Quite frankly there are plenty of games not catered to Open World PVP. You can't effectively woo an Open World PVP and a "I never want to see PVP EVER unless I consent to it!!!" crowd at the same time.
Uh, yes you can. It's very easy.
Step #1: You build a system around the concept of having open world PVP.
Step #2: You have servers with the ability to hurt each other turned off.
Yes, it really is that simple.
Look, I get it. I'm not naive, and this isn't exactly my "first trip to the MMO in development rodeo" here. The same cycle always repeats itself.
#1 The game is announced, and people start flocking to it.
#2 PVP advocates show up in droves, and the fact that this group tends to be very vocal means that there is a disproportionate showing of support for that aspect of the game.
#3 The developers cave in, and sacrifices to content or playability of PVE are made to accomodate them.
#4 The game finally launches.
#5 PVP Oriented servers are huge for the first month or two, and then as the fact that it is impossible to balance apples with oranges, the "<x> class is completely overpowered" things start happening.
#6 Developers cave in, and start making drastic changes to classes and class abilities to reduce their effectiveness in PVP (see also: "Nerfing") that destroys the desirability of these classes for PVE content.
#7 The PVP players continue to complain, moving from class to class.
#8 As more classes get crippled and players begin losing interest in the game, the PVP players start having less targets to "PVP" with.
#9 Word begins to spread, and a movement starts because word gets out that "oh, <BrandNewGame> is being developed, and PVP is going to be the main focus of the game and it's going to be so much better than this game."
#9 Go to Step #1.
It's the same cycle every single time with every single game, from UO to DAOC to Shadowbane to WOW to Warhammer to SWTOR, and now the "PVP Bus" is unloading at the PFO station. I'm really, really hoping it doesn't happen, but now I have little doubt now that it will not.
I'm already backed at the Crowdforger Buddy level, cause I give pretty much every MMO a fair shake, just like I will this game. But allow me to offer this as an example of why I'm so concerned. Here's a blast from the past that some people may remember, and I will use it to illustrate my point.
B0n3d00d: sup platedewd.
platedewd: sup.
b0n3d00d: say, throw me some max magic vestments, magic wpn, and some othr buffs yo.
platedewd: kk, sure.
*20 minutes later*
platedewd: where'd you go? I was mining for some iron.
b0n3d00d: lol, I killed like 15 people, thx for the buffs, made it super ez.
platedewd: lol.
So, here's the question:
Did platedewd just grief people?
Technically, he didn't contribute to the actual killing, however it was his act of buffing b0n3d00d that enabled b0n3d00d to go out and really grief people hard.
platedewd didn't kill people.
platedewd can't have a bounty put on them, unless we're going to allow people to bounty people with no direct involvement, which simply screams "grieftown" by itself.
But, without platedewd's buffs, b0n3d00d couldn't have gone out and do the griefing. These are the kind of "moral shades of grey" questions that are going to come up immediately and constantly.
Goblin Squad Member
|
Look, I get it. I'm not naive, and this isn't exactly my "first trip to the MMO in development rodeo" here. The same cycle always repeats itself.
#1 The game is announced, and people start flocking to it.
#2 PVP advocates show up in droves, and the fact that this group tends to be very vocal means that there is a disproportionate showing of support for that aspect of the game.
#3 The developers cave in, and sacrifices to content or playability of PVE are made to accomodate them.
#4 The game finally launches.
#5 PVP Oriented servers are huge for the first month or two, and then as the fact that it is impossible to balance apples with oranges, the "<x> class is completely overpowered" things start happening.
#6 Developers cave in, and start making drastic changes to classes and class abilities to reduce their effectiveness in PVP (see also: "Nerfing") that destroys the desirability of these classes for PVE content.
#7 The PVP players continue to complain, moving from class to class.
#8 As more classes get crippled and players begin losing interest in the game, the PVP players start having less targets to "PVP" with.
#9 Word begins to spread, and a movement starts because word gets out that "oh, <BrandNewGame> is being developed, and PVP is going to be the main focus of the game and it's going to be so much better than this game."
#9 Go to Step #1.Been following PFO since day 1 and:
1) PFO has from the start been marketed as open world PvP
2) PFO has been talked about as a single server game akin to EvE, always.No sacrifices to PvE or content have been made yet. If they have stated anything counter to 1 and 2 then it was done is such an unimportant manner and location that would make the thoughts seem trivial.
So I don't think it fits your listed process.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Step #1: You build a system around the concept of having open world PVP.
Step #2: You have servers with the ability to hurt each other turned off.
While that would accomplish the goal of a "PvE Server", it wouldn't "woo" the no-PvP crowd because the experience would suck. They'd be clamoring for the devs to give them more content, and expand the map because the first 256 players in the game already built Settlements in every hex. The devs wouldn't be able to provide them with content, so they'd leave the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
. That established my point was that trying to make out that PVP's "riskiness" is grounds for generating more wealth in my view is false as an AI can be created that puts up an tougher fight (read: even more risk) than the majority of humans. Developers choose not to do so, but it can be done. (and no, I'm not suggesting they do so with PFO, I'm just pointing the fact out)
Sure you can make challenging AI but people face challenging AI for thrills and rare loot. Not profit. In any game, but especially a game with loot drop on death, players wanting to generate a profit fight the strongest thing they can find that they can kill quickly with a near certainty of success. I'm sure everyone here is familiar with the term "farming." That is where the profits are at. Not pushing your limits.
