable risk himself from engaging the player.
I think people are making certain assumptions regarding these dynamics based upon other MMO's that may not hold true for PFO. For example in PFO, it's not likely that you will be loosing your +57 Vorpal Sword of Ultimate Doom that you raided 10 hours to get because....
- It's unlikely that there WILL BE a +57 Vorpal Sword of Ultimate Doom in the game for you to loose.
- The scale in power between the top end items and the regular gear you can pick up cheaply from any NPC shop is not likely to be so huge that you will actualy NEED a +57 Vorpal Sword of Ultimate Doom in order to function perfectly well in every day adventuring, even if one exists.
- It's already been stated that items you have "Equiped" won't be lost when you are killed. Hence what your loosing as a setback of being killed is only going to fall into a specific subset of items that are likely to be carried in inventory out into the wilds (and hence probably not all that valuable).
Secondly the scale in raw power between a veteran adventurer and a new player is likely not to be so huge that there is virtualy no risk for the seasoned adventurer to engage the new player (as there would be in some MMO's).
The one thing that really bothers me about FFA PvP (my preference really is for faction based PvP) is the paranoia/dystopia dynamic that any/every person you encounter is likely to be a socio-path that stabs you in the back the moment you let your guard down and you feel like you have no built in support base to help you. This is most problematic for relatively new players who have little knowledge/understanding or established ties in the Environment.
However, PFO seems like it will be implimenting rather significant security zones around its established security zones, which I suspect is where almost all newer players will be spending the majority of their play time and where it will either be practicaly impossible or extremely difficult to murder someone and doing so will have significant consequences to the aggressor who will be clearly marked therafter for thier agression.
I expect expeditions into the true lawless wilderness (whether for resource gathering or dungeon exploring) will be significantly more organized and supported affairs that new players don't undertake on thier own....and likely even veteran players will only do as a member of some group. At that point, the player will likely be familiar enough with the game that they have a feel for who is trustworthy and who is an unkown....and also have a level of support and connectedness to organizations that acts of agression/betrayel against them are not without thier own consequences. It's also the case that they may have resources to draw upon to support them if they are suffering setbacks.
At the very least, a player will know that they are venturing into a risky area when they do so.
It may turn out that I am wrong in this suppositions....but at least those are the dynamics I'm hoping to see in PFO. I fully DON'T expect newbies to by mob/ganked after stepping 10ft outside a starting towns gate....and if they are, I expect GW will be making some adjustments to thier mechanisms to correct that. Ultimately, we'll just have to wait and see.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As said death is a regular feature on mmo's. By pve or pvp. The aim of death is to add drama without exercising too much penalty/risk of but enough to balance the drama. pvp potentially can add drama better than pve. The security zones being a little <100% secure is for that reason to sustain a small chance of drama/pvp/higher risk to the perpetrator, lower risk to the victim.
The wilds are exactly dangerous for the same reason.
Then it's just a question how successful are GW anti-griefing measures. The GM creates the equivalent drama that pvp is intending to substitute for in mmo. That is my take on this.
So if that is a given for that reason, as said the real question is how successful will anti-griefing measures be? Some outlined in the blog appear promising but that is area best for discussion imo.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I remain convinced that most people's strong objections to PvP are based on their experience being griefed when PvP was allowed. PvP and griefing are not necessarily so strongly associated, and I truly hope PFO finds a solid way to discourage griefing while at the same time encouraging PvP.
This will require the players to embrace the attitude that being killed by someone when you didn't want to even be attacked is not automatically griefing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As well, regarding the statement that "PVP is central to the design of PFO", where is that design coming from? Pathfinder, the RPG? Or Eve? Is PFO going to be a fantasy setting for Eve 2.0, or is it going to embody the spirit of Pathfinder the RPG, where murdering your fellow players is unthinkable to the vast majority of participants?
The design is not coming from PF the RPG, this has been said numerous times. The ONLY thing coming from paizo is the library of pathfinder lore. Names, descriptions and behaviors.
