CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
The core design guideline for Pathfinder Online is "maximize meaningful human interaction". That principle informs every aspect of the game, in ways large and small.
One of the most important impacts is that your character will be often at risk of encountering other characters in combat, "Player vs. Player".
"Often At Risk" is a key phrase. You will not always be at such risk.
There will be some times and some places where you will be safe from any unwanted PvP activity. In general this will be a condition within powerful NPC Settlements who have the ability to enforce peaceable relations between characters.
There will be other places where the risk will be substantially reduced because the NPCs will be able to react to anyone who makes an unwanted attack against you fast enough to have a high likelihood of killing your attacker before they can kill your character, making such assaults highly uncommon. This kind of protection will primarily be provided when you are in an area near a powerful NPC Settlement.
There will be some places where the NPC response will not be fast enough to stop an attacker from killing your character, but will be fast enough to ensure that the attacker dies as well. This makes it less likely that you will be attacked randomly; rather such attacks will be carefully planned and executed by groups with a sense for the risk/reward of their actions. This level of protection will exist on the edges of NPC controlled territory.
Outside of NPC controlled territory, player character decisions will have a strong influence on how secure a given area is - or is not!
We mention meaningful human interaction. The key is meaningful. Somebody ganking newbies without any consequences isn't meaningful. Somebody getting killed while they transport rare ore for the sword they are building, who then gathers some allies and goes after the attacker after putting a bounty on their head IS meaningful interaction. Both result in the death of a character. The first is something we don't want since it isn't meaningful, the second is something we totally want, because it IS meaningful.
Players who attack and kill other players outside of certain situations, such as declared wars or pursuing bounties placed on criminal characters, face the possibility of worsening their Reputation and beginning a slow decline towards Chaotic and Evil alignments. A low Reputation will keep players from entering more advanced settlements, while Alignment limits what abilities you can learn, factions you can ally with, etc. Players will engage in PvP without some thought as to their target selection will quickly find themselves only welcome in the most wretched of settlements and many respectable groups will turn them away.
This means that Pathfinder Online does not have open world unrestricted PvP. It is a game where there is non-consensual PvP, but not a game where that PvP occurs everywhere and without warning or consequence.
We know that some players would like to have the ability to opt out of PvP altogether. We are not going to enable that kind of functionality, because we feel that PvP is an intrinsic, critical part of "meaningful human interaction".
We feel that the presence of PvP creates interesting dynamic behavior. It creates risk and risk makes reward have value. PvP risk makes it valuable to transport goods from one location to another. It makes it valuable to work with other players to protect one-another as they explore the world, or fight monsters, or harvest resources.
PvP means that the players automatically create their own content. In other words instead of relying on the development team to create encounters that become boring and predictable, your fellow players will be creating encounters that are never boring and predictable. It will keep the game interesting to play long after the novelty of encountering developer-created content wears off.
If you are one of those people who doesn't like the idea of PvP we ask for you to keep an open mind. We're well aware of the kind of non-fun experiences that PvP has created in some games, and we think we have lots of ideas on ways to keep misbehavior under control in Pathfinder Online. We think that you'll find that the heightened sense of meaning that comes from knowing that you're up against not just scripted AI monsters but wily, creative, motivated human opponents will deliver some of the most exciting and memorable gaming you've ever experienced.
We're happy to discuss this issue in more detail in this thread, and many members of the community will likely have their own opinions and experiences to share as well!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not really in love with the idea there are areas you can be killed but your attacker will 100% for sure die. Suicide ganking is a very odd and immersion breaking behavior based on the meta-game fact that there is no pain involved, and you aren't REALLY dying.
I really hope you/we can come up with another solution. Maybe the best solution would be that if someone loots a non-criminal they are marked as a criminal and if a guard kills them then the loot is returned to it's owner. Make the guards all-but-impossible to defeat/escape in some areas but not ENTIRELY impossible for an organized group.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Outside of NPC controlled territory, player character decisions will have a strong influence on how secure a given area is - or is not!
Will settlements be able to purchase NPC guards that act similar, but are not as powerfull as the NPC Settlement guards? And will we be able to customize these guards? Such as giving them the ability to detect alignment and attack any evil or chaotic characters they see, and things like more attack strength and quicker response time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lee Hammock answers most of those questions in another topic.
Seen that, it's just the what, not the how. We haven't been told what we will be able to do with our guards, or how they will detect what is a threat.
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm sorry, Love Pathfinder, and was really looking forward to the MMO and playing in the pathfinder world, but, for me, no matter what 'safe guards' are in place to minimize PvP there is Still that PvP in there, and I don't like that.