If GW can somehow tie the greatest profits to extremely challenging dungeons where players go up against an extremely high chance of failure... Well no the same dungeons should still be more profitable if faced in an area with the danger of a random encounter with hostile players.
@Decius. Eve's system was alright but I wouldn't hold it up as a shining beacon of what we should strive for. I have two terms I'd like to throw out there:
1. War
2. Suicide ganking
I would far rather see this game offer safe areas that are actually safe, but with very little in the way of resources. Basically newb starter towns that you must be weened from to achieve success.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Step #1: You build a system around the concept of having open world PVP.
Step #2: You have servers with the ability to hurt each other turned off.While that would accomplish the goal of a "PvE Server", it wouldn't "woo" the no-PvP crowd because the experience would suck. They'd be clamoring for the devs to give them more content, and expand the map because the first 256 players in the game already built Settlements in every hex. The devs wouldn't be able to provide them with content, so they'd leave the game.
Nothing of what has been announced for PFO is compatible with a non-PVP game but I think I actually could make a working PVE sandbox. I would model it after Harvest Moon and Wurm/Minecraft and make heavy use of instances to ensure players didn't have to compete over territory.
I'm sure some people would love it but I know I would get bored pretty fast.
Anyway this is not that game, it won't be that game, and it can't be that game. People begging for this to be a pure-PVE game are wasting everyone's time including their own.
Anyway this is not that game, it won't be that game, and it can't be that game. People begging for this to be a pure-PVE game are wasting everyone's time including their own.
The part that you're missing is that there's no reason why it can't be that kind of game, save for the minor capital expenditure of one or two sets of server hardware. Right now, MMO manufacturers are competing for as large of a share of the finite MMO playerbase as possible. There is very little reason NOT to support this type of gameplay, especially when it can be accomplished with something as simple as a single line in a server bootup init file.
Fortunately, I have plenty of time to waste and a voice to be heard. They may not listen, but I believe with full fervor that if one does not strive to make one's voice heard, one must be complacent with the outcome.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What you aren't understanding is this game will have little in the way of quests and squat in the way of storyline.
Player interaction and conflict IS the content. It what creates a story and keeps the world from being filled with structures run by unproductive players. Changing those things would take considerable development time because it would require major and fundamental changes in how this game would have to be built.
Why should they waste their time opening a server nobody will play on after a few months?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You can't have a game where people can claim limited territory, and have no PvP, people have to be forced into doing more than paying a upkeep, they need threats, and PvE threats are never a huge deal. Take the player structures and territory claim out of the game and you can make it PvE friendly, but you just took out a huge chunk of the game.
From what I have been seeing 'We want to be safe from PvP' and 'We want d20 mechanics' go hand in hand. the people against PvP really want to see an adaptation of the tabletop, which is something Ryan has stated GW is not creating. I think all if not the majority of Anti-PvP postings come from pathfinder players, people seem to be having a hard time making the jump from GM guided adventure and player interaction as game content.
People are wasting their time asking for PvE support and an option for a PvP free experience, and I'm probably wasting my time saying that this will never happen. Ryan has said time and time again, if you want a pvp free experience there are plenty of choices out there already, PFO is not the game for you.
What you aren't understanding is this game will have little in the way of quests and squat in the way of storyline.
And what you aren't understanding is that there are plenty of us out there who can have a perfectly enjoyable time getting together, hunting down some monsters, and having a social experience without trying to put axes through each others skulls
Player interaction and conflict IS the content. It what creates a story and keeps the world from being filled with structures run by unproductive players.
So, what, every time I get murdered my structures deteriorate?
Why should they waste a couple of hours opening a server I won't play on?
There, I fixed that line for you. And just because YOU personally wouldn't play on it doesn't mean there aren't plenty who would.
You can't have a game where people can claim limited territory, and have no PvP, people have to be forced into doing more than paying a upkeep.
I fundamentally disagree.
From what I have been seeing 'We want to be safe from PvP' and 'We want d20 mechanics' go hand in hand. the people against PvP really want to see an adaptation of the tabletop, which is something Ryan has stated GW is not creating. I think all if not the majority of Anti-PvP postings come from pathfinder players, people seem to be having a hard time making the jump from GM guided adventure and player interaction as game content.
I enjoy heavily both MMO games as well as D20 gaming. I've played the easiest of MMOs (WOW) to the harshest grindfests (FFXI), and enjoyed it all. What I *do not* enjoy is being ganked repeatedly by antisocial twelve year olds*, and with all respect to Ryan D, unless they intend to hire some 250+ people just to do in depth analysis on reports of ganking behavior and actually *ban* people for it, I fail to see any way that this can be accomplished.