This game is going where the vast majority of pathfinder games never go. Players will not have aligned goals, people will be working together, and directly against each other.
PvP in pathfinder is not deathmatch style as seen in every other game. You don't just see someone and kill the, there will always be some other reason attached. From the look of things, killing unprovoked turns you 'evil', which gimps your ability to persist in 'good' territory.
The design has not been done, it is more of a combination of good features of other MMO's and new ideas.
If GW was to remove open pvp, they might as well make this PFRPG SIM that people ask for in every new wave that comes to these boards. After all the OPvP people leave, they will need something to generate 6 months of income. But I highly doubt that will happen because every time Ryan replies to someone concerned about OPvP he directs them to the plethora of themepark titles out there.
To the people that don't like PvP:
Do not join the game for 2 years after launch, let us go in and lay down the lines in the sand for you to play inside of.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The assertion of "non-consensual" pvp equating to and equaling griefing is somewhat erroneous. Correlation is not causation, as they say.
Others have pointed out quite eloquently, and I'll attempt to paraphrase; Griefing is the product of a bored player, with access to an unbalanced combat system. Power + anonymity + boredom = griefer. I reckon its a rare person that is interested in paying to play a game they can actually play (ie, by legitimate attacks on other players, challenges, and the environment) thats going to waste time doing something spiteful when they could be producing for their goals.
If you don't want to risk PvP, you can stay away from the wilds. You're not risking, so you don't get access to significant rewards. If you are less risk adverse, you can venture out and perhaps be rewarded for your bravery. If that risk doesn't pan out, and you pay the fairly limited and minimal cost of maringal death penalties (partial loot, and loss of time), its unlikely that the player will become overwrought with a sense of loss and consider the situation unfair.
I just don't see the downside to having intelligent, active participants as opponents. Sure, its not as easy cakes as wading through some AI controlled monsters. That's a bonus, a selling point, a feature. Everyone likes a different level of risk, and challenge, and PFO will likely not appeal to people that are extremely risk adverse and prefer a lesser challenge, unless these people are willing to grow out of those modes of play.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, what you are talking about is still PvP. I can pay someone to hit you, but I can't actually hit you. So, what is to stop 30 players from chain spamming NPCs at someone they don't like? What if 40 players want to work a node that someone else found first, but that player can handle the slow and steady PvE? Your system doesn't solve the PvP griefing issue, it just ads a level of complexity that will confuse people and really destroy the immersiveness of the game.
The most telling argument that the game is and will remain an Open PvP game? The CEO said so. He fully acknowledges they'll lose some players. But, give Goblinworks a chance. They might change your mind.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
PvP to me seems dangerous, scary, and difficult... Yay!!! Having never truly played a Pvp MMO before, it feels like the safety net has been taken away from my tightrope act. My experience with other "theme park" rides has been very short due to one major factor. The lack of fear. Yes fear... If your Character is killed with no major concinquence attached, then there is no real emotional connection to that virtual world, just a little inconvenience.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being murdered in a high security zone does not appear to be the proper context. Otherwise, why have a high security zone mechanic? Is it safe or not? As described, it is not safe. There is no security. Why is it called "high security" if security isn't high?
It's a deterrant, not a restriction. And, because the deterrent is effective, for the most part, the number of ganks in highly secure territory will be minimal. Most players will rarely, if ever, be killed in high security territory.
BTW: This is not theory, this is the actual way the security system works in EVE, and it works as described. Outside of declared wars and occasional special player-run events, high security attacks are extremely rare.
Why not have a method in-game to deal with it automatically, rather than placing the burden upon overworked moderators and front line support staff?
Any rules-based automatic system will be defeated by players who game that system. The only effective long term defense is squashing such behavior before it become common and redefines "normal".
It seems like now is the time to get the PFO design document modified to deal with these fundamental problems that have failed in UO, Darkfall, Shadowbane, and Mortal Online. They have tried them, they have failed.
I can't speak to Shadowbane and Moral Online, but I can speak to UO and Darkfall.
