Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
I think the opt in or out of pvp is good case for 9/10 mmorpgs but GW are trying to do what people say can't be done, and make a sandbox of consequence of actions. But for that to work all must be part of that world interaction of small elements leading to great world changes.
This can then be a drive for players or a PF & Golarion backdrop for other players. But everyone plays by the same rules for it to work!
That would be my best attempt to convince it's worth a shot.
Chief Technical Officer
|
Does the kickstarter isay ''PvE will NOT be an option?'.
PvP and PvE are not mutually exclusive; Pathfinder Online will have both. See Adventure in the River Kingdoms and Where the Wild Things Are.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
*sigh*
Maybe I should have triangled this up, but I want to respond Vic, despite my previous assertion I was leaving.
Answer me this: Can I be killed by another PC at any time, or will there be areas where this cannot happen? I understand you can concentrate on killing monsters, most PvP games would dissolve with only other PCs to kill. However I don't want to be minding my own business and blunder into a nest of PC gankers who kill me and take all my gear and loot. I have had enough of that in other games, and from what I am seeing from this I see a lot of emphasis on 'sandbox realism' i.e someone can kill you and take your stuff at any time. The gankers will find a way to break any type of restriction put on them.
I am not the type of player this type of game is aiming for. I should have done more in-depth research about the whys and wherefores, but I was very excited about this game, especially with the Pathfinder background. You can see from my tags I have been along for the ride for a while now. I have also been playing MMOs of various stripes for about a decade now. I readily admit that it is my fault for not asking more questions about PvE restrictions before pulling the pledge trigger. Caveat emptor, yada yada.
Meh. Lesson learned. Once again, enjoy your MMO folks.
*blink*
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can I be killed by another PC at any time, or will there be areas where this cannot happen? I understand you can concentrate on killing monsters, most PvP games would dissolve with only other PCs to kill. However I don't want to be minding my own business and blunder into a nest of PC gankers who kill me and take all my gear and loot.
There are places where it's very unlikely to happen.
Also, nobody gets to take all your gear and loot. Please read To Live and Die in the River Kingdoms, especially the "Life During Wartime" section.
Dying really isn't as big a deal as many people want to make it. It's a bump in the road, not the end of the road.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One thing to keep in mind is that, in PFO, it is far more likely that you will be killed by another player who is acting entirely rationally in his interests - protecting his territory, etc. Exactly the same reasons you might be killed by a monster.
It will (hopefully) be much less likely that you will be killed, much less over and over, by some anti-social loser with nothing better to do, whose only real goal is trying to ruin your day.
That may not make a lot of difference to some, but it makes a lot of difference to me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Answer me this: Can I be killed by another PC at any time, or will there be areas where this cannot happen?
We have not decided.
It is a virtual certainty that there will a training / startup area where there will be no PvP. The point of that area is to learn the game systems, not to live in, so you'll only be in it a limited amount of time. It may be a solo experience (but not for sure, there are good reasons to think we may make it a shared experience).
It is possible, but we have not decided, that we could make a "total security zone" where there is no PvP. Such an area would be designed to ensure that people were not able to deny access to the starting NPC settlements, and that there would be a place where players could harvest the cheapest and most plentiful resources and hunt the easiest and least valuable monsters without distraction. Basically more practice area, but in the live game world where you'd be able to see and interact with other players.
If you are a member of a player-run social organization (Chartered Company, Settlement or Kingdom) that is in a formal war with another, you can be attacked by members of that rival force anywhere, at any time.
In general, the further you go from an NPC Settlement, the more likely you are to be set upon by hostile forces. While such an attack could occur fairly close to the NPC Settlement, the Settlement's guardians may be able to react quickly enough to kill the attacker before you die. The further away you are, the longer it will take them to respond so the more likely you are to die before your attacker is killed. (No matter what, your attacker will almost certainly die, escape from the NPC guards will be very rare).
RyanD
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
An addition to my previous post.
In EVE, for example, people who live with one of the large "player territory" guilds (called "Alliances") rarely encounter PvP unless they're on guard duty. These Alliances patrol their borders and will kill or chase off random folks who show up to try and grief the locals. In many ways, players are "safer" in the totally unsecure wilderness of EVE than they are in the tightly controlled "secure" Empire NPC space because of this fact.
I expect that something similar will rapidly develop once territorial control becomes an option in Pathfinder Online. It is the best interest of the group that its harvesters and PvE'ers can operate without hassle, and protecting them from outside attackers is key to maintaining that degree of freedom to operate.
RyanD
@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
Fair enough, thanks for answering. Just trying to see the forest for the trees. It may be that I'm inflating the role of PvP in the game in my own perception, but it also seems like many posters believe PvP is going to be the key aspect/draw of the game, and PvE is going to cater to a minority. But again, that is just perception.
What frustrates me in WoW PvP is not that I can't participate (it's easy to find teams, do BGs), or that I don't know what I'm doing (I do on a basic level), or that I mind dying over and over (sometimes once a minute just for daring to spirit rez). In spite of all those things, I hate WoW PvP because I am in no way competitive because I haven't spent months grinding the right gear.