* Yes, I know that 12 year olds are perfectly capable of being upstanding citizens, and that 40 year olds are perfectly capable of being antisocial a@$hats. It's a stereotype, but meh.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Ryan
I'm a different kind of video gamer. I usually don't play MMO. I have never played WOW, UO or Eve (don't appeal to me). In fact the only one I played was Myst Online (...and played on a daily basis). Yes it failed but I see a lot of similitudes between Goblin Works and Cyan, regarding the kind of immersive world and community you want to create.
If you have some time, I recommend taking a look at what happened to them and learning from their successes and mistakes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myst_Online:_Uru_Live
By the way, I am a big believer in your project. I donated $100 in the first KS and $500 in the second.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What you aren't understanding is this game will have little in the way of quests and squat in the way of storyline.And what you aren't understanding is that there are plenty of us out there who can have a perfectly enjoyable time getting together, hunting down some monsters, and having a social experience without trying to put axes through each others skulls
Player interaction and conflict IS the content. It what creates a story and keeps the world from being filled with structures run by unproductive players.So, what, every time I get murdered my structures deteriorate?
Why should they waste a couple of hours opening a server I won't play on?There, I fixed that line for you. And just because YOU personally wouldn't play on it doesn't mean there aren't plenty who would.
The CATAPULT unveiled in the tech demo might have something to do with structure deterioration.
The combat isn't very good and the graphics aren't anything to write home to mom about but the crafting is 2nd to none and there are no-PvP servers with everything it sounds like you want.
I think that there are plenty of games out there to cater to this play-style already. It is rather clear that GW wishes to create a world enriched by player conflicts, something the MMO genre really needs.
I consider this argument invalid towards invalidating my point, as I can make the same statement that there are plenty of games in which the game is based around catering to PVP. The reason you cannot name as many is due to the fact that these games simply have not been as successful as the others in the genre.
Look, I'm not trying to start some huge argument, or "completely reshape the core concept of the game", or anything like that. My goal is two-fold - to make it visible that there are people like me out here, and to make people really, really think about things.
You must remember that those like myself with no love for PVP have heard many of these things before. To us, statements like "You don't *have* to go into PVP areas, but the rewards are better if you do" translate into "you have to go into PVP areas and deal with ganking to succeed." I'm going to put some faith in Ryan's team to prove me wrong, but given that I've heard that tune before, you'll have to forgive my skepticism.
And I'll point out that not a single person has attempted to answer my question. Should platedewd be considered a griefer for buffing his friend who turned around and griefed people?
Ill answer it once you tell me what it has to do with anything.
And I'll point out that not a single person has attempted to answer my question. Should platedewd be considered a griefer for buffing his friend who turned around and griefed people?
Challenge Accepted.
But Ultima Online got twisted. The in-game society wasn't anything like a "real world". And people were acting in really strange (and frankly horrifying) ways. Anonymity bred contempt for civility, and the small percentage of the population that is sociopathic found a safe outlet for their misbehavior. They could do things in UO that would get them arrested in the real world but which had no consequences of meaning in the virtual world.Pretty soon the ethos in that game became all about abuse. Abuse of the players. Abuse of the mechanics. Abuse of the infrastructure (Famous anecdote: people used to line up on the edge of a zone boundary and coordinate walking across because the zone transfer software couldn't handle the load and it would crash the whole server. For fun. Regularly.)
So what happened is that "sandbox" got a really bad rep. And the people working on the other early MMOs took note and identified all the problems in UO and concluded that sandbox games were fundamentally degenerate. Letting people do what they want to whom they want without consequences takes you in one short step from the Lord of the Rings to Lord of the Flies.
(...)
My argument is that the past decade of history gives us the context we need to see how to avoid the problems that cause sandboxes to degenerate. And the NUMBER ONE thing is to build and nurture a culture in the community that is intolerant of a@&!#!%s.
Part of that is being honest that we're not building a "world simulator". We can, and will, interfere directly with players who are attempting to have fun by making other people feel bad.
So, my question has to do with Everything. If a simple question like this can't be definitively answered, then there's already a fundamental flaw in the plan. If platedewd is a nearly invincible max level jerk hanging around buffing the crap out of his mid-level friend who is running around and murdering people in a mid-level zone, but is not directly related in killing me, then I can't put a bounty on him. Heck, I may not know he's even there doing that, all I may know is some guy of my level just came out of nowhere and destroyed me.
Or, maybe I can put a bounty on them. But, then people could just get buffed up by kind souls in town and go out and murder people in the hopes of generating bounties, creating a form of reverse-griefing. Or is "just wait till I get my main/friend/guild!" going to become a staple of PFO?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First off griefing is not a synonym for killing people. Griefing is when your goal is to ruin other player's experiences. It usually involves abuse of game mechanics and the meta-game. If the player giving buffs is aware of that the player he is buffing is a griefer, and not just handing buffs out to everyone who asks, then he is a griefer as well. This area is too grey for developers to get involved most likely, but it is not so grey that the community would be out if line to bring him to justice.
One of the largest player organizations in the game. (My own organization called Great Legionnaires) is dedicated to dealing with any anti-social behavior the developers don't. And we have the support of EVERY other major organization currently announced.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If he is doing that, and people notice, then you'll get players who come in and kill platedewd. I also do not think long term buffs will exist. Further, if bondood starts a fight with buffs on, then as I understand the mechanics, platedewd is now involved in the fight and can be attacked with no further repercussions.