Both had effectively un-penalized PvP everywhere, including the places where new players were learning the game and getting their first experience with the game world. The result was that griefing activities were rampant, which self-selects for a player base able to ignore the effects of griefing, or interested in griefing. The people who wanted a different kind of game quit.
UO was a true frontier and a lot of things got learned there by hard experience that couldn't have been clearly predicted simply on the basis of theory or the MUD/MUSH/MOO games that proceeded it.
Darkfall positioned itself from the first as a game where PvP was the point of the game. It was pitched primarily as a place where you could go fight other players with a game mechanic that rewarded player skill. Unsurprisingly, that's exactly the audience it attracted, and unsurprisingly it quickly degenerated into a gankfest from which it never recovered.
Both of these games teach us lessons that we need to pay attention to for Pathfinder Online. They don't teach "don't allow PvP". They teach "establish norms of behavior for PvP so that many different kinds of players will enjoy playing the game not just the griefers".
As well, regarding the statement that "PVP is central to the design of PFO", where is that design coming from? Pathfinder, the RPG? Or Eve? Is PFO going to be a fantasy setting for Eve 2.0, or is it going to embody the spirit of Pathfinder the RPG, where murdering your fellow players is unthinkable to the vast majority of participants?
Pathfinder Online aims to do to the sandbox MMO what World of Warcraft did for the theme parks - take a bunch of best practices, recognize a bunch of known pitfalls, pay attention to the user experience, and have a backdrop of and incredible digital world to play in.
Pathfinder is a brand that is bigger than the tabletop RPG.
There are Pathfinder novels. You don't expect a Pathfinder novel to be the script of a tabletop RPG session do you? There are protagonists and antagonists in those novels and sometimes they fight and sometimes characters die.
The Pathfinder intellectual property is built around conflict. Many of the deities in the Pathfinder pantheon are at odds with, and actively seek to confront and destroy the minions of their brethren. There are humanoid organizations similarly at odds, like the Pathfinder Society and the Aspis Consortium. Conflict, including physical combat, is not only common in the Pathfinder IP, it's an important pillar of the forces that drive the drama in the Golarion setting.
The only difference between what we're doing in Pathfinder Online and what happens in other expressions of the Pathfinder IP is that all of the people involved in the conflicts are players. That makes the game meaningful in a way that no other form of entertainment will ever be.
RyanD
Goblinworks Founder
|
PvP to me seems dangerous, scary, and difficult... Yay!!! Having never truly played a Pvp MMO before, it feels like the safety net has been taken away from my tightrope act. My experience with other "theme park" rides has been very short due to one major factor. The lack of fear. Yes fear... If your Character is killed with no major concinquence attached, then there is no real emotional connection to that virtual world, just a little inconvenience.
That's right. I will always remember my first pvp fight (Darkfall and I died but died feeling extremely excited) but can't remember any of the many many first pve fights in numerous theme parks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bob has no idea who Joe is. They've never met. Bob has never seen Joe throughout this encounter. Joe's name (nor Joe's friends names) is not associated with any of the attackers. As far as Bob knows, they're all just NPCs. Waves and waves of attackers could appear this way, and it's all just more NPC's as far as Bob is concerned. To him, they could be scripted NPC's, a dynamic local event, or player hired/tamed/controlled NPCs, or player possessed NPCs. From Bob's perspective, he is fighting PvE content. No ego bruising, no trash talking, no teabagging. Even if Bob loses, he just loses to an NPC.
So essentially we're getting all the drawbacks of PVP, minus actually pitting one players skills against another, allowing tactical battles etc...
The ego bruising trash talking etc... are an unfortunate side effect, that is not eliminated via Bob being unaware of his attackers, as assuming Joe chose to target bob, if he is the kind of idiot who wispers and gloats about his kill, he will do so anyway. All this does, is prevent bob from having any sane form of retaliation. Bob cannot come back with friends and show joe a piece of his mind... because he never learned joes name.