I just don't want to find myself in a similar situation in PFO where I'm similarly useless because I haven't spent months training the right skills. I know you've mentioned everyone will have some "basics". I guess I want the basics plus a bone or two thrown my way for being a PvE hero. A little synergy.
I think that's necessary. In WoW, you can choose PvP or PvE and you can completely ignore the other side of the game. Their split system works great if you never want to broaden your horizons or play twice as much. In PFO, on the other hand, you cannot make that choice. The world is open and dangerous with PvP and PvE both looming threats. In such an environment, it makes sense to synergize the benefits of skills at least a little.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hate WoW PvP because I am in no way competitive because I haven't spent months grinding the right gear.
I think the biggest difference between theme park PvP and sandbox PvP is the need, in the sandbox to be a part of an organized force.
Ideally we will have some things that you can do very early in your character's life that will meaningfully contribute to the success of your group in PvP.
For example, in EVE, this function is "tackling". This is a process by which one ship disables the ability of another ship to exit a battle or move quickly about the battlespace. It is something that you can train quickly and do with cheap ships and cheap gear. Having tacklers on the field gives a force a tremendous advantage vs. a force that does not. And since it can be done by relatively new characters, characters who would rather be doing other things that require higher levels of skill and more expensive gear are freed up to do those things as long as the force recruits lower skilled characters willing and able to tackle.
What you don't get to do is strap on some high end gear and go be the hero of the fight with a relatively inexperienced character. You won't be the center of attention. And in fact, you may die quite a bit fulfilling your role (but since you're using cheap gear that isn't a big deal either). You'll be thanked, and greatly appreciated, but you aren't going to be the character in the spotlight.
Accepting that and knowing that being the character in the spotlight comes with time and practice as well as with personal and character experience is the mental preparation you need to be happy with inexperienced characters.
RyanD
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
*sigh*
I HATE PvP with a passion, so to find out that probably the primary focus of PFO is going to be PvP has really soured my enthusiasm for the game and I was really looking forward to this.
Making it almost necessary to join an Organisation/Guild/Whatever it's being called is also another turn off. I have played DDO since the begining and never felt the need to join a Guild (yes I was a member of one for a while, but really only because a couple of the guys I regularly played with were Officers and offered me a spot, not because I actively went out searching for a Guild to join). I get along just fine playing the couple of hours a week average that I get free to play and over half of my playing time has been spent Soloing.
To hear that I have to join a group to be able to effectively take part and that there's nowhere I'll be free of PvP except the limited use beginner area means that while (like Orthos and unlike Patrick) I'm not sorry that I contributed to the Kickstarter, since I did get the Thornkeep Book and a T-Shirt, but it does mean that I won't be playing the game. I guess it's lucky for me that the Forgotten Realms Expansion for DOO just released today huh?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I HATE PvP with a passion, so to find out that probably the primary focus of PFO is going to be PvPThis statement is factually inaccurate, despite how many times it is asserted.
OK, but while not exactly the primary focus (I did also say probably), it is a huge factor in the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Making it almost necessary to join an Organisation/Guild/Whatever it's being calledTo the extent that the game has as a primary design principle "Maximizing human interaction", this is true.
I still interact with people in DDO, the only MMO I play (I tried WoW once but didn't like it), but not to the extent where I have to join a Guild to have a happy gaming experience. Because you did say "I think the biggest difference between theme park PvP and sandbox PvP is the need, in the sandbox to be a part of an organized force". Why should I need to be a part of anything if all I wanna do is meet up with a couple of friends and go on a Quest?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Because you did say "I think the biggest difference between theme park PvP and sandbox PvP is the need, in the sandbox to be a part of an organized force". Why should I need to be a part of anything if all I wanna do is meet up with a couple of friends and go on a Quest?
See what I did there?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Because you did say "I think the biggest difference between theme park PvP and sandbox PvP is the need, in the sandbox to be a part of an organized force". Why should I need to be a part of anything if all I wanna do is meet up with a couple of friends and go on a Quest?See what I did there?
Holy crap, my perception check *WORKED* for once! I did see what you did there!
All joking aside, it does seem like PvP is going to be a large part of the game. But, so will PvE, and crafting, and city building. All are parts, all interact, but they don't have to be done by the same players. This game seems large enough to hold the niche areas for everyone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I still interact with people in DDO, the only MMO I play (I tried WoW once but didn't like it), but not to the extent where I have to join a Guild to have a happy gaming experience. Because you did say "I think the biggest difference between theme park PvP and sandbox PvP is the need, in the sandbox to be a part of an organized force". Why should I need to be a part of anything if all I wanna do is meet up with a couple of friends and go on a Quest?Making it almost necessary to join an Organisation/Guild/Whatever it's being calledTo the extent that the game has as a primary design principle "Maximizing human interaction", this is true.