I think you are making mountains out of molehills that don't exist yet.
Should platedewd be considered a griefer for buffing his friend who turned around and griefed people?
I would say no. His friend was the one who decided to go grief people. If b0n3d00d takes the equipment and uses it to get a contract guarding a caravan, platedewd is not considered a griefer. He likewise should not be considered a griefer if b0n3d00d instead goes on a killing spree. The choice platedewd makes is to lend equipment - what b0n3d00d does is irrelavent to platedewd's culpability. If b0n3d00d tells him "im gonna go gank some n00bs, lend me buffs" then I might consider platedewd culpable, but because it is not really possible to monitor/judge this, I would rule him not culpable. While I realize that this might upset people, it should only ever happen once.
Suppose now b0n3d00d, who is marked as a criminal and has a C/E alignment because he has unlawfully killed before, asks for equipment and platedewd aids him. Now we have a problem with platedewd. Aiding and abetting a criminal is an issue, and could possibly have a consequence. Platedewd might lend his equipment to b0n3d00d once, but after b0n3d00d becomes a criminal, he now has a reason not to lend him the equipment again.Now, if platedewd does not mind becoming more evil/chaotic or criminal because he helps b0n3d00d, then he becomes evil/chaotic or criminal, with all that implies. Could you act as a shadow agent, supplying murderous criminals? Sure, but I would also consider you a murderous criminal, and if the game has mechanics to reflect that, I don't believe that this will become an issue.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And I'll point out that not a single person has attempted to answer my question. Should platedewd be considered a griefer for buffing his friend who turned around and griefed people?
As an innocent bystander to the rest of this discussion, I personally believe all actions should have consequences and the more complex the system of consequences the better. Sometimes after all, it just is not possible to see, much less understand the consequences of all our actions. Since the gods can assumedly see more than us more mortals...and alignment is based off the will of the gods...then I am all for as complex an alignment as possible.
- Try to game the system? That pisses off the deities and moves your alignment in the direction opposite your attempts.
- Don't pay attention to the fact that you are selling weapons to people who use the weapons on fellow followers of your respective god?...oops.
- Etc...
Yes, I would love to see a system that makes platedewd some of whatever B0n3d00d is for enabling them...even if they was not aware of the connection.
Consequences and consequences...the more the better.
The only problem I see with the question is that if B0n3d00d is such a bonafide and consistent goon as you make them out to be, they would already be gone...at least if Ryan holds true to his stated goals.
First off griefing is not a synonym for killing people.
I understand that fully.
Griefing is when your goal is to ruin other player's experiences. It usually involves abuse of game mechanics and the meta-game. If the player giving buffs is aware of that the player he is buffing is a griefer, and not just handing buffs out to everyone who asks, then he is a griefer as well. This area is too grey for developers to get involved most likely, but it is not so grey that the community would be out if line to bring him to justice.
Yes, but here's my point. One could just as easily argue that he *is* griefing, as he is going around established mechanics (bounties, etc) to enable someone to turn around and kill people, with (theoretically) no repercussions whatsoever. And how does the community retaliate against him? By attacking him? Would this not, as he has not been directly involved in the killing, cause repercussions to those initiating the attack and make them open to bounties themselves?
I picked this particular scenario (one of the many possible) to demonstrate that trying to police intent through rules is incredibly difficult. In my current position, my goal is to try to think of all of the different scenarios that people *don't* think about, to determine and analyze all of the different things and find ways to mitigate them.
(For the record: The least impactful and most appropriate solution I can think of for this situation would be to have any non-self cast buffs active on your person from a source not within 10 "yards" immediate dispel upon taking an "unlawful" action, such as attacking unprovoked. If the buff-caster is within 10 yards at the initiation of combat, the buffs do not dispel, but the person is also subject to bounties/alignment shift/penalties/whatever.)
(For the record: The least impactful and most appropriate solution I can think of for this situation would be to have any non-self cast buffs active on your person from a source not within 10 "yards" immediate dispel upon taking an "unlawful" action, such as attacking unprovoked. If the buff-caster is within 10 yards at the initiation of combat, the buffs do not dispel, but the person is also subject to bounties/alignment shift/penalties/whatever.)
Seeing as GW has indicated some sort of marking people as criminals, I think that it would provide a way of flagging this. If someone becomes a criminal, it removes the buffs as you describe here. I also think that buffing/giving items to a criminal would also be a (lesser) criminal offense, and result in an alignment shift.
I'm hoping there are good systems for law and order to be implemented in-game by players. It really is one of the things I am most looking forward to.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Unfortunately my iPhone is at 4% battery and I don't have access to a charger ATM. I have been running anti-griefer clans on Open World PVP games for over a decade. You likely can't come up with any scenario I haven't experienced and don't have a solution for. We can discuss this more tomorrow.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the buff-caster is within 10 yards at the initiation of combat, the buffs do not dispel, but the person is also subject to bounties/alignment shift/penalties/whatever.)This won't work. Talking about being easy to exploit and thus grief. You run by and ask me to buff you while I'm talking to Andius next to a bridge. Being a nice guy I do. Then you turn around and gank Andius, thus flagging me when I had no intent to attack Andius.