You don't 'need' PvP for players to 'automatically create their own content', you can do that more so in a PvE environment, PvP can hinder that.
To me PvP is just a frustrating annoyance that hinders game play with others.
If you add along side a PvE server (with consensual PvP) I'll jump all over it and throw all the coin I can at ya..
I'm sorry, but I myself just can not support a game with 'non-consensual PvP' in it at all..
Good luck with it though. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bravo! So glad this game will be like this. Want to play it safe? Stay in town with the women and children. Want better rewards, you have to take some risks.
So what if I wanted to start a PC owned/run town for bandits and outlaws that gives aid and comfort to the bad people of the world?
(Not saying I would want to do this, but it woudl be good to know that its possible.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You don't 'need' PvP for players to 'automatically create their own content', you can do that more so in a PvE environment, PvP can hinder that.
How does one do this 'more so' in a PvE environment?
I'm still waiting for a good argument from the anti-PvP side, because so far ever single one has been shot down with good clean logic.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You don't 'need' PvP for players to 'automatically create their own content', you can do that more so in a PvE environment, PvP can hinder that.How does one do this 'more so' in a PvE environment?
I'm still waiting for a good argument from the anti-PvP side, because so far ever single one has been shot down with good clean logic.
Basically people can use the game as a chat room with avatars, props, and activities they can do together built in.
I believe this is what the game "Second Life" is.
It's a very valid game concept but it isn't what Goblinworks or the PFO community want.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You don't 'need' PvP for players to 'automatically create their own content', you can do that more so in a PvE environment, PvP can hinder that.How does one do this 'more so' in a PvE environment?
I'm still waiting for a good argument from the anti-PvP side, because so far ever single one has been shot down with good clean logic.
I have friends in the Anti-PvP crowd, and with all of them it's a matter of they hate the idea of losing anything, or being forced to do anything that was not their idea. I am not even trying to get these friends into this game (or any other game like it) because I know its not their cup of tea.
I think its brilliant and its certainly the type of game I have been wanting for a long while. Shadowbane was close, but was so buggy and full of exploits that it just was not viable for long term play.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One thing that I really hope we see is resources that are only found in a few places that are also not right next to a town, so that players can do mining expeditions, and convoy operations to get it back to a production center. Then others can be paid to protect them, and your more dastardly types can try to steal it.
This wont happen however if there isn't a nice distance between supply and production and sales locations. Then again maybe a group of PCs will just build a town on top of the mine. Then the only part that will be raidable will be the town itself, or the transport of finished goods to bigger markets.
I do hope that we also have what in EVE they call Market PVP. I would love to buy low in one market and sell high in another market. Or even corner a market in one town.
Ryan:
I'll say I feel a little bit better to hear that there is acknowledgement of people like myself's concerns.
I'm ready to be on board, I just need to hear one more sentence from you to get on the "I'm ok with PVP bandwagon."
That sentence is:
"Long duration stun, interrupt, and other abilities that deny control of a character will be heavily restricted or completely absent in PVP scenarios."
Stunlocking is not skill, it is not talent, and is my largest turn-off to any sort of PVP encounter. Getting stunned for 10 seconds, killed to half health to be stunned again immediately after you make any sort of retaliation, until you die while you slam your fist against the keyboard unable to do anything is not "fun" in any way, shape, or form.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...
This means that Pathfinder Online does not have open world unrestricted PvP. It is a game where there is non-consensual PvP, but not a game where that PvP occurs everywhere and without warning or consequence
...
Thank you for making this post with a clear thread name so that people coming to the forums with this question can easily find this explanation.
There is nothing new in here, but having it all together in one spot straight from the developer's mouth is really what we needed.
Personally, I feel the new info on reputation takes a lot of the freedom out of PvP choices (I thought bounties and limited looting skewed the risk vs reward enough), but I understand why the decision to further limit PvP was made.
I hope our new visitors take the time to ask us questions and think this through so that this excellent game gets the traction and wide audience it deserves!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The core design guideline for Pathfinder Online is "maximize meaningful human interaction". That principle informs every aspect of the game, in ways large and small.
One of the most important impacts is that your character will be often at risk of encountering other characters in combat, "Player vs. Player".
"Often At Risk" is a key phrase. You will not always be at such risk.
There will be some times and some places where you will be safe from any unwanted PvP activity. In general this will be a condition within powerful NPC Settlements who have the ability to enforce peaceable relations between characters.
Would a player be able to level fully and get the badges required for leveling in such areas or will character progression eventually force players out into pvp zones?