I support the idea of NPCs being mixed into the PVP combat to some extent, but replacing the PVP content with AI's... eliminates the greatest draw of PVP, tactical inteligent battles. AI's have flaws, predictability etc... Players do as well, but they are different for each player, and change even on that player as he becomes aware of them.
Essentially this system still leaves holes and openings for people to exploit to grief to their hearts content... eliminates all risk and drawback to the attacker, and eliminates tactical meaningful PVP.
The dislike of PVP for most people isn't that the person who killed them has a tag over their head or even that he might mock them after, it is that the match is not always even and that it is often not what they were after. The typical themepark MMO has people walking up against dragon X, they know in advance what dragon X is, how dangerous he is, and a rough estimate of their success. They know where the dragon is, at what point he will be agro'd etc... A solid predictable encounter. 3/4ths of the way through the fight with dragon X, and Team Y pops out from behind the bushes, hits the healer of the team fighting the dragon with everything they have, wears down the team and takes the nearly killed dragon + it's reward. That is the unpredictable event that some people love and some people hate.
What people hate and love of PVP, is the unpredictability. Something that I do hope PFO is able to keep a good amount of in most of the game and not just in PVP. IE I don't want to walk into a dungeon, and before setting foot in know that I have a 99.999% chance of clearing the dungeon with my team, I want to walk in, with a pretty reasonable chance of walking in, and discovering Holy crap we are in no way able to handle this, RUN!!!!
Now I do hope that the PVP winds up ballanced, IE there is no group that is going to be so powerful they just walk along, and kill anyone who they find in their path with little to no chance of getting their rear ends handed back to them. I think that every risk someone can throw at an enemy should be thrown back to themselves.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
(You'll note this type of 'goodbye' post has been a recurring theme on these forums for the past 6 months. You may want to ponder why that is the case, if anyone cares to think past the first 4500 milestone)
You'll notice this type of "goodbye post" is inherently common in ANY VIDEO GAME FORUM where someone doesn't get what they want.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
-snip-Yep, covered in the possession system (which allows players to directly control NPCs), but it's extremely apparent no-one is interested in discussion at this point for viable systems that would attract a larger crowd and still reach the same design goals. Evidently the time for brainstorming this system has passed, the drawbridge is up, and the community is in pure defensive mode.-snip-
That sounds similar to LOTRs Monster play feature but turned into more integrated system? I think there is some merit in something along these lines. I think it could be (if not overly complicated) be used by a powerful wizard/sorcerer:
Sorcerers—masters of blood magic. Scions of innately magical bloodlines, the chosen of deities, the spawn of monsters, pawns of fate and destiny, or simply flukes of fickle magic, these characters look within themselves for arcane prowess and draw forth might few mortals can imagine.
I think this could be incorporated into this class. And instead of a pet class. You could have your Sorc. hideout in their ivory tower summoning a small army 1-12 monsters over a period of time (& feeding them/sustaining with magic) and then let them loose and control where they go to eg direct them to a location, select a target to attack... all from the comfort of your ivory tower and at the convenience of your crystal ball. :)
As to pvp, it is more dynamic, and for some there is an element of "player combat = ego test" which is discouraging, but I personally see it in the form of an intelligent agent against you you need to respect the danger they pose. I can think of similar danger in different contexts in RL eg climbing, tending to a bonfire, operating a car in bad conditions, startling a (large or poisonous) wild animal suddenly etc... you have to respect the "opponent" in each case.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
(You'll note this type of 'goodbye' post has been a recurring theme on these forums for the past 6 months. You may want to ponder why that is the case, if anyone cares to think past the first 4500 milestone)You'll notice this type of "goodbye post" is inherently common in ANY VIDEO GAME FORUM where someone doesn't get what they want.
Reminds me of my work buddy talking about one of the video game forums he was reading where a poster was simply outraged that the developers were not going to provide animations for sitting in chairs, so he posted a very dramatic "goodbye post".
