Kickstarter Community Thread: Player vs. Player Conflict


Pathfinder Online

601 to 650 of 807 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Goblinworks Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It saddens me that the core PvE fan-base are still unable to give this concept a chance. I am a adventurer, explorer, crafter and I am most looking forward to playing in a world where there is a real risk of losing my gear If I don't use my wits. I wasn't going to back the second kickstarter but I succumbed eventually because I believe in GWs vision. One thing is certain though, If GW give in and change their vision to placate the current sqeaky wheel then I will withdraw my funding. I am backing the current PFO vision, I will not back a watered down carebear version of it.

Goblin Squad Member

I think it would help if there was somewhere easy to look at how a system works. Even with capstones, the first thing you see is the obsolete plan that has been scrapped, there's this massive text walk with snippets of info here and there, which is great if you have time to get through it all and process it, but not if you don't.'

And it IS true that many games have made similar promises and have never followed through. Just look at Vanguard: saga of heroes, they had some really big, awesome concepts on their feature page that never made it to development, then they had to start shrinking everything down in scale because they had lost their player are to a flopped launch. Then they tried to wowify more.

When it comes down to it, it's a matter of trust. What has goblin works actually produced as a group before? There's not much to go on, yes, some of the individuals on the ten have impressive track records, but that doesn't immediately translate to success.

Obviously I am putting MY trust in GW and think their plan is pretty well thought out, but others may not see it that way, and you know what? I actually have nothing to show my trust is well placed other than their vision and some of their concepts about development seeming practical and realistic to me.

So honestly, if someone says "it won't be a gankfest? I've heard that one before" can you REALLY blame them?

CEO, Goblinworks

2 people marked this as a favorite.

@All - power curves

I've always thought that the way the power curve will likely work is this:

Newbies

When you are a "new" character, you'll be fragile and weak. That does two things:

1: It encourages you to stay in reasonably safe areas and focus on learning how the game works, rather than trying to be Conan on day one.

2: It makes "disposable alts" a less viable option. Making a new character is not an "I win" button for PvP if you do it with a herd of your friends.

Average

At some point, you move into the "normal" power curve of the game; what we've talked about being equivalent to the kind of power you typically see from about 6th level to about 10th level (what I call the "heroic adventuring" part of a Pathfinder tabletop RPG character's career).

This is where you find that the development of your character becomes a process of being very good at a wide range of activities. You'll be able to "catch up" to a character that's older than you in a given activity given a few months of dedicated play and training, but that older character will have the advantage of being very good at a variety of things, not just one thing.

This is essentially what happens in EVE Online.

A small group of reasonably experienced "heroic adventurers" should be able to fight off a horde of new characters, A heroic adventurer should be able to beat a small number of new characters fairly easily.

Balance comes when you have conflict between groups of heroic adventurers. In such encounters, the absolute age of the characters should be less important than their tactics, gear, coordination, and player skill.

Old Vets

There will likely be a small number of old, experienced, wealthy, well equipped PCs who will be really dangerous. You won't want to cross them.

If they show up in a fight, they can tip the balance quickly. If they act in concert as a group, it will take a lot of Heroic Adventurers to keep them in check.

Moderating the power of these Old Vets is an obvious long-term challenge for the game designers and I'm sure we'll have lots of ideas on how to keep them from getting out of hand. But I'm also sure that it will be pretty fun to play one too. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elth wrote:
It saddens me that the core PvE fan-base are still unable to give this concept a chance. I am a adventurer, explorer, crafter and I am most looking forward to playing in a world where there is a real risk of losing my gear If I don't use my wits. I wasn't going to back the second kickstarter but I succumbed eventually because I believe in GWs vision. One thing is certain though, If GW give in and change their vision to placate the current sqeaky wheel then I will withdraw my funding. I am backing the current PFO vision, I will not back a watered down carebear version of it.

I love to see the equivalent of "I'll take my ball and go home" if they change the premise.

How many PvPers on this thread, trying to convince or insult (ie, carebear) PvEers, are only casual players? Because when you have limited time (and money) to play, PvP is neither enjoyable nor desirable. It's a lost opportunity to enjoy your limited gaming time.

I've read every post in this thread. I'm a PF Play by Post Player and GM and a paying subsciber to an MMO.

The problem isn't that I'm not "giving PFO a chance." It's that they're builidng an MMO out of my favorite RPG. And it doesn't offer what I want. So I'm sticking with Age of Conan.

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's the problem: thousands of people already put money in towards a game they want, the game as described by GoblinWorks, a game in a style that exists *nowhere else*. And then we have people come in and tell us that they won't play it unless it is changed. Well...alright. That is unfortunate. But to change the design of a game after people have already paid towards getting it started would ruin GoblwinWorks image.

