War - Doesn't requiring it be mutual limit meaningful player interaction?


Pathfinder Online


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Under this system, a player nation can't go out and start conquering the world, even if it excels and is the very best and is undeniably the most powerful player nation... because all of the other nations can just choose to not fight it.

Wars will likely only ever occur between similarly matched/sized forces, never leading to a smaller country going up against long odds and coming out the victor, or a juggernaut force laying waste to small settlements.

I don't know, I get you don't want to force players into PvP wars if they don't want to be in them, but... telling me that my nation can't invade/attack/take over (or lose to) this neighboring country because the other players don't want me to really takes away from the whole immersion "players create the game world and decide what to do and make their own stories" aspect that's supposed to be at the center of the game.

Are there any plans to address this, or... is this just something we'll have to suspend our disbelief about?

Goblin Squad Member

Reliken wrote:

Under this system, a player nation can't go out and start conquering the world, even if it excels and is the very best and is undeniably the most powerful player nation... because all of the other nations can just choose to not fight it.

Wars will likely only ever occur between similarly matched/sized forces, never leading to a smaller country going up against long odds and coming out the victor, or a juggernaut force laying waste to small settlements.

I don't know, I get you don't want to force players into PvP wars if they don't want to be in them, but... telling me that my nation can't invade/attack/take over (or lose to) this neighboring country because the other players don't want me to really takes away from the whole immersion "players create the game world and decide what to do and make their own stories" aspect that's supposed to be at the center of the game.

Are there any plans to address this, or... is this just something we'll have to suspend our disbelief about?

What quote or blogpost are you responding to? I've yet to see anything at all even slightly implying that both sides have to consent to a siege or war. There is certainly debate as to whether an alignment shift may take place for a nation that paves over the majority of it's neighbors, but I haven't seen a single comment by the devs to even imply what you are protesting here. Maybe I missed something though if you can link the quote or whatever you are talking about here.

Goblin Squad Member

Reliken wrote:

Under this system, a player nation can't go out and start conquering the world, even if it excels and is the very best and is undeniably the most powerful player nation... because all of the other nations can just choose to not fight it.

Wars will likely only ever occur between similarly matched/sized forces, never leading to a smaller country going up against long odds and coming out the victor, or a juggernaut force laying waste to small settlements.

I don't know, I get you don't want to force players into PvP wars if they don't want to be in them, but... telling me that my nation can't invade/attack/take over (or lose to) this neighboring country because the other players don't want me to really takes away from the whole immersion "players create the game world and decide what to do and make their own stories" aspect that's supposed to be at the center of the game.

Are there any plans to address this, or... is this just something we'll have to suspend our disbelief about?

-> I think you're referring to the formation of "a state of war" existing between 2 nations?

We're almost certainly not informed on this yet, except to say it sounds like there is an official process to both antagonistic nations reaching this declaration.

So, how does that tie in with the degrees of safety per player controlled hexes and NPC guards and access to player settlements vs ambushing within an opponents Hex?

Then there's the meta-strategy of war: If all else fails: Eg diplomacy, allies and trade war and general low-level skirmishes and taking over via terms of fealty vs an expensive war and creating a permanent enemy of the defeated players!

So it seems war is likely for an extremely aggressive nation, but at what repercussions and reprisals to those surrounding? If it works like this then war will be a careful/final ultimatum in a multi-step context?

That's what I'm thinking. How it could be done, lots to figure out given inter-linking everything. I guess treaties will play their part here?

Goblin Squad Member

Onishi wrote:


What quote or blogpost are you responding to? I've yet to see anything at all even slightly implying that both sides have to consent to a siege or war. There is certainly debate as to whether an alignment shift may take place for a nation that paves over the majority of it's neighbors, but I haven't seen a single comment by the devs to even imply what you are protesting here. Maybe I missed something though if you can link the quote or whatever you are talking about here.

I recall seeing in a post or blog post somewhere that in order to avoid alignment shifting, hostilities had to be mutually declared.

However, there were no implied limits on being able to attack people I think.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeriar wrote:
Onishi wrote:


What quote or blogpost are you responding to? I've yet to see anything at all even slightly implying that both sides have to consent to a siege or war. There is certainly debate as to whether an alignment shift may take place for a nation that paves over the majority of it's neighbors, but I haven't seen a single comment by the devs to even imply what you are protesting here. Maybe I missed something though if you can link the quote or whatever you are talking about here.

I recall seeing in a post or blog post somewhere that in order to avoid alignment shifting, hostilities had to be mutually declared.

However, there were no implied limits on being able to attack people I think.

