@Ryan: There's still one thing I'm not getting. In a game that is primarily PvP, where every decision you make is informed by the threat of PvP, how is specializing in anything other than PvP not a mistake?
Don't you think the vast majority of players will immediately start their PvP careers the second they log into the game? It seems that having an interest in PvE is going to be a niche, and inherently vulnerable.
Goblinworks Founder
|
I would like to see the ability for players to get away.I agree. If "run away" is a meaningful option, we can train players to do so. Ideally there would be some aspect of the game mechanic that allowed you to execute a retreat within a narrow window of time, and if you did so, you'd almost always escape.
Obviously this shouldn't apply to ambushes, but rather to the situation where for example, a character is harvesting something and an unknown other character enters the area but before contact is made between the two.
Too many games with PvP end up with a situation where "running away" is never a viable option which breeds fatalism and defeatism.
RyanD
I think running away option would really work with the concept of skill progression over time that you are aiming for with PFO. In other games, losing a fight was not an option, the progression was based on getting the kill. With PFO, having the underpinning knowledge that your skills will advance over time might encourage PvP for the fun of it (win or lose), not because you have to do it to progress.
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
To think of the traps you could set on a battlefield. Having a wiz/sor casting the web spell in several areas, or mist; just to set up an ambush.
Group is fighting off an army, they know they're losing so they back off and let the enemy follow them. Little do they know that druids have dug trenches and rangers/druids set up snare spell in the area. Trenches could have webbing in them with people hiding below waiting the enemy to come in.
The group backing up had Freedom of Movement cast on them so they can move freely through the impairments that are set up.
With what the game system allows, a battlefield would be a thrilling place to be on.
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Ryan: There's still one thing I'm not getting. In a game that is primarily PvP, where every decision you make is informed by the threat of PvP, how is specializing in anything other than PvP not a mistake?
Don't you think the vast majority of players will immediately start their PvP careers the second they log into the game? It seems that having an interest in PvE is going to be a niche, and inherently vulnerable.
I suppose that depends on how rewarding it is to pursue other areas. If killing aberrations drops a highly valuable item only found on aberrations that is in high demand, I can see aberration slayers being rare but valuable.
We also know NPCs will attack towns and camps or build up infestations that increase in severity. If you have an infestation of vampires or lycanthropes and those enemies are extremely hard to kill for one not trained to do so, I imagine a player who specializes in doing so might be in high demand.
Similarly it would be interesting if it were highly desirable to track down a dragonslayer if a dragon is threatening your town.
I'm not sure what is the right balance between not making non-"CreatureX" slayers able to harm "CreatureX" and not giving them any bonus at all. But I think if the right balance is struck it could be fun.
I would certainly be down for a world in which dragon, vampire, lycan, ghost, and demon slayers are all in demand.
I'm not down for a world in which goblin, kobold, gnoll, and chicken slayers are in demand.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Ryan: There's still one thing I'm not getting. In a game that is primarily PvP, where every decision you make is informed by the threat of PvP, how is specializing in anything other than PvP not a mistake?
Because it's not "primarily PvP". Just because PvP is a possibility doesn't mean that's what the game is about.
If all you do is run around ganking people, you won't have much money, many friends, access to a full range of training or gear options, or much fun.
RyanD
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Ryan: There's still one thing I'm not getting. In a game that is primarily PvP, where every decision you make is informed by the threat of PvP, how is specializing in anything other than PvP not a mistake?Because it's not "primarily PvP". Just because PvP is a possibility doesn't mean that's what the game is about.
If all you do is run around ganking people, you won't have much money, many friends, access to a full range of training or gear options, or much fun.
RyanD
But if you do so in the name of a chartered company, you'll have all of the above. Same for the bounty hunter and assassination systems.
PvP is one of the core focuses of the game, and I agree that not focusing on pvp is something to be done at your peril in this game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But if you do so in the name of a chartered company, you'll have all of the above. Same for the bounty hunter and assassination systems.
PvP is one of the core focuses of the game, and I agree that not focusing on pvp is something to be done at your peril in this game.