That is another form of griefing. Now, if in turn I can (D) dispell/drop those buffs I just gave you, buff Andius mid fight and in turn attack and kill you for trying to get away with something like that, then cool.
I think the purpose of the '10 yards' thing is to allow people to buff themselves as bandits. Perhaps the buff only persists when the caster has the same criminal status as the recipient? I suppose there is a sort of 'limbo' where the recipient attacks and the caster is still standing there, so I suppose it should not be active at that time. As soon as the caster becomes criminal by attacking as well, the buff is reinstated. Otherwise, first-time bandits would have a broken pre-buff system. It seems somewhat more complex than it should be. Perhaps there is a way to simplify.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just a (hopefully) friendly reminder: If you're new to all of this, I recommend reading the Goblinworks Blog. I feel that many questions that have been asked are answered in the blog posts.
This won't work. Talking about being easy to exploit and thus grief. You run by and ask me to buff you while I'm talking to Andius next to a bridge. Being a nice guy I do. Then you turn around and gank Andius, thus flagging me when I had no intent to attack Andius.
That is another form of griefing. Now, if in turn I can (D) dispell/drop those buffs I just gave you, buff Andius mid fight and in turn attack and kill you for trying to get away with something like that, then cool.
Dispelling/Dropping the buffs would have to be on a timer of some sort, to prevent from just dropping them at the moment of kill. But I am going to play devil's advocate on this one, and state that that your situation is not abuse of the rules and does not constitute griefing. This is someone tricking you and making you an unwitting accomplice. It does not cause a wholesale disruption to a zone, like the situation I presented. And you'll learn your lesson after it happens once, won't you? You are fully empowered to prevent it from happening in the future by siply not buffing unknown strangers who might turn around and try to murder people right next to you.
And Andius could just, you know. Not put a bounty on you. Even if you were eligible for one.
Goblinworks Founder
|
We are living in an alternate timeline where the makers of Blizzard stole the sports almanac and gave it to their younger selves creating an future for online gaming with WoW towering in the middle and an apocalyptic wasteland of WoW copies for as far as the eye can see.
McFly! McFly! Hullo!
You speak the thruth.. Blizzard CEO is Biff. We need Marty and Doc to reverse the damage.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Robb
Many people like you are strictly against non-consensual PvP (aka arena/battleground fighting aka war as sports).
Fortunately there is a plethora of games that offer such an environment for you to enjoy.
So I very politely ask you to play these and try to understand that there is actually no stable, balanced, fun fantasy sandbox MMO with meaningful PvP for true resources that forces you to group up, know people, form a society and have meaningful in game interaction with other people in order to enjoy the game because that is what the game is all about.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Quite frankly there are plenty of games not catered to Open World PVP. You can't effectively woo an Open World PVP and a "I never want to see PVP EVER unless I consent to it!!!" crowd at the same time.Uh, yes you can. It's very easy.
Step #1: You build a system around the concept of having open world PVP.
Step #2: You have servers with the ability to hurt each other turned off.
This would absolutely ruin the spirit of the game and the point of having open PvP. It would force those that don't mind open pvp (but don't play a villain or have intent on initiating pvp), such as myself, to play on the pve server. Because that's where 90% of our carebear friends will go just because of past experiences in other games.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As for the AI matter, let's not make this personal. As far as I know I have never discussed my personal view on PvPing with you. Lets talk in generals. That established my point was that trying to make out that PVP's "riskiness" is grounds for generating more wealth in my view is false as an AI can be created that puts up an tougher fight (read: even more risk) than the majority of humans. Developers choose not to do so, but it can be done. (and no, I'm not suggesting they do so with PFO, I'm just pointing the fact out)
You set up a premise, I asked a question.
I am trying to figure out where you are coming from. If you see that as an attack, then this isn't going to be very productive.Let's see what I was responding to...
As long as it allows the avenue for a player then it isn't broken in my mind. The real point is that I do not subscribe to the line of thought that being in a PvP area is more risk because of other players attacking you and so you should get "more" or "better". "Different" rewards, sure.
I posted previously that you could set up a merchant enterprise without ever setting foot outside of a safe area.
But whether you subscribe to the thought or not, extra risk is going to add extra cost.
Not only are they looking at losing time when they have to stop harvesting to defend themselves, but they will be looking at the cost of combat consumables and the occasional losses that they will have if they are defeated and looted.
Travel time also adds to the cost.
If you are 2 minutes from market when you harvest your resources and someone else is 10 minutes from market, then they lose productivity in travel time.
They have to charge more money for their stuff to maintain the same income/unit of time. Just like time spent dealing with hostiles.
There can be things in safe areas that no one can find anywhere else, but since everyone can grab those things at no risk, they just aren't going to be worth much.
While it hasn't been done in a major MMO yet, AI can be programmed to be even tougher without "cheating" and thus an even greater Risk vs, Reward option.
People's perception will vary.
When does AI stop being "tough" and start "cheating"?