I vaguely recall something to the regards of alignment shifts being possible, and that I certainly agree with. A big nation that continually smashes other nations into the ground, is most probably not LG, and I would consider it an abuse if they could continually declare every small charter and puny nation an enemy they are at war with, steamroll over them and still remain LG. Though I do admit it starts to get greyer when taking into account the other settlements alignment into account. Is it evil for LG to attack the nation of CE baby-eaters, if so that is a bit of an issue when you factor in the drawbacks going one way, Evil cities would never agree to war, considering they suffer no il-effects from fighting outside of war (least not that they haven't already chosen), while the good nations in fighting back may risk their alignment.

IMO there somewhat needs to be partially non-mutual ways to declare war. Maybe based on how many people in your settlement have been killed by their members, some system of claiming certain resources that if violated enough times grants war rights etc...

Goblin Squad Member

You won't need to worry about it outside of NPC controlled territory.

Goblin Squad Member

The only real effect of mutually declared wars is that you can attack each other in otherwise secure territory.

You can roll over someone else's Settlement without either one of you declaring any kind of war.

Goblin Squad Member

Exactly it goes down the same way in EVERY Open World PVP sandbox out there. People who live outside of the "safezones" barely even care about war declarations. They go about their business fighting and killing whoever they please, with or without an official declaration. Seizing any town or holding they please with or without an official declaration.

Non-mutual wars become the greatest asset of griefer clans. They specialize in hanging around in safezones and declaring war on any newb packed clan that looks like an easy target. They can kill them right in the safezones and take no alignment hit because they are at "war."

It almost ENTIRELY defeats the point of safezones IMO. Safezones are a spot people can build up strength in, until they feel they are prepared to face the larger world, and maybe even take some territory of their own. They are not intended as a place for snot nozed kids who never do anything that could hurt their alignment to hide from the strongest vets who generally don't care about their alignment while they grief newb clans out of existence.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm a bit confused on this one as well. I thought "unlawfull killing" (i.e. outside a state of war) resulted in an alignment shift toward "Evil".

If that's the case, the following scenario presents itself...

- LG and CE settlements are in proximity to each other.

- CE settlement keeps sending raiding parties into LG settlements territory to attack targets of opportunity.

- Raiders take an "Evil" alignment shift for "unlawfull killing" but they don't care since thier "Evil" already.

- Raiders retreat back into thier own territory when faced with any opposition.

- LG settlement tired of continualy being attacked seeks to retaliate by declaring an official "State of War" with the CE settlement.

- CE settlement refuses to confirm "State of War" since it has nothing to loose from "unlawfull killings".

- LG settlement sends soldiers into attack CE settlement without "State of War" any kills are considered "unlawfull killing" and LG soldiers take alignment shift toward "Evil".

- LG soldiers are now mechanicaly ineligable to remain within thier own LG settlement because they've shifted alignment to "Evil" and that's more then 1 Alignment step away from the LG settlements charter of LG.

Am I missing something in the above scenario or am I (hopefully) wrong about the mechanics that have been proposed so far? Because the above situation seems extremely problematic to me.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm thinking Ryan may be planning something like EVE null sec, or unlawful areas in Darkfall. Basically if you stray very far from the NPC controlled areas, you can kill anyone, anywhere, for any reason, without taking an alignment hit.

That's the only real way his proposed system could work that I can think of.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeriar wrote:
However, there were no implied limits on being able to attack people I think.

I would hope there is an alignment shift for every type of combat. The Pathfinder alignment is static in the world, I cant see how attacking someone who doesn't want to fight you wouldn't shift you chaotic, and then killing them would shift you evil. There can easily be mechanics created where a player can declare territory(by placing a building, no 'i was here first' BS) and be able to issue a warning through game mechanics that give the intruding player time to leave and not result in a chaotic and/or evil shift.

I don't want to see people getting the benefits of being lawful/good, but being a dick out in the 'wild' and not seeing a shift.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:

I'm a bit confused on this one as well. I thought "unlawfull killing" (i.e. outside a state of war) resulted in an alignment shift toward "Evil".

Am I missing something in the above scenario or am I (hopefully) wrong about the mechanics that have been proposed so far? Because the above situation seems extremely problematic to me.

My recollection of the GW blog entries to date is that murder/unlawful killing is pretty much limited to killing people in the secure areas around NPC towns. And even in the secure areas some kills were legitimate (flagged criminals, executing bounties, killing enemies in a mutually declared war?).

Goblin Squad Member

Valkenr wrote:
Xeriar wrote:
However, there were no implied limits on being able to attack people I think.