Im sure you can... You won't have to play transporter, you won't have to play territory control fighter, you don't have to do anything that's not fun for you!
Sandbox will allow you to play and be anything you want, your imagination will be the only thing stopping you.
Just because a lot of us enjoy PvP doesn't mean you have to, sure you might get killed by a player for one reason or another just like you will be killed by a Abyssal Paragon or Gold Dragon.
You will find in true sandbox games (if designed properly) you can play the way you want.
I'm sure Ryan will design a truely robust and exciting PvE experience for you, he understands how important PvE is for everyone. I'm a true fan of PvP for a purpose and I'm also just as much a fan of PvE.
I'm totally convinced that Ryan and his team at Goblinworks will provide a very rich and in depth PvE game.
Once you embrace death, life gets better!
Goblinworks Founder
|
From what I have gathered from the past seven months is that it will still be quite possible to solo but if you want to get the full experience that PFO has to offer then you need to accept the fact that you may have to join a guild, chartered company or kingdom, venturing into areas where PVP happens and may very well die more than once.
I don't want to be one of those people stating the obvious but if all you want to do is group up with close friends and do dungeons there are a plethora of themepark MMos and Multiplayer Arpgs available.
I don't have any intention of going out of my way to PvP in PFO, but I look forward to being an adventurer, crafter or gatherer that could be the target of player driven violence at any time. I'm currently looking forward to games like Guild Wars2 and The Elder Scrolls Online but none of them come close to offering me the experience that Ryan and team are offering. PFO is THE game I have been looking forward to for close to a decade.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
^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 astounded that there are people who shell out 100 bucks on a thing without even minimal research into it. Everything from the beginning suggested that the game would be just like that.
In other words: ignorance is no excuse.
What really fazes me is the fact that some people try to make PFO just like the plethora of games already out there - the unwillingness to try something new.
I hate the shallow and meaningless "quests" of these other games. I hate the endless raiding for gear against scripted bosses where you execute the same moves over and over and over.
Yet this the only way that the vast majority of MMO players know and thus they want to have it in each and every new game out there - only to complain "same old same old" when they went through the content 3 months later...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you are a member of a player-run social organization (Chartered Company, Settlement or Kingdom) that is in a formal war with another, you can be attacked by members of that rival force anywhere, at any time.
I have two major questions.
First, do both sides have to consent to said war? If yes you can prettymuch ignore the rest of this post.
Secondly, if not, why would you ever do this? This is one of the most consistently abused tools of griefers in every Open World PVP game I have ever played that has it. Infact the most successful griefer clans I ever ever seen exist purely to exploit this one mechanic.
I cannot see any real benefit to such a system that even comes close to outweighing the amount of griefing it will cause.
If you can I would like it spelled out so I at least have some idea of why such a system would ever even be considered.
If the PVP zones are large enough with a good enough monopoly on the valuable resources every PVP conflict that ever need take place can easily happen out there. If they aren't crafters will just remove their tags and hide in the safezone should a war system exist.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because you did say "I think the biggest difference between theme park PvP and sandbox PvP is the need, in the sandbox to be a part of an organized force". Why should I need to be a part of anything if all I wanna do is meet up with a couple of friends and go on a Quest?See what I did there?
Of course I see what you did there. But since your game is going to be a Sandbox MMO I only highlighted the part that was relevant to your game. OK, so maybe I will be able to go and do a Quest somewhere with my friends or solo. But as BlackUhuru said, "sure you might get killed by a player for one reason or another just like you will be killed by a Abyssal Paragon or Gold Dragon". Of course there's the chance that I'll get killed going to battle that Abyssal Paragon or that Gold Dragon, but that's my choice to go on that Quest fully knowing the danger. It's not however my choice to be attacked by another group for simply wandering through their territory, or because their Assassin's Guild needs to make their quota. That is not my idea of fun.
I'm not saying don't include PvP as I know that people out there like it. What I am saying is that PvP needs to be kept to areas where it won't affect the gameplay of those of us who don't enjoy it. Have safe areas, let me simply skip to a Quest from the safe areas without the need to wander through some other group's territory, have in game warnings so I know when I've entered a PvP zone so I can backtrack. From your earlier comments it seems clear that every area (save the training area, which you said is only going to be available for a limited time, and Quests/Missions) is going to be available for PvP. Why do I want to be strolling down the street to go to the tavern and get a knife in my back and bleed out in the street while others simply walk past, hands on their swords praying that doesn't happen to them? I don't want to have to join a larger group to get the full benefit of the game, I want to be able to sit down with a couple of my buds from overseas and play a game, since I can't do that IRL, and still be able to get somewhere in the game.PvP might be fun for some, but isn't fun for all. There needs to be more of a balance than what I'm seeing described.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Of course there's the chance that I'll get killed going to battle that Abyssal Paragon or that Gold Dragon, but that's my choice to go on that Quest fully knowing the danger.