If I see a lone mob 50 meters from any other mobs and attack them, but every mob in the vicinity starts racing towards me, is that 'cheating'?
If players can consume potions in a fight to restore health, is it cheating if a mob does the same?
The person that thought that they had the gryphon beaten until it suddenly healed up may disagree with you if you say no.
If they are going to expand the 'safe' areas then that automatically shrinks the 'open' areas.
How far out should these 'safe' areas extend into the wilderness?
How much of the game should be built into the 'safe' areas and how much in the 'open' areas?
And this discussion has been limited largely to harvesting, but what about empire-building? Shouldn't people with that interest be able to enjoy it from the luxury of a 'safe area' as well?
Should people that wish to play a diplomatic role be able to negotiate peace between to NPC kingdoms, where they won't have to worry about being attacked by other players as they venture through the battlefields that exist between the two nations?
There might even be a few players who could be such an AI too. But that number would be tiny.
Players can not be AI and AI can not be players.
If you mean that maybe they can let some players have a chance to play a monster for a day, then you are still fighting the same human intelligence that you would be if they were playing their character.
If that is the case, why not just deal with other player characters from the start?
If it's not, then what do you mean by players being "AI"?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Quite frankly there are plenty of games not catered to Open World PVP. You can't effectively woo an Open World PVP and a "I never want to see PVP EVER unless I consent to it!!!" crowd at the same time.Uh, yes you can. It's very easy.
Step #1: You build a system around the concept of having open world PVP.
Step #2: You have servers with the ability to hurt each other turned off.
Perfect, this is the model that killed DaoC. Here's how and why.
The game was built with PVP in mind, yes it was fairly poorly implimented, and not balanced correct in the game, and yes griefing was heavy, but the game was doing OK, not great but decent in that time.
Then they followed step 2, and opened a PVE server, the result, about 60% of the players went to the PVE servers, but since the game was built in a PVP sense, there simply wasn't enough content once you took the PVP out, the players burned through the content, almost all of the players who went to the PVE servers, grew bored of the game within a week.
Then the PVP servers, having their population cut by such a small margain, had a lack of players to fight, they also died out.
The same thing will happen in PFO, PVE servers require mass streams of content being added on a regular basis, to survive, content of which players tend to chew through insanely fast, players reach the end... and have nothing to do, thus they quit. On the other hand when players are content, essentially goblinworks has free content being added to the game at an equal rate to the subscription rate. Politics get deeper, more complex. The world evolves in ways that even the developers aren't entirely aware of.
As well you factor when you put PVE and PVP servers, people by default automatically expect that means that by joining a PVP server, you have officially stated that all you want to do is PVP, this is the result that creates PVP servers in games in which the population is entirely griefers who think your goal is to kill anyone you can, whenever you get the chance. This trend is also what causes the people who would probably enjoy games like Eve or PFO, to try to see what PVP is like, and make entirely inacurate generalizations, that all PVP in any game is always just psychopaths.
Not to mention that because of the way the skill system works, the relative power between any two given characters will be much closer than that of any level-based system.
What amuses me though is that the tabletop game is essentially a player versus player experience; you, the player, are attempting to defeat scenarios that your DM, effectively another player, has set up. Yes, the DM operates through a number of NPCs but it is essentially the same thing. Now the only thing that this MMO will do is remove the 'skew' that you normally see where the PCs would need to do something daft or hit a run of bad dice to see them die.
Also, remember this is a SOCIAL game. Yes, there might be a group of PKs in the area but if you're in a group then they'll be less likely to harass you. And if they do attack first? Employ their own tactics; eliminate their healers and primary damage dealers first. PvP isn't difficult and most people I know who have come from a 'carebear' environment to Eve with misgivings about PvP have abandoned them when they've realised that PvP is fun.
Pathfinder Online isn't going to be the 'purple gear grindfest' that other MMOs are. Your knowledge of your character will be a lot more important than whether your sword is +1 or +2.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Robb Smith: You steps approach just repeats what previous mmorpg designers have already done and with mixed results. You need to step up a higher level of design to see what Pathfinder Online is aiming to achieve.
As in the blog, there's a sea change in mmorpgs coming and many players don't seem to be aware of it yet. Grand words, but it's about xxx time!
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@ Ryan
You had me at ...
"And let's give a toast to Cayden Cailean wherever he may be that he gives us the blessings he often shows to fools, madmen, and those who have had a bit too much of the ale keg—and Goblins too."
Though no way I can send yet more money until after Xmas ... which may mean I'll miss early access ...
Oh the cunundrums ...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Robb Smith: You steps approach just repeats what previous mmorpg designers have already done and with mixed results. You need to step up a higher level of design to see what Pathfinder Online is aiming to achieve.
As in the blog, there's a sea change in mmorpgs coming and many players don't seem to be aware of it yet. Grand words, but it's about xxx time!
Edit option has expired; in case the above is simply "vague": Here's a salutatory example from the latest successful Themepark, which does many things right, has had large publisher support from NCSoft and is filled with exceptionally talented mmorpg developers (and is a good game worth the value of the box price!): Guild Wars 2 Is Disappointing
PvE is separated from PvP (2 forms: arena + battlegrounds) - so it's not the same as Server separation, but the key thing in a sandbox is integration and interaction between systems and players; which could be discussed further...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This won't work. Talking about being easy to exploit and thus grief. You run by and ask me to buff you while I'm talking to Andius next to a bridge. Being a nice guy I do. Then you turn around and gank Andius, thus flagging me when I had no intent to attack Andius.