Not likely, random killing tends to be pretty unwise unless the game has more or less no cost to being at war. Killing your companies current war enemy will get you rewarded. Killing members of a military powerhouse that is not currently enemies with your guild, could force your leader into a position where his options are to kick the random murderer, or blow through 2 months worth of resources in a battle with someone he had no business messing with.
At least in theory I don't expect most or many bandit organizations, to have large kingdoms or heavy values. (as they would become a huge bullseye for groups to attack in retaliation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I know pvp will be a part of the game but where does it say in any blog that its going to be the main focus? Especially the ganking, socially aberrant behavior you see in a lot of games now. I don't know which sandboxes you guys played in as children but mine was a place where children played peacefully for the most part and bullies were expelled by the higher powers, where imagination was king and toys/tools came and went as needed.
Ryan wrote:
Hudax wrote:
@Ryan: There's still one thing I'm not getting. In a game that is primarily PvP, where every decision you make is informed by the threat of PvP, how is specializing in anything other than PvP not a mistake?
Because it's not "primarily PvP". Just because PvP is a possibility doesn't mean that's what the game is about.
If all you do is run around ganking people, you won't have much money, many friends, access to a full range of training or gear options, or much fun.
RyanD
Thank you for this answer, Ryan. =)
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
Like Darkfall and Ultima Online killing people was your way of getting money and gear to continue doing what you do.
The target was considered your training option.
Options of towns and avoiding practically everyone was your only option to survive. I could see it being a lonely world for these types of people as you can't trust anyone because they might be someone coming for revenge on you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It seems like a lot of people are seeing 'pvp' and expecting the game to revolve around it completely, when PvP is only part of the picture that is being painted for us.
It's easy to visualize a venn diagram with pvp as a super set that eats all the other systems, all too easily, I guess. Probably a better description of FFA-PvP.
An Open-World super set + pvp ∩ pve subsets +... crafting/economy etc.. . would be a more accurate representation according to the blog design.
Might help make the distinction of PfO's design intention more transparent difference between these two?
|
Goblinworks Founder
|
Well the way Ryan says it is there, but if all you do is PvP then you miss out on everything else that the game offers.
There are people that are all for PvP; after they had their fill of adventures and started to learn their character then they want to engage in what is more thrilling part of a game. Combating other live characters that don't have preset functions, people that sometimes offer a challenge to you.
So after the first few months of being active you probably won't see a lot of PvP, maybe the small time gankers that hope to win but just end up dying a lot so they make a new person. After those months with people getting gear and skill you probably will see more PvP style action going on.
It's just a matter of how far they can go with it, it's an aspect some want to see and you lose those people if they can't get their fill.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Open World PvP should be about players experiencing consequences for their actions: The context is equally as enjoyable as the encounter if not more or less so depending on the player and what the encounter is about.
If you have a FPS-PvP: move/shoot-kill-kill-die-respawn... repeat. You get intense action and skill (twitch etc) but the consequences don't really lead to much consideration other than leaderboards iirc (not a fan of these games)? Arena-pvp tends to ape the FPS-pvp in mmorpgs using mmorpg combat mechanics (mostly), while battlegrounds just scale up the experience (mmo) and perhaps add warfare conditions such as siege. But it's still a self-contained experience.
I think open-pvp (note: not all elements of pvp overlap other areas of the game ;) ) for a mmorpg is the ideal fit for pvp, in theory, as it blends into everything else while making the combat interesting because of what's at stake/emergent story.
However the different forms of pvp will appeal to different people. I hope open-pvp in PfO is flexible enough to accomodate various pvp interests:
1) People who love danger, duals
2) People who love fighting people of 1)!
3) PvP which is coordinated with other activities such as territory control
4) And people who want a niche which allows them to bypass pvp or otherwise indirectly interact with it's consequences.
5) People who want to dabble in any of the above at any time. :)
(ps: ffa-pvp is not worth talking about: Too extreme, and *binary* flagging does not sound integrated into the game sufficiently ie somewhere between instances and open-world but neither here nor there imo.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So after the first few months of being active you probably won't see a lot of PvP
Oh, I don't think so. I think PvP will be rampant.