Actually in this game it's not. NPCs will attack harvesting camps, towns, settlements, and just randomly set up camp and create an infestation if left unchecked as described in the blog.
If you don't go PVE, the PVE will come to you in this game. Just like PVP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
^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 astounded that there are people who shell out 100 bucks on a thing without even minimal research into it. Everything from the beginning suggested that the game would be just like that.
Yeah. I already mentioned I didn't do my due diligence. Chalk it up to enjoying MMOs, and Pathfinder. Plus being busy
In other words: ignorance is no excuse.
Excuse for what? Being disappointed? I make no excuses for that
What really fazes me is the fact that some people try to make PFO just like the plethora of games already out there - the unwillingness to try something new.
What really fazes me is getting trolled early in the morning by someone I don't know
I hate the shallow and meaningless "quests" of these other games. I hate the endless raiding for gear against scripted bosses where you execute the same moves over and over and over.
Well, I hate PvP. The greifers, the gankers, the lot. I hate their attitude and their casual ruining of other peoples enjoyment. That being said, I am not saying don't have PvP, I just thought there would be a choice. I'm sure this game will be a PvPers wet dream, since no one can opt out
Yet this the only way that the vast majority of MMO players know and thus they want to have it in each and every new game out there - only to complain "same old same old" when they went through the content 3 months later...
Nah brah. I'm good. I'm not asking for my cash back, I'm not trying to change your game. I'm expressing my opinion. You can have the PvPFO, and welcome to it. I'll go back to the game I'm currently subscribed to, no harm, no foul. I'm just letting my opinion be heard that no PvE option is a deal breaker for me, that's all. Enjoy
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, I hate PvP. The greifers, the gankers, the lot. I hate their attitude and their casual ruining of other peoples enjoyment. That being said, I am not saying don't have PvP, I just thought there would be a choice. I'm sure this game will be a PvPers wet dream, since no one can opt out
I've gone over this in a lot of topics before. I should just make a default "This is why you shouldn't be able to opt out of PVP post" I can plop down every time I see this line of thought.
First off, I am an anti-griefer, guardian, griefer hunter, whatever you want to call someone who runs around hunting people who randomly kill others or wage unjust war, and refusing to harm those who have given me no cause to do so.
Second off, the "opt out of PVP" thing is ENTIRELY incompatible with what I want from this game, and not just because it will drastically shrink my list of targets and make it so people no longer need my help.
I want the excitement of building a home, settlement, city or even nation in a game where I can be attacked by rivals at any time. I want to trade with the knowledge that if I an not quick and cunning, I might lose my goods. I want the thrill of evading enemy forces or being forced to defend myself in a random confrontation. I want my success or failure to mean something.
But guess what? If PVP is merely an option I turn on, my success doesn't mean a darn thing. Because the neighboring home, settlement, city or nation next to me had it off. They did everything just like me except they took no risks and earned the same or greater rewards.
That nation also happens to be a bunch of jerks, and the are encroaching on territory I feel belongs to me without my permision. Infact I asked them not to build there right from the start. But their poorly built ugly little town is build right up alongside my farm fields destroying the scenery I was enjoying before, and fencing off my favorite fishing hole.
Oh, they barely even use it. When they do the spam local with crude insulting messages to me, and everyone else in our formerly friendly community.
You know what I can do about it? Not a damn thing. Because they have PVP turned off. I have to pack up and move, not even a chance to fight back to assert my claim on that land.
Consensual PVP cannot exist in a game catering to hardcore PVPers or really anyone who doesn't want game mechanics to tie their hands behind their back. They are incompatible views on how a game should be. Anything that unreasonably limits my freedom is going to lower my enjoyment, and cripple my ability to deal with people who grief in a non-combat centered fashion.
Sorry that you didn't read before you donated your money, however I did. Three hundred thousand dollars has been donated to this game and you think it is justifiable that they revoke a promise they made on one of their most important features because you couldn't read what you were giving money to?
If they were to go back on that promise they should remove sandbox features and a crafting system as well because that would be just as reasonable and respectful to the people who shelled out 300k for this game based on the promises they have made to us.
All I can say to you is enjoy your book.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, I hate PvP. The greifers, the gankers, the lot...
I can understand not wanting to PvP at all, it is just not for everyone, perfectly fine.
But to say PvP = griefing leads to the perception that PvP is only fine if both parties actively consent to it by entereing a zone that is only there for PvP (aka the arena).
This is turn cements the opinion that an MMO must almost guarantee success to each and every player with each and every playstyle because free PvP means danger and can lead to failure.
This finally causes the boring, repetitive, mind numbing gameplay because if success is almost guaranteed there is no thrill left.
This is reinforced by the research that most people who play WoW for a very long time do so out of obligation to their guild rather than for the great fun they derive from the very activity (raiding) themselves.
And this is the reason why no WoW-style game has made it so far, because they are boring too but can't breach the feeling of obligation that the playerbase has towards their buddies in WoW.