That is another form of griefing. Now, if in turn I can (D) dispell/drop those buffs I just gave you, buff Andius mid fight and in turn attack and kill you for trying to get away with something like that, then cool.
Dispelling/Dropping the buffs would have to be on a timer of some sort, to prevent from just dropping them at the moment of kill. But I am going to play devil's advocate on this one, and state that that your situation is not abuse of the rules and does not constitute griefing. This is someone tricking you and making you an unwitting accomplice. It does not cause a wholesale disruption to a zone, like the situation I presented. And you'll learn your lesson after it happens once, won't you? You are fully empowered to prevent it from happening in the future by siply not buffing unknown strangers who might turn around and try to murder people right next to you.
And Andius could just, you know. Not put a bounty on you. Even if you were eligible for one.
Then your example with Platedewed is no different. You tried to leave that example as ambiguous as possible but in truth PD had no idea what the other guy was going to do so therefore he isn't griefing. Just because he "lol" once he was told doesn't make him a griefer. If he continues to buff the other guy, then sure. Your example does not state that he does continue buffing the same guy so one can also infer that he learned what this guy's intentions were and won't buff him again.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From To Live and Die in the River Kingdoms:
You'll be able to put a bounty on any character who inflicted damage on you within a limited time preceding your character's death, and on their companions and those who rendered them assistance, so you can ensure that a gang of criminals suffers as much as a lone assassin.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Robb
Many people like you are strictly against non-consensual PvP (aka arena/battleground fighting aka war as sports).Fortunately there is a plethora of games that offer such an environment for you to enjoy.
So I very politely ask you to play these and try to understand that there is actually no stable, balanced, fun fantasy sandbox MMO with meaningful PvP for true resources that forces you to group up, know people, form a society and have meaningful in game interaction with other people in order to enjoy the game because that is what the game is all about.
Eve Online says hello.
Most PvP games aren't sandboxes. There isn't a lot of sandboxes, and the select few I've seen, PvP wasn't a huge focus of them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You set up a premise, I asked a question.
I am trying to figure out where you are coming from. If you see that as an attack, then this isn't going to be very productive.Let's see what I was responding to...
I did not accuse you of an attack. I merely requested a ground rule for the discussion, that being the use of general terms as has been done by everyone else in this thread so far. I guess i should have just stated a caveat to not assume you (since you want to use personal descriptors) know what my thoughts on PVP itself are.
I posted previously that you could set up a merchant enterprise without ever setting foot outside of a safe area.
...
I completely understand everything you noted in this second section. I'm not sure where you were headed with this one. I will take a stab and answer that my point was merely about those staying in safer areas still being able to comparable profit. So say you operate in less safe areas and make your coin from capturing Golden Rabbits. I decide to work in a safer area where there are no Golden Rabbits but there are Chocolate Rabbits.
Both Rabbits have value but they are used for separate crafting goals. You make 100gp selling 20 Golden Rabbits and I make 100gp selling 30 Chocolate Rabbits.
People's perception will vary.
I agree, they will. The cheating part is a tough one, but not one that couldn't be worked out with testing. As for the rest of this section I'll decline from commenting as it goes a direction (shrinking less safe area and increasing safer areas) that I never hinted at nor suggested.
Players can not be AI and AI can not be players.
That was supposed to read "There might even be a few players who could BEAT such an AI too. But that number would be tiny." Typo, my mistake.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Both Rabbits have value but they are used for separate crafting goals. You make 100gp selling 20 Golden Rabbits and I make 100gp selling 30 Chocolate Rabbits.
One thing your rabbit analogy dosn't take into account. You aren't crafting for NPCs, you are crafting for PCs. Supply/demand economics kick in. Something commonly available near town in safe areas, will likely not be desired. People will not likely pay extremely high prices for it. The more people who can do X, who are doing X etc... the lower the value of X.
Second, weaker items in game, also suffer deflation faster than the better weapons, IE tons of X weapon that deals 10 damage are on the market, one weapon deals 12 damage, The demand is going to be on the 12 damage item, thus it's price is going to be skyrocketing, The 10 weapon, is on the other hand, beign produced, but nobody is buying it, their prices hit the floor, and not only are they marked down to extremely cheap, but they also are selling at an excruciatingly slow pace.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
Uh, yes you can. It's very easy.Step #1: You build a system around the concept of having open world PVP.
Step #2: You have servers with the ability to hurt each other turned off.Yes, it really is that simple.
If the game you describe in point #1 is designed competently, the situation you describe in point #2 will be utter fail.
If you don't understand why that is the case, you should spend some time thinking about the theory and practice of game design.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
B0n3d00d: sup platedewd.
platedewd: sup.
b0n3d00d: say, throw me some max magic vestments, magic wpn, and some othr buffs yo.
platedewd: kk, sure.