This will be a niche game. Ryan and Lisa are ok with this. Hopefully, once the game launches, people may have their minds changed. If not...then it will be a small game, but it will be a game that we can't find a replacement for anywhere else, and we'll love it.

Goblin Squad Member

HolmesandWatson wrote:
Elth wrote:
It saddens me that the core PvE fan-base are still unable to give this concept a chance. I am a adventurer, explorer, crafter and I am most looking forward to playing in a world where there is a real risk of losing my gear If I don't use my wits. I wasn't going to back the second kickstarter but I succumbed eventually because I believe in GWs vision. One thing is certain though, If GW give in and change their vision to placate the current sqeaky wheel then I will withdraw my funding. I am backing the current PFO vision, I will not back a watered down carebear version of it.

I love to see the equivalent of "I'll take my ball and go home" if they change the premise.

How many PvPers on this thread, trying to convince or insult (ie, carebear) PvEers, are only casual players? Because when you have limited time (and money) to play, PvP is neither enjoyable nor desirable. It's a lost opportunity to enjoy your limited gaming time.

It has nothing to do with PvP. I don't like PvP. My experiences with PvP have been bad. What I want is a rich social experience in a fantasy world, which in this case includes the possibility of conflict.

So if they changed the game premise so that a rich social experience isn't plausible--if they were offering say, to make WoW 4.1.34.1, I wouldn't be very interested.

But it wouldn't be because I wanted PvP.

Dark Archive

I still laugh anytime I see the term
Carebear. That's one that's stood the test of time!

I can certainly see one point from the PvE point of view: casually players will indeed get smoked in Pvp. However how is that different from hardcore players having better strats, gear, etc. People who play more tend to be better. Hell just try to play CoD an hour a week see how well you stack up! ;)

In Everquest we just used bluebies by the way

Goblin Squad Member

Alexander_Damocles wrote:

Here's the problem: thousands of people already put money in towards a game they want, the game as described by GoblinWorks, a game in a style that exists *nowhere else*. And then we have people come in and tell us that they won't play it unless it is changed. Well...alright. That is unfortunate. But to change the design of a game after people have already paid towards getting it started would ruin GoblwinWorks image.

This will be a niche game. Ryan and Lisa are ok with this. Hopefully, once the game launches, people may have their minds changed. If not...then it will be a small game, but it will be a game that we can't find a replacement for anywhere else, and we'll love it.

I think it's more a case of devs saying "this won't be a problem" and then it turns out to be one anyway. This happens all the time, it usually fails and then they change it to something that is more reliable, such as a pvp switch to stop exploitation of open pvp, or safe zones. We've all heard systems that sound good in theory, but in practice fail to deliver.

You look at the ones who say they won't support it are saying- they're saying the system as described won't work, and for them it's a deal breaker.

In all reasonableness, I have no arguments against it, I have nothing to show it WILL work other than my own perception of those mechanics and my gut reaction on how it will turn out. It's essentially idealism. Can you honestly say differently for systems that aren't even completed yet and are untested?

Goblin Squad Member

HolmesandWatson wrote:


How many PvPers on this thread, trying to convince or insult (ie, carebear) PvEers, are only casual players? Because when you have limited time (and money) to play, PvP is neither enjoyable nor desirable. It's a lost opportunity to enjoy your limited gaming time.

* raises hand

I have extremely limited game time, a few hours 1 or 2 nights for a total of 4 hours of gaming on a good week. I'm well aware I will be far behind the curve of power, but I'm ok with that. The way the game is being designed low-power characters can have an impact with friends and not be totally vulnerable.

Goblin Squad Member

Exactly, it is idealism.

Many great things started out on nothing but idealism among a mass of people who said "this will never gonna work".

For me the chance for a cool game that finally breaks the mold of WoW and is able to create a great community (which all the current AAA MMOs seem to be missing).

Add to it that the first persons that will play this game together are the Pathfinder community and not much can go wrong I'd say.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Tyveil wrote:
I have extremely limited game time, a few hours 1 or 2 nights for a total of 4 hours of gaming on a good week. I'm well aware I will be far behind the curve of power, but I'm ok with that. The way the game is being designed low-power characters can have an impact with friends and not be totally vulnerable.

Actually, with the way the game is designed (in that it borrows elements from EVE's design), you may not actually be far behind in the power curve. At least part of your character's growth will be real-time skill training. This training will be something you que up that goes on regardless of if you are online or off.

Goblin Squad Member

MicMan wrote:
Exactly, it is idealism.