Would knowing that you can enjoy the game, progress your character, explore your dungeons alleviate some of the anti-pvp concerns and draw more people into the kickstarter?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really hope not only that the resources available in safe areas are low in value, but that there are taxes on refining, crafting, transactions... everything. Ideally I would like to see player run cities be the optimal place to do EVERYTHING. Even trade or break flour down into wheat. Safe areas should purely be places to learn the game without worrying about getting attacked, a short-term base of operations for players and groups with no holdings, and a place to interact with NPC that aren't killable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan:
I'll say I feel a little bit better to hear that there is acknowledgement of people like myself's concerns.
I'm ready to be on board, I just need to hear one more sentence from you to get on the "I'm ok with PVP bandwagon."
That sentence is:
"Long duration stun, interrupt, and other abilities that deny control of a character will be heavily restricted or completely absent in PVP scenarios."
Stunlocking is not skill, it is not talent, and is my largest turn-off to any sort of PVP encounter. Getting stunned for 10 seconds, killed to half health to be stunned again immediately after you make any sort of retaliation, until you die while you slam your fist against the keyboard unable to do anything is not "fun" in any way, shape, or form.
I can agree with that. I'm fine with debuffs but I think anything that temporarily shuts your character down should be avoidable. For instance "Stun Target for 3 seconds" is a bad ability. But an ability with a flashy animation that is "If you are hit by an attack while this is active you take no damage and your attacker is stunned for three seconds" is a GREAT ability.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Robb That's good to hear Robb! I'm sure you will make a fine addition to the community here.
I agree with you about incapacitating effects, and would be very surprised if that wasn't an easy sentence for Ryan to amend his post with.
The whole CC-as-PvP thing has been done to death in a few games; those games died because of it. I think it's pretty clear that nobody wants to watch their character die, and would be surprised if any new game tried this again.
I can agree with that. I'm fine with debuffs but I think anything that temporarily shuts your character down should be avoidable. For instance "Stun Target for 3 seconds" is a bad ability. But an ability with a flashy animation that is "If you are hit by an attack while this is active you take no damage and your attacker is stunned for three seconds" is a GREAT ability.
I could potentially get behind that, but to fully back it I'd have to know for sure that the game's engine doesn't animation-lock you into abilities. (ie, once the attack animation starts, you're committed and cannot cancel it). If the engine animation locks you, it's just a reactive stun instead of a proactive stun the first time they swing at you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
/
So so disappointed that there will be non-consensual PvP in Pathfinder Online. I can not support this, I was ready to until I read there will be no PvE servers.
One thing that people will have to get used to is that this isn't going to be a game with a million servers. Last I heard it's one server. So it's not that there will not be a server to cater to your play style, there isn't going to be a server specific to any one person's play style.
I doubt this is something that is going to change.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Please add a PvE Server to pathfinder Online.
The PvP not only has put a big downer on the Online game for me, and I see many others, but it is also bleeding over to the Table Top game, splitting the community there and I have seen a few players quit Pathfinder all together because of it.
:(
I my self may be willing to try the Online game with the PvP, but I can not put money into the kickstarter on a 'maybe'. I will have to 'Try before I buy' so to speak.
But if you also add a PvE Server, I will feel more comfortable putting money into it, and will do so, but the PvP is stopping me.
All the best.
~ That Guy
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Uhhhhg. In every game with PVE and PVP servers the game is divided into PVE and PVP crowds begging for the developers to make content catered for them. Every suggestion for changes to the game based on one play style is met with objection from the other play style.
I don't think the people who come here and join the PVE server will take kindly to being told they are second class players here, and Goblin Works is just allowing them to PVE in a game built for PVPer.
This game is for PVPers. You are welcome to come try it. I will be trying to help reduce the random bloodshed in this game and I will be happy to teach you survival techniques but if you are unwilling to even try it... This game is not for you.
And people leaving Pathfinder P&P over this.... pure foolishness. We are better off without those drama queens. This has nothing to do with the P&P.
And people leaving Pathfinder P&P over this.... pure foolishness. We are better off without those drama queens. This has nothing to do with the P&P.
Really? That makes no sense -- why would people do that? The presence of non-consensual PvP means that I won't play (or support via Kickstarter) this MMO, but it doesn't change my perception of PFRPG one bit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The game is designed with the sandbox in mind, this includes PvP. To add a second server that is PvE only would add to the support costs, split the player base, retard the in game economy, and result in either a bland PvE experience or result in a longer development cycle to add PvE contend that balances out the risk and reward missing because the PvP is missing.
Andius is right, if no pure PvE server is a deal breaker for you, this isn't the game for you.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been reading through the blog entries and some of these threads trying to see if this game is something I can support.