What won't be rampant is ganking - that is, killing characters just for the fun and aggravation of the other player.
There will be perfectly sound reasons for PvP. Some folks will be bandits. Others will be fighting for territory. Still others will be trying to deny access to resource to others. Some will fight for revenge, and some for profit.
All of those forms of PvP are just good content being created by the players for the other players. They're not griefing. In other words, there's a reasonable, in game reason for that PvP other than just pissing someone else off.
The biggest way that the game gets to that point is by encouraging the formation of strong social networks. Ganking flourishes when there's an "every player for themselves" attitude, and when the standard mode of play is solo adventuring. If strong social communities form, and people work as groups to accomplish objectives, the strength in those numbers will make it very hard to be a "ganker".
From the standpoint of the players who don't want to initiate PvP, that means that they'll have to be socially active in order to have fun. They'll also have to be aware of how PvP works and how to cope with it - either by running away, standing and fighting, offering ransoms, or simply dying and getting it over with quickly.
Obviously, the folks who do not, ever, want to be killed in a combat they did not agree to accept in advance will never be happy with this system. Luckily for them, the whole rest of the MMO market seems to be bending over backwards to accommodate them.
RyanD
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well the way Ryan says it is there, but if all you do is PvP then you miss out on everything else that the game offers.
There are people that are all for PvP; after they had their fill of adventures and started to learn their character then they want to engage in what is more thrilling part of a game. Combating other live characters that don't have preset functions, people that sometimes offer a challenge to you.
So after the first few months of being active you probably won't see a lot of PvP, maybe the small time gankers that hope to win but just end up dying a lot so they make a new person. After those months with people getting gear and skill you probably will see more PvP style action going on.
It's just a matter of how far they can go with it, it's an aspect some want to see and you lose those people if they can't get their fill.
IMO if systems such as gear breaking down etc... the concept of people maxed and continuing to kill randomly all but goes away. Society keeps people in check in the real world due to continual interdependencies.
The main 2 things that I could see as solid balancers are.
1. War should in and of itself be expensive. Both surviving and preventing a major Siege, should not be cheap. A longstanding war should be continual drain on resources. 2 equally matched forces butting heads until 1 loses, the victor should be doing everything to avoid another war in the near future with a new opponent, as he has been severely drained of his resources in the past war.
2. Characters themselves shouldn't reach a point where they have everything. Gear should break down over time etc... IE someone becomes extremely powerful gear via being on good terms with crafters etc... The gear they get should have a finite amount of time, where if they fall out of graces with the crafters, they cannot get the top end gear repaired/replaced very easily.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think you'll find that the last thing an effective social entity will want is a member going around pissing off random players.
But if you do so in the name of a chartered company, you'll have all of the above. Same for the bounty hunter and assassination systems.
He belongs to my organization. I have always operated under a simple principle. Treat others the way that they treat us and the general community.
I have almost never run short on targets in an Open World PVP game. There is always that bully clan out there picking on the newbs and the weaker clans. There is always that clan that decides they are just going to randomly kill everyone they see. There are always those guys who are out looking for a challenging fight and see you fit the bill.
Whether fighting an honorable war against a respectable opponent, an all out war against an opponent with no honor, or just keeping the roads safe from bandits, you almost never have to just piss off "random players" to get a whole ton of PVP action. Especially when they are going to have stationary cities and hideouts we can attack to draw them out. And sure you piss a lot of people off, but save enough newb clans and a few of them will go on to be vets who will remember what you did for them.
This is largely because clans like ours are generally always the minority and it is also precisely for this reason that I think any company that does not put a strong focus on PVP in this game is going to be stark raving mad, and probably dooming themselves to failure. You are going to crack down hard on griefing but what about the imperialists who just want more territory and resources and will exploit any good opportunity to do so? Combine with the random PKers that's well over 50% of the veterans in your community most likely.