Exactly, so not everyone will be convinced, but the naysayers who say "it won't work" are not always wrong, just sometimes. Often it's the "it can and will be done" produces the broken system.

To me it seems that an investment on the kick starter is not just a show of faith, but an effort to MAKE it work.

Which is why I'm here. I really want it to work. I want the game NOW! XD

Goblin Squad Member

NOTE: TL;DR at bottom

Arslanxelan wrote:

Dont let the griefers and those that are only interested in wealth dominate the game. And please don't let those people be the vocal majority on these boards. Those of you that get in early don't become elitist jerks to the newbies that join 2 or 3 years later. One of them could be me.

I hope that the game is...

Arslan posted many examples of griefing in other games that simply won't be possible. We've seen many examples like this (in this very thread), so please, read the rest of the thread and search the blog for the words 'kill' and 'murder' to educate yourselves before making baseless claims.

Since we've already addressed those other points ad nauseum, I wanted to specifically address what I quoted.

I still remember how when the bounty system (ctrl+f this on the blog!) came out, there were maybe 10 prolific posters that were staunchly against this mechanic, calling the rest of us carebears. That was a misuse of the term, as some of us were very interested in PvP (and indeed, some of those not interested at all in PvP have been posting here why they don't mind PvP in PFO; thanks to you all!).

The people that were posting then wanted a FFA Open PvP world where they could grief to their hearts' content; when Ryan made posts stating that Goblinworks would do everything possible to put an end to griefing, including banning players, those players left.

The people that remain here posting were the ones that believe that griefing needs to be contained.

Valuable opinions to look at
In the beginning, some of us believed that the best way to stop griefing was to remove PvP, over time, they have kept up with developer posts and blogs and realize there are benefits to having PvP in the game, not the least of which is to stop griefing of the type that a player otherwise has no recourse for.

They realized that PvP griefing can be stopped if a developer makes that a specific focus. No developer yet has because they didn't see it coming and they didn't want to completely alienate their griefer fanbase when they did see it.

Many of those players are trying very hard to relay their experiences to the new people coming in with the same concerns they once had. I really want to thank these people, because it's not something I could do.

Another opinion
Personally, I could live and have fun in one of the 'griefer's paradise' games out there. I don't mind struggling a little (or a lot) until I obtain the means to defend myself. When they posted the bounties system and their stance against griefing months ago, I thought it was a great idea and could only make the game better and more accessible. What I'm after is the ability to engage in PvP; Eeven though I can withstand a little griefing before I can get to a level where I can PvP, we're all better off without it.

With the recent mechanics unveiled that put further penalties on Random Player Killing (not griefing, though some in here also don't like this), I'm not even interested so much in the PvP aspects of the game. I think I'll play a full-time crafter/merchant...

TL;DR
Anyway, what I hope anybody that reads this takes from it, is that the extreme griefers left this community long ago, the extreme PvPers (me?) are now a little less excited about this game, and the PvEers are now more excited about this game. Personally, I think that while the PvP aspect of this game isn't exactly what I want, the current system is probably a 'sweet spot' that can gather interest from a more moderate set of players, and so the community will be more successful in severely marginalizing griefers.


I'm concerned now, with the inability for Chaotic Evil players to effectively advance beyond newbie into the 'Average Heroic Tier'.

If a Chaotic Evil enclave can advance into Average Heroic tier, then they'll have a solid Gear/Skill level for what they want to do (Gank). they may never make it to 'Old Vet' but they are certainly effective vs Newbie and Other Average characters. If this is the case, I foresee a lot of grief happening. Sure, they have more expensive upkeep and can't get the really cool skills, but they'll exist.

I read about limitations on gear... not a problem. Any well-organized Chaotic Evil enclave is going to have some people invested in the LG side of things. All it takes is for a LG shell guild to craft a ton of consumables and gear, hire a band of stalwart adventurers to protect it, and go out into the wilderness. 30 minutes later I skype my evil buddies 'hey, got your shipment enroute, 20 guards, not much magic support. Kill them all, loot them, and take your stuff!'

If it can happen, it will. The LG shell corp doesn't even have to be the same people in real life as the CE group. It can be two sides of an external group, some people who want to play the trader/crafter game play LG, those that want to play PVP are the CE, and they don't trade with each other, just occasionally a caravan ends up getting ganked, it happens, you know?

I also foresee spying and lots of external game communication if the CE people have the ability to function at 'Average' level. My LG player takes a bunch of contracts for guarding, but every 10th one I skype my buddy and let him know where I am. He kills me after a valiant effort (so I don't take a reputation hit), and then loots my employer.