So I very much welcome the fact that PFO will be a working game with thrill, after so many years...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Patrick Curtin:
we will also have ways to make potential gankers spend such significant amounts of time and attention that it will dissuade all but the most hardcore griefers from bothering. And those offenders will be dealt with out-of-game.
This is a great thing for the devs to intend. Let's give it a chance?
Because you did say "I think the biggest difference between theme park PvP and sandbox PvP is the need, in the sandbox to be a part of an organized force". Why should I need to be a part of anything if all I wanna do is meet up with a couple of friends and go on a Quest?See what I did there?Of course I see what you did there. But since your game is going to be a Sandbox MMO I only highlighted the part that was relevant to your game. OK, so maybe I will be able to go and do a Quest somewhere with my friends or solo. But as BlackUhuru said, "sure you might get killed by a player for one reason or another just like you will be killed by a Abyssal Paragon or Gold Dragon". Of course there's the chance that I'll get killed going to battle that Abyssal Paragon or that Gold Dragon, but that's my choice to go on that Quest fully knowing the danger. It's not however my choice to be attacked by another group for simply wandering through their territory, or because their Assassin's Guild needs to make their quota. That is not my idea of fun.
I'm not saying don't include PvP as I know that people out there like it. What I am saying is that PvP needs to be kept to areas where it won't affect the gameplay of those of us who don't enjoy it. Have safe areas, let me simply skip to a Quest from the safe areas without the need to wander through some other group's territory, have in game warnings so I know when I've entered a PvP zone so I can backtrack. From your earlier comments it seems clear that every area (save the training area, which you said is only going to be available for a limited time, and Quests/Missions) is going to be available for PvP. Why do I want to be strolling down the street to go to the tavern and get a knife in my back and bleed out in the street while others simply walk past, hands on their swords praying that doesn't happen to them? I don't want to have to join a larger group to get the full benefit of the game, I...
You are sort of creating "levels" as you'd find in other games by partition zones instead of a complex world simulation, if you did this. That ultimately kills the virtual world into a stale and static backdrop of limited activity possible. Hence you need to have pvp and pve and other systems of the game dynamically affecting each other.
So each player is subservient to that, including the pvp'ers and the pve'ers and everyone else. You do have to accept that condition for a dynamic virtual world to work, I think. If you can accept that is the logic for mixing the two you can accept the chance of pvp because it ultimately works to improve whatever activities you are interested in, indirectly or otherwise*.
*For sure, ganking infestation would null that but, I hope to give the developers a chance to create their vision. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
For my part, it's nothing to do with griefers. I'm like flash_cxxi in that the very possibility of being ambushed by some (no doubt better equipped and more skilled) stranger removes the fun for me. It doesn't have to be someone out to ruin my experience of the game.
I'm enjoying watching the process (and certainly don't resent my contribution - far from it) but its not going to be a game for me either, by the sounds. Hopefully it will be a raging success and a single player computer rpg will follow. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@flash_cxxi
It's obvious that you, as quite some others here, don't understand the game that PFO will become at all (no offense ment) and also don't understand the implications.
In a player based economy the following things are paramount:
- Important rewards are only received for providing a real service to the community.
- Value can only be generated with time and, most importantly, risk.
- Value must be maintained or it will diminish or be lost.
- Great value can only be maintained by many players working together.
Now, what do these quests do that you propose?
Yes, indeed, they give riskless rewards for no service to the community.
This is why WoW has no real economy (only a simulated one) - it can't function there because of the utter absence of any risk at all. Also value in WoW does only diminish artificially (your equipment becomes worthless with every new tier introduced with new expansions).
So your proposal can't work unless you say that the quests give no rewards at all and expect no gear at all (because if you would do only these quests you could never attain any gear).
Will. Not. Work.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can relate to all the people who very much want PFO to be a Theme Park game without non-consensual PvP.
Goblinworks has been clear from the very beginning that this is not the game they're going to build. Since they're the ones actually doing that building, it seems kind of rude to harangue them for not spending their blood, sweat, tears, and fortunes making the game you want them to build, rather than the game they want to build.
I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but if you want a Pathfinder-themed Theme Park with no PvP, then build it.
As it is, you sound like someone who's constantly griping at your neighbor because they're painting their house green and you think it should be brown.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Could always make a soley PvE instance of the main server, where PvP isn't allowed. Then people can wait around for PvE mobs to spawn to go take them out, and watch helplessly as other players destroy their settlements repeatedly but are powerless to stop them. At least there won't be any PvP! It'd be like playing Dozers in Fraggle Rock Online.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As a fairly recent PVP convert (carebear with teeth if you will) I can understand some of the reservations expressed. One thing that I see reiterated by anti-pvpers is the fear of someone 'higher level' and 'better geared' ambushing them and ganking them 'for teh lulz'. As far as my understanding of PFO goes, 'higher level' is likely not going to be an issue. With real-time skill training (not even mandatory) there shouldn't be the 'level 15 noob ganking griefer' scenario.