No point earning rewards you won't be able to defend from bandits and rival kingdoms, and the good aligned clans aren't going to be able to come to everyone's rescue every time.
The only way to balance out PVE specializations vs. PVP specializations is to make PVE specializations very rewarding for the minority of players who will invest time in them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Obviously, the folks who do not, ever, want to be killed in a combat they did not agree to accept in advance will never be happy with this system. Luckily for them, the whole rest of the MMO market seems to be bending over backwards to accommodate them.
THIS!
I am sick of arena style "PvP as sports" content - endlessy monotone and repetitive and usually with horrible balance on top.
Obviously, the folks who do not, ever, want to be killed in a combat they did not agree to accept in advance will never be happy with this system. Luckily for them, the whole rest of the MMO market seems to be bending over backwards to accommodate them.
RyanD
I long suspected this was the case, but thanks for coming right out and saying it. As I said in the other thread, my contributions were more for the sake of getting the Pathfinder name out and for the PnP-based goodies than actually playing the game itself, and for this very reason never particularly thought of myself as the game's target audience.
Still, no regrets for the cash spent, the rewards on their own were good and even if I don't play it still gets Pathfinder and Paizo some much-needed publicity. Good luck with the project. =)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If there's PvP and I can't avoid it, that's a dealbreaker for me. One encounter ruins the fun and at best results in a logoff for the rest of the day; I've avoided this issue in other games by having PvP turned off. In a game where I can't do that, I see no sense in logging on in the first place. That's just where I draw the line.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
See some people talking about things like PVP-Specailization and PVE-Spec. Is that something that should be expected in this game. Needing different Specs for killing a Orc from a human?
Also is there any info talking about this is the currently released info from Goblinworks? if so can i get a link or something?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This post from Ryan earlier in this thread is probably what people are referring to.
The way I see it, it will be possible to specialize in many different things, including PvP.
I do not believe there will be any need to change "specs" the way you do in other games, though. Except to the extent that you might swap out gear and change over to a different hotbar if you choose to set yourself up that way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This post from Ryan earlier in this thread is probably what people are referring to.
The way I see it, it will be possible to specialize in many different things, including PvP.
I do not believe there will be any need to change "specs" the way you do in other games, though. Except to the extent that you might swap out gear and change over to a different hotbar if you choose to set yourself up that way.
This sounds much more reasonable than having a character that is really good at killing half-orcs until that half-orc is controled by another PC and becomes near useless.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do wonder how often characters will switch out of their skill tree (archetype). Because if you do so, you lose the access to the eventual capstone ability.
Going back to the specializations, I think it will really depend on how they are seperated in the skill trees.
Will being specialized in killing half-orcs be in another skill tree compared to killing humans?
It will be interesting to see what the capstones are, how powerful they are, on whether people are willing to switch to different skill trees.
Edit: Wanted to add that it will also depend on how narrow (or wide) a skill tree will be. If they are extremely narrow, I see very few characters gaining capstones because it would be too easy to take another skill out of the skill tree.
However, I doubt it will be that narrow. Also, I feel there will be skills that will overlap skill trees.
For example, I could see the "Two-Weapon Fighting" skill in the Fighter, Ranger and Monk archetype skill trees.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If there's PvP and I can't avoid it, that's a dealbreaker for me. One encounter ruins the fun and at best results in a logoff for the rest of the day; I've avoided this issue in other games by having PvP turned off. In a game where I can't do that, I see no sense in logging on in the first place. That's just where I draw the line.
That's fair enough, but if I may press another question, would you be willing to sacrifice the potential of a virtual world where influence can shape events instead of limited to scripted events; assuming there are niches in game where pvp death tends towards "negligible" frequency and/or minimal possible cost to deal with, is possible?
Perhaps your answer is the same, but just as a thought experiment it's interesting to see what possible conditions might negotiate you "in".