Oh well, I'm sure there are plenty of players who will be happy to take vjek's place in line.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nobody cares if they die to an NPC.
I'm sorry Nihimon but when this untruth was posted I couldn't help but laugh. I could go on and on and on about the RAGE, and drama that comes up in hardcore raiding alone but I would like to illustrate a more comically and true example. That affects a LOT of us even in our adult years. Please direct yourself to 45 seconds in of this Angry Video Game Nerd video.
Or I'll just say one word to wrap up. "Battletoads", that is all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Waruko, the language gets a little rough at the end. I didn't think YouTube normally posted stuff like that... But the point is well taken.
And that's a joke video. Other youtube and some raid groups I have been with have done far worse over dying to NPC's. Take the "Onyxia Wipe" video for example.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, I certainly don't intend to ragequit the boards over my concerns about what the game might be like, especially given that I've never played an MMO before ... I'm just thinking that MMOs in general might not be my bag ...
HOWEVER ... I'm certainly willing to give it a shot. Heck, I bet there will be an organization of bounty hunters, and there's a good chance that would be up my alley :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
When I think of Pathfinder i don't think of PVP. Pathfinder, to me, is about defeating monsters and villains (PVE) it's not about killing other players (PVP)unless your in a really bad game. It seems like your just making a fantasy version of EVE online. To me, your sacrificing the feel of Pathfinder to follow the "EVE Model" because it's easy and convenient not because it accurately represents the feel of Pathfinder in any way.Pathfinder Online *is* very much about heroes defeating monsters and villains—the only difference is that some of those villains happen to be controlled by other players.
The tabletop RPG does indeed have PvP—in fact, it *depends* on it. It's just that the player controlling the adversarial characters is called "the GM."
I am gonna have to disagree a little with that last part
in PvP the adversary WANTS to kill you
in TTRPG the DM does play the adversaries but he is on your side, he doesn't WANT to kill you (at least a DM who wants to keep players more than a couple sessions). If you do something OOC or meta or stupid RP or just extremely unlucky, then he will kill you. But that isn't the same as someone ACTIVELY seeking ways to do so
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
When I think of Pathfinder i don't think of PVP. Pathfinder, to me, is about defeating monsters and villains (PVE) it's not about killing other players (PVP)unless your in a really bad game. It seems like your just making a fantasy version of EVE online. To me, your sacrificing the feel of Pathfinder to follow the "EVE Model" because it's easy and convenient not because it accurately represents the feel of Pathfinder in any way.Pathfinder Online *is* very much about heroes defeating monsters and villains—the only difference is that some of those villains happen to be controlled by other players.
The tabletop RPG does indeed have PvP—in fact, it *depends* on it. It's just that the player controlling the adversarial characters is called "the GM."
I am gonna have to disagree a little with that last part
in PvP the adversary WANTS to kill you
in TTRPG the DM does play the adversaries but he is on your side, he doesn't WANT to kill you (at least a DM who wants to keep players more than a couple sessions). If you do something OOC or meta or stupid RP or just extremely unlucky, then he will kill you. But that isn't the same as someone ACTIVELY seeking ways to do so
It's been a long while since I played any TTRPG, but suppose a game where the DM said you're playing a really "dangerous" world/version this time... it might amount to the same thing; albeit motivations are different because another player has past and future of their own?
I think the "life & death in the River Kingdoms" is the important idea here: PvP enables the life bit to have more danger of the death bit (in the TTRPG death is permanent for TTPF?)
So it comes back to motivation of someone "playing to gank" playing the wrong game in PfO - and measures to iron that out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(You'll note this type of 'goodbye' post has been a recurring theme on these forums for the past 6 months. You may want to ponder why that is the case, if anyone cares to think past the first 4500 milestone)You'll notice this type of "goodbye post" is inherently common in ANY VIDEO GAME FORUM where someone doesn't get what they want.
our first ragequit?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
our first ragequit?(You'll note this type of 'goodbye' post has been a recurring theme on these forums for the past 6 months. You may want to ponder why that is the case, if anyone cares to think past the first 4500 milestone)You'll notice this type of "goodbye post" is inherently common in ANY VIDEO GAME FORUM where someone doesn't get what they want.