I don't have a problem with open pvp in theory. I don't have a problem with being attacked by somebody that's just playing IC.
What I have a big problem with is associating with sociopaths in any way while they're being free to 'let it all hang out'.
What I would like to see is the ability for a player to be placed before a tribunal and if found guilty the population could then vote on removing the player from the game completely. The player, not just his characters.
Now that's some meaningful human interaction right there.
Sam
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is no "non-consensual PvP". If your character leaves a town/safe area, then you are consenting to PvP. It's as simple as that.
If you abhor PvP, there is nothing stopping you creating a merchant/crafter type character that uses others to find materials for them. Pending the answer to Summersnows query above, I would assume you can hit max level this way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I would like to see is the ability for a player to be placed before a tribunal and if found guilty the population could then vote on removing the player from the game completely. The player, not just his characters.Now that's some meaningful human interaction right there.
What would stop a coalition of griefers from abusing such a system to take out enemies they don't wish to fight?
I think it's been said that a player-run settlement can declare a particular character its enemy, so they're flagged for even entering the settlements controlled by that company. If there were a further option to declare the PLAYER an enemy, then that would limit metagaming abuses like having a 'good' spy infiltrate a good settlement to gather information to use with his evil character(s).
|
|
What would stop a coalition of griefers from abusing such a system to take out enemies they don't wish to fight?
Two things.
First, the griefers would have to find a way to bribe or stack all the player tribunals. Second, they'd have to comprise 51% of the game's population. At that point the game is dead anyway.
I think it's been said that a player-run settlement can declare a particular character its enemy, so they're flagged for even entering the settlements controlled by that company. If there were a further option to declare the PLAYER an enemy, then that would limit metagaming abuses like having a 'good' spy infiltrate a good settlement to gather information to use with his evil character(s).
I'm not worried about evil characters, just evil players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Can player created towns hire/maintain guard npcs to make their own zones less risky when it comes to such attacks? A system working on protecting people from criminal acts, but not warring factions? I would personally be in favor of such a system, but expect or to come with a resource upkeep cost.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First your issue is with being attacked by someone thats not IC... that is an impossible standard to uphold. What would be next? Could I get in trouble for selling you something not IC? Forcing IC PvP verses OOC PvP is not a real thing.
Dealing with toxic players however is a real thing however. I think voting toxic players off the island works in some games, I dont think this game is one that it fits in however. If someone is playing in a disruptive manner there are things that players can do in game (IC) to deal with it. Declare war, bounties, hire guards... If however someone is being truely toxic to the game environment, not just killing you but harassment and such then I believe that's something for the GMs to handle.
Again if a person is a real pain to other players it will probably not be long before he is a hunted man.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First, the griefers would have to find a way to bribe or stack all the player tribunals. Second, they'd have to comprise 51% of the game's population. At that point the game is dead anyway.I'm not worried about evil characters, just evil players.
You're expecting 100% of players to vote on every case that comes up? Even for players that take the time to vote on every issue, there may be some that vote everyone they don't know out of the game just to leave more space for themselves. Sure, if they perma-ban enough people they'll make the game shut down, but some people play MMO's for 6 months and quit anyway, so they're not looking at long term concerns.
GW has already said that the staff will boot particularly abusive players, and since their income depends on retaining a playerbase, I think they'll show proper restraint before imposing the game equivalent of a death penalty. I have no such confidence in the player community at large. They could vote you out for no reason at all, and it's no skin off their backs until they do it enough to collapse the population.
Your other response seems to be a non-sequitur. Adding a player to a settlement's enemy list would affect all the characters on their account, regardless of individual character alignments.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@SamuelLeming in what ways is trying to organize at least 51% of the player population going to be more efficient and more fair than letting the moderators handle things?
What you're recommending sounds a lot like ostracism. While it has its upsides, ostracism in real life history has often seen abuses. Over time, such abuses become more likely than actually succeeding in organizing that many people to do good things.
Notable examples in actual real world use include Xanthippus and Aristides. Xanthippus was a war hero who played a major role in driving off the Persian invasion, and Aristides, nicknamed "the Just" was described by Herodotus as "the best and most honourable man in Athens".
Both kicked out because their political enemies grew envious of their power and fame.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Jewelry, cloaks and other minor 'equipped' items will not be saved.
Really!! that sucks. I don't like PvP at all really, but I was willing to give it a go and see what happens.
I even Pledged to Kickstarter, giving GW a chance... I knew I should of read more, its my own fault I suppose, I'll have to go cancel my KS pledge.I am not a fan of PvP, but I talked myself into it since I do like the Pathfinder world, but having some of your 'stuff' lootable is a big no no for me. Thats the straw that breaks the camels back for me.