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No interest if I can't opt out of PvP. I find it aggravating. I remember starting off my MMO life and having a lvl 15 jerk stalking all the low level toons in the beginning zones. I couldn't hit the 'opt out of PvP/decline duels' check box fast enough, and that was just dealing with the loss of half of my gold not my equipment. I solo game too much, exploring the world, and raids are limited to attacking BBEGs.
Guess I stick with EQ2. Good luck to you.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If there's PvP and I can't avoid it, that's a dealbreaker for me. One encounter ruins the fun and at best results in a logoff for the rest of the day; I've avoided this issue in other games by having PvP turned off. In a game where I can't do that, I see no sense in logging on in the first place. That's just where I draw the line.That's fair enough, but if I may press another question, would you be willing to sacrifice the potential of a virtual world where influence can shape events instead of limited to scripted events; assuming there are niches in game where pvp death tends towards "negligible" frequency and/or minimal possible cost to deal with, is possible?
Perhaps your answer is the same, but just as a thought experiment it's interesting to see what possible conditions might negotiate you "in".
The death, loss, or other factors are only part of the issue for me. The main problem is that I simply do not like PvP, period. Win or lose, I walk away (or respawn) from any PvP encounter other than a friendly nonlethal spar with a sour taste in my mouth.
The only thing that would get me "in" is an option to revoke any possibility of me being forced into PvP without being limited to spending the entirety of my game time stuck in the safety of the first city. Whether that be an option to play on a no-PvP server, some kind of PvP tag or flag that I can turn off, or some other method I haven't thought of.
I'd even be okay with that option coming with the caveat of "if you won't let other players affect you, you can't affect other players" and slap a limitation on what things I can do to alter the world around me; while No-PvP-flagged your ability to claim or conquer land is limited or revoked, you can't build, you can't collect, you can't do anything but fight monsters and get treasure. Something like that would appeal to me greatly, as that's why I play these kinds of games - to go out, adventure, fight computer-controlled enemies and monsters, see the design and layout of the world, and interact with my friends. I have no interest in getting into combat conflicts with other players because I play games to get away from those kinds of conflicts. The same goes for my Pathfinder/D&D games - I enjoy conflict with the "computer" (GM)-controlled monsters and NPCs, but inter-party conflict that escalates to the point of combat is extremely draining for me and ruins the fun for the entire night.
Given Dancey's last post, though, that seems to be very much the opposite of the path GW has chosen, and thus while it appeals to a great many people on this forum I am not one of them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
^This. Unlike Orthos I DO regret chipping in $100 into the Kickstarter. If I had known PvE wasnt an option I wouldn't have kicked in.
I am so upset now, I can barely type. PvP is horrid, and 'strong social networks' will form. Of gankers. Their will be the kingdoms of Gankivia, Gankvonia, the, United states of Gankmerica.
Ugh. I was so looking forward to this MMO. what a lousy way to start off my week. Count me out of this game unless this PvP bullcrap changes
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
My problem is that the PVP part is actually a small part of what Pathfinder actually is. Look at all the adventure Paths, Modules, and other stuff. Most of them are getting a group together and having some fun. PVP tends to fall under the catagory of "A few bad apples ruin the bunch". I tend to dislike PVP. In my case, there are too many people who DO NOT CARE!!! They do not care if I enjoy the game and intetionally go out of their way to ruin things for the people that are just trying to enjoy some free time.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Having never played an MMO before, largely due to the existence of rampant PVP and the negative feedback thereof, I was really looking forward to PFO as a chance to give the genre a try in an interesting setting without the risk of being killed solely for the crimes of leaving the safe zone and not having 24 hours a day to devote to optimizing my character.
This has killed any interest I had in the game, if not the entire genre. The attitude that having an opt-out equates to bending over backwards to accommodate casual gamers reads as extremely condescending and tells me everything I need to know about MMOs and the playerbase they seek: That I want no part of it.
I can't be the only one who feels this way, and I wonder the business rationale behind alienating such people. It can't be good in the long run.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No interest if I can't opt out of PvP. I find it aggravating. I remember starting off my MMO life and having a lvl 15 jerk stalking all the low level toons in the beginning zones. I couldn't hit the 'opt out of PvP/decline duels' check box fast enough, and that was just dealing with the loss of half of my gold not my equipment. I solo game too much, exploring the world, and raids are limited to attacking BBEGs.