And far from the last.
|
I remain convinced that most people's strong objections to PvP are based on their experience being griefed when PvP was allowed. PvP and griefing are not necessarily so strongly associated, and I truly hope PFO finds a solid way to discourage griefing while at the same time encouraging PvP.
This will require the players to embrace the attitude that being killed by someone when you didn't want to even be attacked is not automatically griefing.
In the past, there have been the RP servers and the PvP servers, etc, etc, etc.
Why not try something that an old Mu* tried. EOTL had player flags, oh yes, not surprising if you know anything about code, etc. However, a player started out non-PVP. And at any time, they could toggle themselves as PVP. There was no switching back, however. This lead to in-game bounties, and a whole society of people/characters involved in such. HOWEVER, this also left those players NOT INTERESTED in PvP, etc, untouchable. They could not participate in PvP, nor could they get axed themselves. And as I said... once the switch was made, it could not be changed unless the Game Wizzen were convinced to change it back. Not an easy on/off toggle at all. It even asked you thrice if you were certain you wanted to turn on PvP... just so no one could say: IT WAS A MISTAKE!!
My slow 2 cents.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why not try something that an old Mu* tried. EOTL had player flags, oh yes, not surprising if you know anything about code, etc. However, a player started out non-PVP. And at any time, they could toggle themselves as PVP. There was no switching back, however. This lead to in-game bounties, and a whole society of people/characters involved in such. HOWEVER, this also left those players NOT INTERESTED in PvP, etc, untouchable. They could not participate in PvP, nor could they get axed themselves. And as I said... once the switch was made, it could not be changed unless the Game Wizzen were convinced to change it back. Not an easy on/off toggle at all. It even asked you thrice if you were certain you wanted to turn on PvP... just so no one could say: IT WAS A MISTAKE!!My slow 2 cents.
The issue with that in a game like PFO, is that PVP has to have a reason, a purpose to have value, not just thieves vs non-theives, but an actual part of territory control. If a group takes hold of a resource node or an area, they need to be able to lock it down and defend it. If a group is defending an area, and a non-PVP enabled player walks in... do they have to just watch as he walks past their defenses and starts gathering on their claimed territory?
Essentially the only fair way that could be worked, is for non PVP flagged players, to be unable to leave high sec territory. As low/non-sec territory, the law is what the players in the area make it, and they have to be able to enforce those laws. Short of some system where PVP enabled players can instantly portal any non-flagged player out of an area... I just can't think of a way to make it work.
If the solution is to make it so that non flagged cannot leave high security territory, well essentially we now have the system already in place. The mechanisms for high sec territory are more or less designed to nearly eliminate non-consentual PVP in high security territory.
Same concept for why I don't think the game can be designed with PVP and PVE servers. For PVP to work the game has to be constructed in a way that PVP is necessary. There has to be things that players can do, that others must want to stop. Whether that is overharvesting from territory causing the resource wells to run dry (Or at least attracting the NPC attention to a high enough level that it becomes difficult to harvest from) then it becomes natural for a group to want to control and limit the harvesting from nodes in their area.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A great idea that sounds very interesting, I think that would put many fears to rest. I would also add that if you were going to go out into a hot pvp zone, your pvp immunity would temporarily turn off until you left the contested area. As a harvester/explorer , it would never be in my interest to toggle pvp on. I would also add that the game would permanently toggle pvp on if the player logged in a certain amount hours in game, removing the training wheels.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This thread has some suggestions te griefing-control:Thread
In terms of the positives of pvp:
1. Builds cooperation of teams
2. Reward/Risk scale for gathering, exploring
3. Integrated with other game systems
So if the ganking conundrum can be resolved pvp should add a lot to PfO.