Now, if a CE character can't ever get past 'Newbie' level of skill then that will effectively shut the concept of griefer CE guilds down. At which point griefers will turn to see what options are available to them. If it is LE, then they'll play that. It if is NE, then that. However, the underlying issue is that there are dedicated groups of griefers who are willing to organize, set up shadow guilds, infiltrate LG areas, pay the price to rebuild reputation, what have you. So that will need to be very carefully monitored so that they aren't running off the Newbies and pure PVEers that barely tolerate PvP.

But, you also have to make sure that unrestricted PvP with random PK isn't so punitive that no one does it... because if no one does it, then who is the content? If no one is willing to gank a stranger in the woods, then everyone is playing a PvE game already, unless they get into wars... and there's another huge issue regarding guild warfare (because the best way to gank newbies and make them quit is convince them they need to join a big guild and then declare war on that guild).

I have to say, I simply am not sure how, given human nature in video games, that you can hit the balance point of players being each other's content unless everyone playing the game loves the idea of 'there is only war!'

It will be *very* interesting to see how this is handled (and it isn't being handled at all like I'd expected when this was announced, I fully expected this to be Fantasy Eve). It will take a lot of effort to get the balance right.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

I think it's fairly certain that CE will be able to advance at the least to the low-average tier. The Newbie tier will probably only last a couple months for a character and be something you do in the safest areas. Think of it as an extended tutorial area. And it sounds like for the LG shell group to supply the CE group, you'll need a long chain of increasingly CE links to not tarnish the LG group. If the shell group supplies someone less good, they'll get a hit in their alignment. So it'll likely be possible, but VERY difficult. You probably wouldn't get much benefit from their equipment anyway.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jameow wrote:
I think it's more a case of devs saying "this won't be a problem" and then it turns out to be one anyway.

10 years of MMO experience tells me that this is by far the most likely outcome. But I, for one, am willing to wait and see if GW can really beat those odds.

I'm not pledging because GW are building my bestest game ever (bleah pvp). I'm pledging because I think Ryan & Co. has the right idea, and I want to give them the best possible platform for realizing that idea. It's a small token, but I'm not sitting in a design chair anywhere, so it's the best I can do to help bring their vision to life.

I really want that vision to actually work.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Marshall Jansen wrote:

...

I read about limitations on gear... not a problem. Any well-organized Chaotic Evil enclave is going to have some people invested in the LG side of things. All it takes is for a LG shell guild to craft a ton of consumables and gear, hire a band of stalwart adventurers to protect it, and go out into the wilderness. 30 minutes later I skype my evil buddies 'hey, got your shipment enroute, 20 guards, not much magic support. Kill them all, loot them, and take your stuff!'

A few days later, a team of LG (or LE, or any other alignment) vets raids the evil hideout and takes all of their stuff.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Marshall Jansen wrote:

...

I read about limitations on gear... not a problem. Any well-organized Chaotic Evil enclave is going to have some people invested in the LG side of things. All it takes is for a LG shell guild to craft a ton of consumables and gear, hire a band of stalwart adventurers to protect it, and go out into the wilderness. 30 minutes later I skype my evil buddies 'hey, got your shipment enroute, 20 guards, not much magic support. Kill them all, loot them, and take your stuff!'

A few days later, a team of LG (or LE, or any other alignment) vets raids the evil hideout and takes all of their stuff.

Quoted For Truth. People forget that the benefits of going LG mean that there will be many, if not more, players of this type. These players will be better-equipped and will progress faster in terms of character development, wealth, and settlement development.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marshall Jansen wrote:

I have to say, I simply am not sure how, given human nature in video games, that you can hit the balance point of players being each other's content [...]-snip-

It will be *very* interesting to see how this is handled (and it isn't being handled at all like I'd expected when this was announced, I fully expected this to be Fantasy Eve). It will take a lot of effort to get the balance right.

V good points Marshall, but the above is exactly what mmorpgs need to be addressing imo. That's why PfO is worth backing to me.

Goblin Squad Member

@Marshall
Part of the limitation of being CE is that even if you have the equipment and the skills, you won't be able to use all of the abilities for it, which means even if you find a way to rep grind, the more you go for random pking, the less effective your character becomes.

Because that ISN'T the sort of player the game is aimed at, it's about MEANINGFUL player interaction. If you need to have a good reason to attack someone if you want to keep your abilities. The best equipment isnt the best equipment in your hands if you can't use it effectively.

So someone playing like that will still have to pick their targets carefully, or before long their victims will be beating them more often.

That's the theory anyway, we'll see in testing. I suppose we need some people to play test ganking. Lol

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Marshall Jansen wrote:

...