Guess I stick with EQ2. Good luck to you.
^This is "ganking" which is intended to be eliminated from PF amongst other anti-social activities.
If there's PvP and I can't avoid it, that's a dealbreaker for me. One encounter ruins the fun and at best results in a logoff for the rest of the day; I've avoided this issue in other games by having PvP turned off. In a game where I can't do that, I see no sense in logging on in the first place. That's just where I draw the line.That's fair enough, but if I may press another question, would you be willing to sacrifice the potential of a virtual world where influence can shape events instead of limited to scripted events; assuming there are niches in game where pvp death tends towards "negligible" frequency and/or minimal possible cost to deal with, is possible?
Perhaps your answer is the same, but just as a thought experiment it's interesting to see what possible conditions might negotiate you "in".
The death, loss, or other factors are only part of the issue for me. The main problem is that I simply do not like PvP, period. Win or lose, I walk away (or respawn) from any PvP encounter other than a friendly nonlethal spar with a sour taste in my mouth.
The only thing that would get me "in" is an option to revoke any possibility of me being forced into PvP without being limited to spending the entirety of my game time stuck in the safety of the first city. Whether that be an option to play on a no-PvP server, some kind of PvP tag or flag that I can turn off, or some other method I haven't thought of.
I'd even be okay with that option coming with the caveat of "if you won't let other players affect you, you can't affect other players" and slap a limitation on what things I can do to alter the world around me; while No-PvP-flagged your ability to claim or conquer land is limited or revoked, you can't build, you can't collect, you can't do anything but fight monsters and get treasure. Something like that would appeal to me greatly, as that's why I play these kinds of games - to go out, adventure, fight computer-controlled enemies and monsters, see...
I guess the problem with pvp is the "stress" factor.
Namely as above if you have a type of player you'd not socialize with in RL (an anti-social person) who stresses everyone out deliberately or else the type of player who is very competitive (overly-competitive even) who may be a nice person but in that context they are stressful to interact with or against (!), that is where pvp attracts or detracts for different players?
I think it's got to be the same conundrum in a lot of games/sports where it's supposed to be about fun, but some people get fun by being competitive while others get fun more from being collaborative and sometimes competition brings out the opportunity to be collaborative but other times increases the competitiveness.
Ideally if there arises a range of pvp from competitive (wars, assassins) to closer to collaborative (dealing with the odd pesky bandit) in PfO that might be the best scope for pvp in PfO. But I guess it's up to each individual to decide what level of participation they are comfortable with and if the game is serving that level consistently enough?
RE: "No guarantees" suggests to me more a case of: "You have to accept it's in the game and it's up to you to find that "zone" of pvp tolerance - in a changeable world"
Lemme put it this way.
All PvP outside a friendly spar is stressful to me. No challenge, no competition, no winning makes up for this.
Worrying about being jumped into PvP I don't want to participate in is also stressful.
I play video games to get away from stress.
Therefore PFO, as currently being advertised without a "No PvP period" option, will be a stress-relieving pasttime that will cause stress it's supposed to be alleviating.
Which means it's not doing what I got involved in it to do. And therefore is not something I will spend my time or money on further.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I wonder the business rationale behind alienating such people.
Obviously, the folks who do not, ever, want to be killed in a combat they did not agree to accept in advance will never be happy with this system. Luckily for them, the whole rest of the MMO market seems to be bending over backwards to accommodate them.
You obviously read that from Ryan, since you quoted part of it, but did it actually register? There are more Theme Park MMOs on the market right now than you can shake a stick at, and virtually all of them allow you to play in a way where you never have to engage in non-consensual PvP.
PFO is not going to be that. Some people are very unhappy with that. Many, many more have embraced it, and understand that it is integral to the rest of the system.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PFO is not going to be that. Some people are very unhappy with that. Many, many more have embraced it, and understand that it is integral to the rest of the system.