The 'better gear' part is a bit trickier. Many people who are anti-pvp seem to be those who want to go do everything solo. I've no problem with that. However, I also don't think that the NPCs should cater to the soloists. As an example, Bob the Florist is out gathering some Wild Bloodthorn Roses for a client. These roses are only found in the deep woods, far away from civilization. Now Bob knows that there are goblinoids out in the woods. In fact, he's counting on it because when he's not gathering flowers there's nothing Bob likes more than smashing goblin heads. As such, Bob knows that he'd better take some good protective gear with him. Wandering in the deep woods in your underwear is not advisable. So Bob puts on his trusty +1 breastplate and wanders off into the woods, masterwork short sword in hand and crossbow across his back. Bob searches the woods and eventually finds the roses he needs to harvest and sets to work. What Bob doesn't know, but should suspect, is he's about to be ambushed.
Bob might be ambushed by a goblin. He might be ambushed by a trio of bugbears. He might be ambushed by an ogre. Or he might be ambushed by another player. The game engine shouldn't care that Bob is solo, it shouldn't scale an encounter to match the player. If anything Bob should hope that it's another player. They can be handled diplomatically. An ogre on the other hand will probably end up with Bob Soup for dinner. So let's say that it is another player. We'll call him Roger the Gardener. Roger has established a camp with some friends nearby and claims this area as his own. He doesn't take kindly to Bob trying to steal his roses either. Roger has better equipment than Bob, his +2 chain shirt gives him a 5% advantage over Bob's armor and lets him move a bit faster. His +2 short sword gives him a 5% advantage to hit Bob, and will do 40% more damage on average than Bob.
What if instead of Roger, Bob is ambushed by a bugbear? It's alot stronger than Bob, giving it a 10% advantage to hit Bob, but it's armor is a little thinner than Bob's, giving Bob a 5% advantage there. But being much stronger, the bugbear hits harder, 60% harder in fact. What if there's two or three bugbears instead of just one? What if Roger brings a couple friends? The point here is it shouldn't matter if it's artificial or real intelligence controlling the other entity, the level of risk and danger should remain the same. The biggest difference is Roger, being a clever Gardener, might decide to ransom Bob's life. Bob gives Roger 50% of his roses as ransom and protection. Now not only does Bob have some of the fruits of his labor, he had Roger and his 2 friends protecting him. With the bugbears... well, it might be a long run back to the husk, and no guarantee that Roger won't find it first.
If Bob had some friends, or hired some mercs to go along with him things would be different. The bugbears wouldn't be such a problem, and Roger probably wouldn't even bother attacking without more help.
The assumed attitude of PVPers is another thing I see often. It's assumed that a PVPer has a casual attitude towards ruining someone else's game. In my experience that's about as far from the truth as you can get. Let's take another look at Roger and Bob. Roger's been a member of this merry band of misfits who decided to carve their home out of the wilderness. They fight bandits and raiders, they fight wandering monsters and monster infestations. They guard their coveted rose patch, the source of most of their income. Suddenly there's someone out there, stealing the very thing they have fought so hard to protect. Completely unacceptable! For Roger and his friends Bob is a threat that needs to be handled, either diplomatically or through force. Ruining Bob's game isn't even a remote consideration, all they are concerned about is protecting their livelihood.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would again like to point out, in the most urgent way i can;
THE DISCUSSION OF PVP HAS FAR OUTWEIGHED THE INTENT OF THE GAME TO FOCUS UPON IT. JUST BECAUSE ITS A HIGH HIT FORUM THREAD, DOES NOT MEAN PFO WILL BE GANKFEST THE GRIEFENING
Please look to some of the other threads, and even if you're not interested in PvP, we're all here to discuss the various things we DO want in a game. Some contributed some to the Kickstarter, and now you realize the game has one aspect you don't like. Why should that stop you from contributing in a reasonable way to the discussion of things you DO like? Some "hate" PvP for whatever reason, but those reasons are all associated with OTHER GAMES, and many of these other games haven't made a single wise choice.