I would hope there is an alignment shift for every type of combat. The Pathfinder alignment is static in the world, I cant see how attacking someone who doesn't want to fight you wouldn't shift you chaotic, and then killing them would shift you evil. There can easily be mechanics created where a player can declare territory(by placing a building, no 'i was here first' BS) and be able to issue a warning through game mechanics that give the intruding player time to leave and not result in a chaotic and/or evil shift.

I don't want to see people getting the benefits of being lawful/good, but being a dick out in the 'wild' and not seeing a shift.

Ideally I would like to agree, however I think the reality of things is that there is just not a good system for doing so, and even if there were it would be so complex most players wouldn't understand it. Even Mortal Online's alignment system, which is really good as far as MMO alignment systems go, has some major downsides.

Goblin Squad Member

I was thinking "state of war" would be something to do with treaties being set and then broken sufficiently to change conditions of war and peace. So these treaties would work for Good alignments and be made for good alignments, but if a whole nation thought, "sod alignment, I want that valuable hex!" That might boot them out out of alignment and all their other good alignment treaties would crumble also, with no hit to the other nations if they seize anything/attack?

Whereas if you have CE, they are KOS in good lands anyway. And can't develop the structure of treaties with other CE nations who can do as they please to raid each other?

Perhaps some sort of security council/UN for LG nations and embargoes? I guess if alignment is integral it might wreak havoc in other areas too if a sudden shift: Loss of former benefits, start at the beginning for evil benefits system?

Tbh, bit lost on "the declaration of war"?

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Reliken wrote:
Under this system, a d*ck can't go out and wave their genitals in people's faces, even if it excels and is the very best and is undeniably the biggest d*ck ever... because all of the other people can just choose not to allow genital-waving.

The days of UO being the only game on the block are long over. If they set the game up so someone has the choice of playing your victim or finding another game, then eventually you'll have a world populated only by griefers. At that point, the PvP is de facto consensual because only the people who want to be jerks will be left. Then there's a race to the bottom, as people look to out-jerk each other. People jump ship from any groups that aren't doing well and try to join their local evil empire, or just quit the game and 'roleplay' their sociopaths elsewhere.


I strongly second the view of the OP.

Ryan, Why can't nations go around conquering? Wouldn't it be a more realistic approach to make armies capable of invading? In the consensual war model, the 300 Spartans could have just ignored an approaching horde of Persians. Makes sense? I think not.

Goblin Squad Member

@Hanz McBattle, did you read the rest of the thread?

Ryan Dancey wrote:
You won't need to worry about it outside of NPC controlled territory.
Nihimon wrote:

The only real effect of mutually declared wars is that you can attack each other in otherwise secure territory.

You can roll over someone else's Settlement without either one of you declaring any kind of war.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Hanz McBattle wrote:

I strongly second the view of the OP.

Ryan, Why can't nations go around conquering? Wouldn't it be a more realistic approach to make armies capable of invading? In the consensual war model, the 300 Spartans could have just ignored an approaching horde of Persians. Makes sense? I think not.

Are they trying to create a 'realistic' simulation? If so, there went all the magic, monsters, and other fantasy elements. They're creating a GAME. Pooping in someone's cornflakes may be fun for the trollish, but most people won't just hang around to play a victim like some Zon-Kuthon fanatic.

Goblin Squad Member

It does seem a bit odd that "War" only exists as far as hostilities in NPC territory is concerned and that it's only by mutual consent. As far as a game-play concept, that's probably fine. However, I think you guys may want to rethink the nomenclature a bit. People have certain expectations when they hear the word "War"...and the described mechanic isn't going to meet them. Judging by just the confusion in this topic alone, I think people are going to get very thrown off by the nomenclature used.

I'd suggest "War" be used to describe a state of hostility between one or more companies, settlements or nations and another...and that it not require mutual consent (i.e. you can go on a conquest rampage if you want and are able). However, NPC territories are inviolate as they are "neutral powers" and don't tolerate open hostility between warring factions in thier territory. (That's pretty much how things work in the real world...most times). This would match the expectations that people would have surrounding the term "War". Also, I think it'd be nice...just for informational purposes if the game had a way of recognizing and displaying an "official" state of hostility by one entity upon another. Could also be usefull for alignment purposes....attacking someone that your faction was officialy "at War" with (even if the other party wasn't consented) would strike me as a generaly Lawfull (or at least neutral) act. While attacking someone that your faction wasn't openly hostile to could be considered "chaotic".