We're aware. We're just disappointed. And in the case of people like Patrick who put in a lot of money for a product they will now never use, angry.
Goblinworks should have included this tidbit of information up front when the Kickstarter was announced, IMO, unless it wasn't decided on at that time.
There are more Theme Park MMOs on the market right now than you can shake a stick at, and virtually all of them allow you to play in a way where you never have to engage in non-consensual PvP.
And let's be honest here. If we were interested in any of those, would we be wasting our time posting here?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder the business rationale behind alienating such people.Obviously, the folks who do not, ever, want to be killed in a combat they did not agree to accept in advance will never be happy with this system. Luckily for them, the whole rest of the MMO market seems to be bending over backwards to accommodate them.You obviously read that from Ryan, since you quoted part of it, but did it actually register? There are more Theme Park MMOs on the market right now than you can shake a stick at, and virtually all of them allow you to play in a way where you never have to engage in non-consensual PvP.
PFO is not going to be that. Some people are very unhappy with that. Many, many more have embraced it, and understand that it is integral to the rest of the system.
It registered just fine, thanks. But as I said, which you obviously read it as you quoted part of it, but did it actually register?, I was interested in the setting. I wanted to play Pathfinder Online. Not WoW, not some Theme Park. Those did not interest me. This did. I'm no longer interested, so thanks for supporting the idea that new players aren't welcome if they don't play your way.
I get PFO is not going to be like that. I am one of those unhappy people. I'm not saying it needs to change for my tastes. I'm just genuinely surprised it's not even being considered because as this thread has shown, it isn't only me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lemme put it this way.
All PvP outside a friendly spar is stressful to me. No challenge, no competition, no winning makes up for this.
Worrying about being jumped into PvP I don't want to participate in is also stressful.
I play video games to get away from stress.
Therefore PFO, as currently being advertised without a "No PvP period" option, will be a stress-relieving pasttime that will cause stress it's supposed to be alleviating.Which means it's not doing what I got involved in it to do. And therefore is not something I will spend my time or money on further.
I read what you are saying very clearly. I'm much more of a collaborative person myself in a team/group situation, although it appears I'm advocating ;) otherwise. I'm suggesting pvp in PfO could potentially add more collaboration-emphasis, and not be 1-flavor pvp that attracts an anti-social bent to the game. But it does depend on people "giving it the benefit of the doubt". I think GW need to be selective with the crowd who get into the game, though, to give it a chance of working/creating the right culture.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Goblinworks should have included this tidbit of information up front when the Kickstarter was announced, IMO, unless it wasn't decided on at that time.
Goblinworks did include this tidbit of information up front when the Kickstarter was announced.
From PFO Kickstarter:
Character-controlled settlements can grow into full-fledged kingdoms that compete for resources as they seek to become the dominant force in the land, raising vast armies to hold their territory against the depredations of monstrous creatures, NPC factions, and other player characters.
Not to mention the links to the Goblinworks blog and the Pathfinder Online Forums, where the PvP nature of the game had been openly discussed for many months.
The information was there, but some people ignored it. Don't blame Goblinworks for that.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
None of that says there's no opt-out for PVP, just that it will be present.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If we were interested in any of those, would we be wasting our time posting here?
Exactly! Maybe you should analyze what it is about those games that leaves you cold. I have done exactly that, and for me what I hate about those games is that nothing every matters. I can kill a powerful dragon, and see it flying around terrorizing the villagers again within 15 minutes.
Ryan envisioned a game where player's actions matter, and have a lasting impact on the world. That requires PvP.
Please, honestly consider whether the very thing that makes those other games boring is the exact thing you're tying to make Goblinworks do to PFO.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, they were open about the fact that PvP existed and that if you attempted territory conquest/growth you risked the opposition of other players.
The whole "there is no opt-out button" was distinctly not mentioned though. There's a difference between "there will be PvP" and "there's no way out of PvP", and until Ryan's post I hadn't seen anything confirming it to be the second.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe you should analyze what it is about those games that leaves you cold.