Instead of going Nuclear and saying "if PvP, then Bye Bye" tell us, in some level of detail, what you dislike about PvP. Is it the surprise attack by intelligent unwanted foes, is it the sense of surprise, or is it a sense of powerlessness in the face of overwhelming and malicious opposition. We're hopefully here to contribute to the betterment of a game still early in development, not endlessly complain and bemoan systems not yet implemented in the broadest of terms.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought Mr. Danceys' explanation of how PVP will work ('A Couple of Comments About PVP/Griefing') was reasonable and cogent, especially for a game that has not yet alpha tested a single mechanic. There seems to be a bit of hysteria among even smart posters about what involuntary interaction with other players will mean. Repeating the word 'gank' and variations thereof does not make your nightmare of an online game true. I urge people to actually read the Goblinworks blog 'To Live and Die in the River Kingdoms'- you don't have to sift thru hundreds of posts to get an idea of the developers' vision. This should make clear that 1) Players can choose what level of pvp they will be exposed to; 2) A dedicated griefer will walk around with no friends, multiple bounties/death sentences and spend a lot of RW time setting up new accounts; and 3) A griefing chartered company can't exist. It just can't. Oh, and free speech is great but it seems silly to me to post over and over how you're not going to play Pathfinder Online...on the Pathfinder Online messageboards.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I thought Mr. Danceys' explanation of how PVP will work ('A Couple of Comments About PVP/Griefing') was reasonable and cogent, especially for a game that has not yet alpha tested a single mechanic. There seems to be a bit of hysteria among even smart posters about what involuntary interaction with other players will mean. Repeating the word 'gank' and variations thereof does not make your nightmare of an online game true. I urge people to actually read the Goblinworks blog 'To Live and Die in the River Kingdoms'- you don't have to sift thru hundreds of posts to get an idea of the developers' vision. This should make clear that 1) Players can choose what level of pvp they will be exposed to; 2) A dedicated griefer will walk around with no friends, multiple bounties/death sentences and spend a lot of RW time setting up new accounts; and 3) A griefing chartered company can't exist. It just can't. Oh, and free speech is great but it seems silly to me to post over and over how you're not going to play Pathfinder Online...on the Pathfinder Online messageboards.
Completely agreed minus one point. I believe a griefing chartered company CAN exist, but just like individual players, will be highly unlikely to gain any power, influence or noteworthy effect. It would spend the bulk of it's time being hunted, unable to establish any noteworthy territories, cities etc... (as they would likely be flattened long before they get off the ground) thus restricting it from much if any participation in wars etc... and if by some miracle one were to actually be established, it sounds like GW has more or less an oposite approach to Griefing as CCP does with Eve. At least from the sounds of Ryan, he intends to actually have the devs encoraged to ban noteworthy cases of griefing if the community dosn't handle it on it's own.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I thought Mr. Danceys' explanation of how PVP will work ('A Couple of Comments About PVP/Griefing') was reasonable and cogent, especially for a game that has not yet alpha tested a single mechanic. There seems to be a bit of hysteria among even smart posters about what involuntary interaction with other players will mean. Repeating the word 'gank' and variations thereof does not make your nightmare of an online game true. I urge people to actually read the Goblinworks blog 'To Live and Die in the River Kingdoms'- you don't have to sift thru hundreds of posts to get an idea of the developers' vision. This should make clear that 1) Players can choose what level of pvp they will be exposed to; 2) A dedicated griefer will walk around with no friends, multiple bounties/death sentences and spend a lot of RW time setting up new accounts; and 3) A griefing chartered company can't exist. It just can't. Oh, and free speech is great but it seems silly to me to post over and over how you're not going to play Pathfinder Online...on the Pathfinder Online messageboards.Completely agreed minus one point. I believe a griefing chartered company CAN exist, but just like individual players, will be highly unlikely to gain any power, influence or noteworthy effect. It would spend the bulk of it's time being hunted, unable to establish any noteworthy territories, cities etc... (as they would likely be flattened long before they get off the ground) thus restricting it from much if any participation in wars etc... and if by some miracle one were to actually be established, it sounds like GW has more or less an oposite approach to Griefing as CCP does with Eve. At least from the sounds of Ryan, he intends to actually have the devs encoraged to ban noteworthy cases of griefing if the community dosn't handle it on it's own.
I think we effectively agree even on this point. Just as I can't imagine a dedicated griefer setting up account after account using whatever tricks in RL instead of switching to something else, I don't see a group of griefers-shunned and ultimately banned- continuously trying enough to be relevant to other peoples' fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to pop in and tender my apologies for my over-emotional postings. I apologize, this was not the proper place to drop a bunch of angry trollish comments. All I can do is plead temporary loss of control due to anger. It's not a good excuse, but it's all I have.
I'm happy you folks are getting the type of game you desire. It is my dearest wish that this game is successful, even if I do not participate. Vic, Ryan my apologies as well. You didn't hide anything, or misrepresent anything. I assumed things. We all know what happens when you assume things, so apologies all around for being an ass.
Best of luck and good fortune to you all
Peace
*blink*
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I know this is a bit off topic, but does EVE actually encourage griefing?
Don't know but arguments about what EVE is and is not infect every posting on PFO due to Mr. Danceys' involvement with it. A blog post or clarification about how two important elements will influence PFO would serve to convince many possible supporters who sit on the fence. They would be how much will PFO be an EVE clone; and how closely will game mechanics mirror the tabletop version of Pathfinder.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Hobbun - yes.
CCP allows a form of griefing called "scamming", where you attempt to trick an unsuspecting mark into making a bad trade, often through the mis-use of "features" in the chat system that can be very confusing especially to newer players. CCP's stance is "buyer beware".
It also allows a practice called "ninja looting". In EVE, no ownership rights attach to a wreck. So if you go into a PvE area and kill the NPCs, someone else can come along behind you and steal the valuable items in the wreckage. If you shoot at that person, YOU are flagged as a criminal, and that person (and his friends) can blow you out of the sky with impunity.