Sorry guys, but I will have to cancel my pledge. My own fault I should of read into it more, sorry guys.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Now, everything else - that will be EVE territory. Rings, cloaks, belts, gloves, headgear, boots, potions, scrolls, wondrous items, etc; all that stuff will have a massive market and you'll live in an "EVE-style" economy with regard to that stuff. You'll buy it in large quantities, shrug when you lose it, and replace it continuously. And if you spend too much on it, and you lose it, you'll have to spend time re-earning the wealth you sunk into those lost goods and probably learn a good lesson along the way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Jewelry, cloaks and other minor 'equipped' items will not be saved.Really!! that sucks. I don't like PvP at all really, but I was willing to give it a go and see what happens.
I even Pledged to Kickstarter, giving GW a chance... I knew I should of read more, its my own fault I suppose, I'll have to go cancel my KS pledge.I am not a fan of PvP, but I talked myself into it since I do like the Pathfinder world, but having some of your 'stuff' lootable is a big no no for me. Thats the straw that breaks the camels back for me.
Sorry guys, but I will have to cancel my pledge. My own fault I should of read into it more, sorry guys.
Apparently all the "lootable" stuff will be easy to replace. According to what Valk just said.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Boobarealla
It's not as bad as you think. You just have to learn to balance your income. When you make 10mil that doesn't mean you buy something that is 10mil. You always make sure you have enough wealth to buy your entire setup a few times over.
The people who like to empty their wallets will not have a great time in PFO, you will need to be careful with your spending, and only take what you need with you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There will be places and means for you to store things (banks, hideouts, etc.) so you won't be continually carrying everything you own in game on you to be looted.
Also, I believe it was mentioned that if someone loots your husk they don't get to choose what they get but are awarded a random item so you can't be reliably targeted for a specific item. Someone please feel free to correct me on that if I'm wrong.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There will be places and means for you to store things (banks, hideouts, etc.) so you won't be continually carrying everything you own in game on you to be looted.
Also, I believe it was mentioned that if someone loots your husk they don't get to choose what they get but are awarded a random item so you can't be reliably targeted for a specific item. Someone please feel free to correct me on that if I'm wrong.
Interesting... so maybe we could carry a few dozen cantrip scrolls that have practically no weight, but pad out your item list in such a way that someone who kills you is likely to draw one. It's not like 'ray of frost' is entirely useless, but it's certainly not worth criminal flagging, alignment shifts, and possible bounties.
Is there one looted item per criminal, or would one death mean one lost item, period? In UO a lot of the problem was caused by small hordes of gankers, but if it takes a gang to drop someone before they have a chance to flee or mount a reasonable defence, a single item for the group is trivial enough that they aren't as likely to use dogpile tactics.
Oh, and for the really abusive types who can't seem to resist hurling ethnic or orientation slurs... they can pull a ban for that, so be ready to screenshot.
-------
When you're new, remember; you don't have to swim faster than the shark, you just have to swim faster (and look less tasty) than the other minnows.
Later on, you'll see that one of the best ways to rid yourself of an enemy is to outlive him.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is there one looted item per criminal, or would one death mean one lost item, period? In UO a lot of the problem was caused by small hordes of gankers, but if it takes a gang to drop someone before they have a chance to flee or mount a reasonable defence, a single item for the group is trivial enough that they aren't as likely to use dogpile tactics.
It is not per attacker. Your body will give 2-3 items* if looted, we don't know if people will be able to see what these two items are before they loot. If the player loots their body, they get everything they had, if someone else loots their body, all but the 2-3 items are destroyed.
*(stackable items will probably auto-stack and count as 1 for a full stack)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...having some of your 'stuff' lootable is a big no no for me. Thats the straw that breaks the camels back for me...
It's your own decision what you like and what not but please consider that in order to prevent stagnation there must be some risk and some drain in an MMO.
You can either do it by item creep (all your stuff is worthless crap after the next expansion comes out) or by the risk of loosing some of your things sometimes.
I know that I far prefer the latter!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
stackable items will probably auto-stack and count as 1 for a full stack
One scroll of each cantrip, one of each orison, and you've at least a dozen booby prizes. There are probably other low-weight and even lower value items you could carry to pad out the list, like one of each type of wooden stick used in making wands, different types of blank paper for scrolls, a bunch of differently coloured scarves, whatever. GW could set a minimum value, items under which are ignored, but whatever they set, players could still take a lot of the lightest and cheapest crap possible.