I'd suggest some other term used to connote the state of hostilities that Ryan has described.... the one which is recognized by NPC neutrals and which requires mutual consent... maybe "Blood Fued" or "Vendetta" or "Crusade" or something like that? This would signify that it was sanctioned by some outside power and recognized to such a degree that even NPC's would allow it within thier territory. YMMV.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
I'd suggest "War" be used to describe a state of hostility between one or more companies, settlements or nations and another...and that it not require mutual consent (i.e. you can go on a conquest rampage if you want and are able). However, NPC territories are inviolate as they are "neutral powers" and don't tolerate open hostility between warring factions in thier territory. (That's pretty much how things work in the real world...most times). This would match the expectations that people would have surrounding the term "War". Also, I think it'd be nice...just for informational purposes if the game had a way of recognizing and displaying an "official" state of hostility by one entity upon another.

I agree there's room for tightening up terminology.

There's one state, where members of group Gamma attack members or property of group Epsilon, without official approval from the Gamma leader(s). This might be called raiding or something else. Epsilon might also be attacking Gamma people in a similar fashion.

The next state is when the Epsilon leader(s) give official sanction for Epsilon members to attack Gamma people and property. This might be called hostilities, war, or something else.

The next state is when Gamma leadership gives their people official sanction, which might be called mutual hostilities, war, or something else. In this state, both groups have entered into official conflict with each other and may now attack each other in NPC territory, if I understand it correctly.

Goblin Squad Member

I strongly second the view of the Nihimon: read what the developers have actually said before posting stuff.

Goblin Squad Member

Am I missing something? I thought that when no state of war is declared and a member of player group 1 attacks a member of player group 2 in a NPC controlled area. I thought the instigator would be labeled a criminal, and then be subject to an L.A. Style beat down at he hands of the local NPC guards.

That would keep griefing to a minimum in NPC controlled areas.

In Eve you learn quickly to take precautions. Activities in low and null sec do indeed continue, you just need to learn to be careful.

factions will be born out of necessity. Resources and territory will be worth fighting over. Join or start a clan, guild or whatever they will be called. When someone griefs one of your members, group up and make them pay. There is no such thing as a fair fight.

Goblin Squad Member

@Nestor: There are only 3 NPC settlements - that makes up a tiny fraction of the game world at launch, nevermind as the game continues to expand. Those settlements are permanent and protected meaning not only can you not attack other players criminally without sever consequences, but you also can't claim territory as your own and set up your own kingdoms. So the whole discussion of "WAR" is pretty obviously talking about conflict going on outside of those areas.

If you set up a kingdom, you're going to be doing so outside of NPC controlled areas.

And that, good sir, is the context of this conversation.

Now, if your character belongs to a player created kingdom, and another kingdom is at war with your kingdom, then they actually can attack you inside the NPC settlements, as well as player controlled (non-NPC) settlements that have declared a lawful charter which would otherwise deter illegal murder. But if you don't belong to any kingdom, or at least not to a kingdom against which another has declared war, then you're totally safe in NPC settlements and more or less safe in player settlements which have been declared lawful by the players who founded them.

But if you're in a settlement founded by players and those players have set up a neutral or chaotic charter for that settlement or kingdom, or if you're just frolicking around in the wilderness, then forget all rules. The only rules there are player enforced rules.

Venture into those areas carefully. You won't always get attacked, though I'd expect campers from time to time just waiting to ambush people. We even have one player on these forums trying to start a banditry focused company. If you can't avoid them, there will be a variety of options. You might want to hire mercenaries to guard you. There is at least one company dedicated to protecting the weak, and they may be willing to take up your cause and clear an area where banditry is particularly bad. Or you could hire me and my associates to go find the bandits and for the right price we'll do what we can to find out all their secrets we can uncover, spread those secrets to all the bandit hunters we can find, burn and loot their hideouts, then chase them from one end of the game world to the other constantly assassinating them until they break their own keyboard in a fit of nerd rage.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:
The only rules there are player enforced rules.

Not quite true, but probably still mostly true. Ryan has made it quite clear that "griefing" will not be tolerated - anywhere. Exactly what constitutes "griefing" can't ever be fully defined; it's perfectly reasonable for Goblinworks to reserve the right to say they'll know it when they see it.

But, again, it's mostly true.

Goblin Squad Member

And that's the case for pretty much any online game. Take my comments with that very obvious exception in mind, please.

Goblin Squad Member

@Blaeringr - most open world games with unrestricted PvP tend to have very very hands-off policies when it comes to griefing. Pathfinder Online will be an exception to that trend.

Dark Archive RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32

In EVE Online, a corporation can go to war with another corporation even without mutual consent. A war without consent, however, costs the initiating corporation a steadily increasing "war tax" the longer it drags on. I think this would be a model that would allow for invasions against the will of the invaded without permitting a single empire to just bulldoze everyone and everything in its path.

Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / War - Doesn't requiring it be mutual limit meaningful player interaction? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Online