I left WoW because of the PvP and the constant raid grind and demand of "top tier gear or you're useless".
I wanted to play PFO because it's Pathfinder and Golarion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose a lot of people also made the assumption that PFO would operate basically the same way they're used to WoW operating. There were plenty of opportunities for those people to read up a little and figure out that's not to be the case. The blog was very explicit about all of this and much, much more.
I respect your decision not to play if this isn't right for you. I think it's dishonorable to blame Goblinworks for the confusion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose a lot of people also made the assumption that PFO would operate basically the same way they're used to WoW operating. There were plenty of opportunities for those people to read up a little and figure out that's not to be the case. The blog was very explicit about all of this and much, much more.
Certainly. Provide a link and an apology will follow posthaste.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does the kickstarter isay ''PvE will NOT be an option?'. And yeah, perhaps it was discussed elsewhere. I only found out about it when Orthos mentioned it in another thread. So maybe I didn't do my due dilligence. Still, I dont seem to be the only one who feels sucker punched by this information. That's a failure of communication right there
So, whatever. I'll deal. I lost $100. I'll get a book put of it and some flip mats (yay). PFO won't be getting anymore of my cash, and I can tell you right now, I'm not alone. Maybe it doesn't matter, I'm just one guy venting and stating my opinion. There's no right and wrong here, I just wished the lack of a PvE option had been spelled out better. And I feel sad that a MMO I was psyched to play in is no longer an option for me.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
nothing every matters.
I'd think having fun matters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Unfortunately the topic of PvP has unfavorably tilted the discussion away from what this game ACTUALLY will be towards what a number of people have experienced in other games. Some of the fundamentals of Players as Content are absorbed by the stark and in some cases unreasoned, uninformed or unexpected expectations of what PvP could mean. This game won't be Gankfinder Online the Gankening. Yes it will have PvP. You may or may not be able to avoid some PvP from time to time, but then you will have to engage in this type of game in a way fundamentally different from any other relavent and modern fantasy MMO. If you do encounter PvP, baring the corner case of getting up and walking away from the computer, you will likely be as successful as not. Narrowly defining your expectations, and then finding this game doesn't theoretically match up with those is a recipe for hurt feelings and disappointment.
PvP isn't horrid, its just a way to play that involves more direct competition, and likely more challenge than PvE. Content delivered by devs will be available, in some fashion yet to be really explored, and will allow for that PvE feel.
There are a lot discussion threads lower on the page that discuss a number of these issues, as well as a wide variety of other interesting details and aspect to the proposed systems. Its an unfortunate aspect to the discussion board format that threads with a ton of comments rise rapidly to the top, and thusly color and inflect the discussions therein. Lots of people have legitimate concerns for what PvP is, how they expect it to work, and so on. That's a reasonable response, but i implore people to take some time to read through some of the discussions before rushing to post inflammatory or overly emotional responses. A number of people on these forums have been on several sides of this discussion, and with a calm headed approach, a little research and some reasonable discourse, I feel like a number of Flash Angry posts will be better set to a constructive purpose.
It's probably time for me to hide the forum anyway and move on. I've said my piece, I doubt I'm going to convince Dancey or Goblinworks to change their minds, and unless they do I'm not going to play, so I really have nothing further to contribute.
Those who enjoy this kind of game even without the opt-out option will enjoy it, and the rest of us will find something else to do with our time and money.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I suppose a lot of people also made the assumption that PFO would operate basically the same way they're used to WoW operating. There were plenty of opportunities for those people to read up a little and figure out that's not to be the case. The blog was very explicit about all of this and much, much more.Certainly. Provide a link and an apology will follow posthaste.
From To Live and Die in the River Kingdoms:
... Pathfinder Online will allow unrestricted PvP in some locations.
... if another player finds your husk before you do, they'll be able to loot it.
You can see that we're trying to avoid some of the problems that afflict other sandbox MMOs while still retaining open-world PvP, providing the risks that make your fellow players meaningfully dangerous, and thus a great source of stories!