Both of these games teach us lessons that we need to pay attention to for Pathfinder Online. They don't teach "don't allow PvP". They teach "establish norms of behavior for PvP so that many different kinds of players will enjoy playing the game not just the griefers".
This is reassuring to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I just wish expectations would move away from all the players as one big happy homogenous faction of Us vs The Mobs, and start to realize we as the players will be moving to our own beat, and drumming our own fates. In order for all of us to get what we want, as factions or groups or even solo, we will come into conflict with each other. Its not a bad thing, it doesn't automatically result in the unfair or the emotionally destructive.
To me, knowing that my opponents benefit, and suffer, from all the facilities the human brain can offer is one of the great joys that blooms out of this concept. That my various avatars goals won't come easy is a good thing.
The term ganking and griefing just won't have the same weight I don't think. Instead think of any conflict, either combat or economic or social, not in terms of "Why Did that Jerk Gank me", but more like "Damn, I guess that guy thinks he has reason to challenge me".
Another thing that drives me crazy with this whole discussion is the assumption by those most concerned by PvP that they will lose fights, automatically. If another player is attacking you, you'll just die, and the nefarious jerk will dance on your looted husk. Somehow the perspective of this position is never from the other side of the equation, that you will challenge others, and win. You will win. You will also lose. It will be fun either way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, I also think as a community it helps if we set the proper tone about conflict in PFO. In one sense I actualy think "PvP" is a bit of a misnomer. Properly it really should be "PCvPC"....as I, the PLAYER, don't really want to crush/harm or in any way be hostile the PLAYER of another character....even though my CHARACTER may certainly want to do all those things to thier CHARACTERS.
Think of it more as playing baseball or a board wargame against other players. You certainly want to WIN, but you don't want to make the other side feel miserable or to actualy be hostile to them in any way outside the game. At this point, I could really devolve into a long tirade about how "sportsmanship" has really slipped in general among recent generations and how we are really failing to do a proper job of teaching our kids what "sports, competition and fair play" are really about, but I won't. Instead, I'll simply highlight the fact that characters in a game being hostile to each other is VASTLY different from PLAYERS of a game being hostile to each other. I hope that some of the people who are my characters arch-nemisis in the game end up as close freinds outside the game. They'll always be a certain number of griefers in a game, however as a community, I think we can have a large influence in setting the correct tone for conflict in this game.
That, more then anything, I think is where certain PvP games such as EvE start to fail..... where they start to encourage conflict between players that spills out BEYOND the scope of the game and into real life. I hope that things like trash talking, meta-gaming, the use of ALT's and spies or trying to spy on other players forums or out of game communications end up with ZERO tolerance from the community. Conflict in games doesn't have to be like that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, I also think as a community it helps if we set the proper tone about conflict in PFO. In one sense I actualy think "PvP" is a bit of a misnomer. Properly it really should be "PCvPC"....as I, the PLAYER, don't really want to crush/harm or in any way be hostile the PLAYER of another character....even though my CHARACTER may certainly want to do all those things to thier CHARACTERS.
While I'm pretty accepting of the level of competition that's likely to go on in-game, and I think I'll be okay with it, I'm going to have to disagree with you here.
Few and far between are the jerky people who don't play jerky characters. My concern is really not getting killed, it's running into jerky players, which is likely to manifest as running into jerky characters.
And I'll freely admit: I have some reservations about people (as in players) who are so hot and eager to play evil characters, especially in a world like this (which is completely different than, say, a PvP arcade game, which has no aspects of alignment, morality, or the like).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yeah, I also think as a community it helps if we set the proper tone about conflict in PFO. In one sense I actualy think "PvP" is a bit of a misnomer. Properly it really should be "PCvPC"....as I, the PLAYER, don't really want to crush/harm or in any way be hostile the PLAYER of another character....even though my CHARACTER may certainly want to do all those things to thier CHARACTERS.While I'm pretty accepting of the level of competition that's likely to go on in-game, and I think I'll be okay with it, I'm going to have to disagree with you here.