*20 minutes later*
platedewd: where'd you go? I was mining for some iron.
b0n3d00d: lol, I killed like 15 people, thx for the buffs, made it super ez.
platedewd: lol.So, here's the question:
Did platedewd just grief people?
No, of course not.
The definition of griefing is to intentionally cause distress to another person with the primary intent of making that person feel bad. platedewd didn't do that.
In fact, it's not clear from this example if b0n3d00d did either. Killing people in a sandbox is not griefing them. Even killing them just because you can is not griefing them.
This is why we don't have a "rule" for what constitutes grief. Because if we had a rule, people will just use that rule as a license to be "just slightly less than griefing" other people.
The question of the "grief" inflicted by bon3d00d is subjective. And we're the ones who get to decide if it is or isn't. So if bon3d00d wants to be a one-time a%~%&&%, get himself banned, after taking the time to skill train and then do a bunch of in-game activities to qualify for the character abilities to make the stuff he got from platedewd useful (which could be and likely will be months of time), he's a minor irritation to the community.
If people who want to be griefers find that its a huge hassle, they only get to do it once, the rest of the community tells them their a*@!@&!s instead of celebrating their cleverness/a#++&+$ry, and there's not much in-game reward for doing it anyway, there will be a lot fewer griefers than there are in FFA open world PvP games that don't take a hard line against it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First, "griefing" doesn't require Open PvP. The worst "griefing" I ever experienced was in WoW on a PvE Server where a high-level Tauren came to Westfall (level 14-ish zone) and started killing all the NPC Quest givers over and over.
... there will be a lot fewer griefers than there are in FFA open world PvP games that don't take a hard line against it.
This is the key. Goblinworks has very publicly taken a hard line stance against griefing. The Community that has formed here has, too. And I am confident that the Community that forms in-game will, too.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Both Rabbits have value but they are used for separate crafting goals. You make 100gp selling 20 Golden Rabbits and I make 100gp selling 30 Chocolate Rabbits.
One thing your rabbit analogy dosn't take into account. You aren't crafting for NPCs, you are crafting for PCs. Supply/demand economics kick in. Something commonly available near town in safe areas, will likely not be desired. People will not likely pay extremely high prices for it. The more people who can do X, who are doing X etc... the lower the value of X.
Second, weaker items in game, also suffer deflation faster than the better weapons, IE tons of X weapon that deals 10 damage are on the market, one weapon deals 12 damage, The demand is going to be on the 12 damage item, thus it's price is going to be skyrocketing, The 10 weapon, is on the other hand, beign produced, but nobody is buying it, their prices hit the floor, and not only are they marked down to extremely cheap, but they also are selling at an excruciatingly slow pace.
Onishi, you're drilling down and going into areas that, while are valid, are totally missing the premise of my point. My point being a high level, a macro level and you went micro.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well anti-griefing guilds are all well and good if your in them or know someone in them. :/
I'm kind of torn on the idea of PVP and the whole open world sandbox. I did pretty well in UO and didn't really see a lot of PK's on the smaller area I played in but I know about people who had a big issue with it. A lot of those griefers seemed to be abusing flaws in the system rather then operating fairly, so hopefully that will be something that GW can make sure to keep on top of. Any game is going to have bugs crop up in them, but if we have to wait 3 months for an exploit to get patched that won't be good. Of course I'm sure everyone at GW would want them to be fixed quickly too.
So it seems like a game where if we're hanging out behind a tavern someone might get shive'd. I'd be okay with that. Hopefully the Player's won't become horrifically more powerful then creatures and other players in the world so unbalanced PVP happens all over the place. It didn't sound like ti was supposed to get too out of hand between newer and more experienced players given the skill based sounding nature of the plan but Robb is right that it at least need to be thought about.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Onishi, you're drilling down and going into areas that, while are valid, are totally missing the premise of my point. My point being a high level, a macro level and you went micro.
Well I suppose I'm missing your higher level macro point then, on any level, things that are easy to do, can be done safer etc... suffer from high amounts of overubundane within the worlds. As a result profit per time spent, is drastically lower.
Now admitted with poor planning, negotiation skills, risk assesment etc... will probably profit more per hour in the safe zone, just due to the losses they will likely encounter in a higher risk area. But with proper planning etc... High risk/time = greater reward than low risk/time, and deflation is one of the most certain reasons for such.
Odds are there will be no shortage of half/afk half asleep players doing the tasks set out in the safer places, and the demand for low grade gear, will likely bottom out extremely fast.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the buff-caster is within 10 yards at the initiation of combat, the buffs do not dispel, but the person is also subject to bounties/alignment shift/penalties/whatever.)This won't work. Talking about being easy to exploit and thus grief. You run by and ask me to buff you while I'm talking to Andius next to a bridge. Being a nice guy I do. Then you turn around and gank Andius, thus flagging me when I had no intent to attack Andius.
That is another form of griefing. Now, if in turn I can (D) dispell/drop those buffs I just gave you, buff Andius mid fight and in turn attack and kill you for trying to get away with something like that, then cool.
Just to be clear the quote here is actually Robb Smith with V'rel Vusoryn responding. Nothing in that quote is written by me.