And there is a form of attack called a "suicide gank". EVE has a system of ship insurance which repays a part of the cost of the hull when your ship is destroyed. Certain ships can be fitted with weapons that can deliver a very big amount of damage on their first volley (called an "alpha strike"). It is possible in some cases to ambush a target and kill it with one strike. These targets are usually found in high security space and are not fitted with defenses (trading the equipment slots used for defense for more cargo capacity, for example). Since the attackers will be killed almost instantly by the NPC security force, these attacks are always "suicides". However, if the value of the cargo retrieved from the target ship + the insurance is more than the cost to buy and fit the "ganking" attacker, it's a profitable venture.
Typically suicide gankers work in teams - one pilot does the ganking, and the 2nd loots the resulting wrecks (both the target and the attacker). Often this is one player running two accounts simultaneously.
This form of piracy works because you can train up a character to be ready to be a gank pilot using a free trial account. Gankers generate dozens of "alts", and treat them as disposable characters. They don't care about the security status hit they take for ganking because they may never log that character in again.
Suicide ganking walks a fine line in my eyes between griefing and acceptable game play. Since a profit can be generated, there's an argument that it is a legitimate tactic. On the other hand, the use of disposable alt characters, and the fact that many suicide gankers could not care less about profits and just do it "for the lulz" means that its impossible to tell without a lot of analysis if the gank was done for profit or for greif.
And of course there's the whole issue of corp theft / betrayal. Not only does CCP allow, but celebrates, stories of players who infiltrate corporations and alliances, rise in power and responsibility, and then steal their community's assets (and sometimes even dissolve the organizations themselves). This kind of stuff makes for great stories and generates a lot of press, but it also attracts a certain element of sociopathic player to the game. And as well it impacts hundreds, perhaps thousands of players in a hugely negative fashion because a few folks at the top of the org chart trusted the wrong player.
CCP's vision of EVE is that it is a simulator of the effects of unregulated capitalism. CCP endorses all the negative things as well as the positive things that happen because they are meaningful and because they are interesting. And since EVE is the only MMO that has consistently grown year over year for 7+ years, they're clearly doing something right. But it is definitely not everyone's cup of tea.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A blog post or clarification about how two important elements will influence PFO would serve to convince many possible supporters who sit on the fence. They would be how much will PFO be an EVE clone; and how closely will game mechanics mirror the tabletop version of Pathfinder.
1: I would like to see Pathfinder Online evolve the sandbox MMO concepts the way that World of Warcraft evolved the theme park MMO. There are a lot of lessons to be learned from previous sandbox games not just EVE. EVE got a lot of things right and anyone who has played EVE will likely find a lot of similarities with Pathfinder Online, but the two games will be very different as well.
2: Not much at all. Rather than mirroring the mechanics, we're going to mirror the style of the game. The Pathfinder tabletop game is built around small parties of specialized adventurers and extremely detailed tactical combat that is broken into 6 second intervals, but allows an infinite amount of real-time to determine each action. The Pathfinder online game is built around huge communities of players with a wide variety of careers and a combat system that will run in real-time.
BTW: We've said both of these things many times, in many places. None of this should be a surprise to anyone.
RyanD
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You have a 200-people alliance trying to settle to an island ,next to a 2000-people kingdom who owns the whole peninsula.One day the kingdom simply decides to crash the small guys , no particular reason other than they could crush them .Is this some form of griefing?
There will be a reason, even if its as simple as the small nation is attempting to own land inside a buffer zone of the larger nation. Committing resources to war should have consequences, even if its a 10:1 ratio.
That being said, no, I don't believe any of this is ganking, from an impartial objective point of view. The unaffiliated solo player or explorer that wanders in between the two in the middle of a open war might feel differently.
What would be nice is if there was some "easy" way to parse out areas in conflict and zones of control. In EVE the mapping function has so much information, and the extra solar nature of the maps make the whole thing extremely daunting to attempt to absorb information out of. I'd love to see a bulletin board system with an easy to parse event map. Maybe not in real time (for the sake of verisimilitude), and maybe only on the scale of hexes, but that type of feature could make it very easy for PvE'rs and those wishing to avoid conflict an easy method of planning out their gameplay.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks for the detailed description on the differing types of griefing in EVE, Ryan.
I guess my question to you is, will there be acceptable griefing in PFO? I don’t consider people killing one another for money ‘griefing’ unless they kill the same person over and over again just because.
I’ve always thought of griefing in a negative connotation where it should be something not allowed. Or maybe I am thinking of ganking.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As long as theres no faction to grind, you can't loot that recently acquired magic item if it's equipped, and no looting of loose change, I don't think griefing will be worth it. There will be no benefit to randomy killing other players.
Most of the open pvp will be about attacking someone's caravan, attacking an opposing force's towns, defending recources, etc.
There's nothing random about any of that.