Few and far between are the jerky people who don't play jerky characters. My concern is really not getting killed, it's running into jerky players, which is likely to manifest as running into jerky characters.
And I'll freely admit: I have some reservations about people (as in players) who are so hot and eager to play evil characters, especially in a world like this (which is completely different than, say, a PvP arcade game, which has no aspects of alignment, morality, or the like).
The thing is here, "jerky behavior" is NOT dependant upon the ability to engage in "PvP". In fact, it can flourish in games who's mechanics entirely disallow players to attack each other. For example, spamming the other players screen, jumping up and down in front of them to obscure thier view, tagging all the mobs they would seek to target before they have the opportunity to do so, or "training" a huge quantity of mobs into them are all examples of "jerky" behavior that can exist in entirely PVE games.
RPG games start to suffer when people have difficulty seperating the actions of the CHARACTERS from the actions of the PLAYERS. For example, if I'm playing a Middle Earth strategy game, just because the player playing Souron (an undeniably "Evil" character) is gleefully torching Hobbiton....doesn't neccesarly mean that player is a "jerk" nor does it mean that player wants me to have a miserable time playing the game.
In a FRPG, players are simply playing ROLE's. Just because a player chooses to play the ROLE of a villian, antagonist or "Evil" doesn't neccesarly make them so as a PLAYER. Although people are behaving in a "jerky" fashion as PLAYERS do often make the mistake of trying to rationalize that behavior on the basis of playing "villians".... it's not a rationalization we should accept. We should be able to differentiate a Players behavior from that of thier characters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
At this point, I could really devolve into a long tirade about how "sportsmanship" has really slipped in general among recent generations and how we are really failing to do a proper job of teaching our kids what "sports, competition and fair play" are really about, but I won't.
It's in short supply in sports as well, I can attest! In sports the influence of adrenaline is a big reason imho.
I think the problem with mmorpgs has another dimension, to go on from your discussion re: PCvsPC // PvP: From this interesting article: Rules Of The Game
1. Playing the game (immersion)
2. Playing the rules (mastery)
3. Breaking the rules (boredom?)
So online games have the problem of 3. acutely. Ideally 2. is interesting enough for that type of player to enjoy leaving no good reason to resort to 3. but atst not at odds with 1. . In fact let's hope 2. provide a rich backstory/ground for 1.!
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you play Pathfinder Online for a while, your character is probably going to die eventually. But don't worry—you'll come back. And you'll die again. And you'll come back again. Dying is not the end of the world.
But I will also tell you this: I believe that the sooner you come to terms with the fact that you will die—YES, you will—and with the fact that you will then get *past* it, the more fun you will actually have playing the game.
One MMO developer told Ryan that he wished the game he was working on just made everyone die *in the tutorial* so that people could just get over it and get on with it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you play Pathfinder Online for a while, your character is probably going to die eventually. But don't worry—you'll come back. And you'll die again. And you'll come back again. Dying is not the end of the world.
But I will also tell you this: I believe that the sooner you come to terms with the fact that you will die—YES, you will—and with the fact that you will then get *past* it, the more fun you will actually have playing the game.
One MMO developer told Ryan that he wished the game he was working on just made everyone die *in the tutorial* so that people could just get over it and get on with it.
How Roland Speirs. ^_^
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One MMO developer told Ryan that he wished the game he was working on just made everyone die *in the tutorial* so that people could just get over it and get on with it.
SO MUCH THIS!
When my wife first started playing WoW (a long time ago, now), she was freaked when her character died. Not only did she have a hard time with the "autorez vs. find you corpse" decision, but since she had made it to level ten or so by that point, she never felt the same "immersion" in the game. Not that WoW is particularly immersive, but still...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
little latae to the party, but I have to say losing all of your equipment is pretty dang harsh. PvP where a guy pops you and you lose your epic sword of e-peenness? Random loss is bad enough completely tossing out all the rest of your equipment sounds like fun until you finish the Thornkeep 'module' get your rewards then loose them to some stool sample who decides to pop you while your walking through the forest.