I read about limitations on gear... not a problem. Any well-organized Chaotic Evil enclave is going to have some people invested in the LG side of things. All it takes is for a LG shell guild to craft a ton of consumables and gear, hire a band of stalwart adventurers to protect it, and go out into the wilderness. 30 minutes later I skype my evil buddies 'hey, got your shipment enroute, 20 guards, not much magic support. Kill them all, loot them, and take your stuff!'
A few days later, a team of LG (or LE, or any other alignment) vets raids the evil hideout and takes all of their stuff.

Yeah. I think it's important to note that not only will there be benefits to simply being LG, but that you earn those benefits and get more from killing the evil guys. The Good-aligned guilds won't simply be killing evil characters and griefers out of the goodness of their hearts. They get stuff for it. It is a defined objective with rewards. These guilds won't have raids to go on. They will have nightly hunts for murderers and thieves among the rest of playerbase.

Goblin Squad Member

Saint Caleth wrote:


I agree that alignment is as absolute as you think it is in some situations, namely when you are dealing with outsiders and other supernatural creatures with alignment subtypes since they are literally made out of whatever alignment they are. When you are dealing with mortals who do not have alignment subtypes, it is nowhere near as extreme as you seem to think, otherwise all humans would always be neutral.

Oh yeah, for sure. People in the real world don't have set alignments and very very few of us are actually good or evil. These are game mechanics for a world with orcs and paladins.

I have never let alignment be a straight jacket on my roleplay. But it's a system in the game that influences Gods and magic and NPC interactions and in this system chaotic means you are UN-lawful. It doesn't mean you have bad handwriting, messy hair and write poems about socialism ;p

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
avari3 wrote:


It doesn't mean you have bad handwriting, messy hair and write poems about socialism ;p

Unless you're a chaos Mage and get you power from disorder! (Honestly I think that would be great fun) xD

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

I am still wondering how is it would be to go from CE to neutral or how hard it will be

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ryan Dancey wrote:


At some point, you move into the "normal" power curve of the game; what we've talked about being equivalent to the kind of power you typically see from about 6th level to about 10th level (what I call the "heroic adventuring" part of a Pathfinder tabletop RPG character's career).

Yup. I've always said the "sweet spot" for DnD/Pathfinder is levels 5-12 and that's why most of the modules are written for those levels.

Another point for Dancey and GW.

Goblin Squad Member

HolmesandWatson wrote:
Elth wrote:
It saddens me that the core PvE fan-base are still unable to give this concept a chance. I am a adventurer, explorer, crafter and I am most looking forward to playing in a world where there is a real risk of losing my gear If I don't use my wits. I wasn't going to back the second kickstarter but I succumbed eventually because I believe in GWs vision. One thing is certain though, If GW give in and change their vision to placate the current sqeaky wheel then I will withdraw my funding. I am backing the current PFO vision, I will not back a watered down carebear version of it.

I love to see the equivalent of "I'll take my ball and go home" if they change the premise.

How many PvPers on this thread, trying to convince or insult (ie, carebear) PvEers, are only casual players? Because when you have limited time (and money) to play, PvP is neither enjoyable nor desirable. It's a lost opportunity to enjoy your limited gaming time.

I've read every post in this thread. I'm a PF Play by Post Player and GM and a paying subsciber to an MMO.

The problem isn't that I'm not "giving PFO a chance." It's that they're builidng an MMO out of my favorite RPG. And it doesn't offer what I want. So I'm sticking with Age of Conan.

I RP/PvP. I manage a resteraunt and have 3 kids under 4. I haven't been a "hardcore" player in over 3 years, but I always manage to stick with WPVP and stay up on competitive PvP as well. I do PvP better with less time then PvE, which is actually how I switched from PVE to PVP was due to my inability to play as much.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Elth wrote:
It saddens me that the core PvE fan-base are still unable to give this concept a chance. I am a adventurer, explorer, crafter and I am most looking forward to playing in a world where there is a real risk of losing my gear If I don't use my wits. I wasn't going to back the second kickstarter but I succumbed eventually because I believe in GWs vision. One thing is certain though, If GW give in and change their vision to placate the current sqeaky wheel then I will withdraw my funding. I am backing the current PFO vision, I will not back a watered down carebear version of it.

I will be perfectly willing to give the game a chance when it is released however in its current development direction I am not willing to invest in the possibility that it will truly manage to do what no PvP centric game has managed to date. So far it sounds like they are going for the Ultima Online approach to PvP and to be honest that was one of the ost grief intensive PvP systems I have ever encountered.

Goblin Squad Member

Gadareth wrote:
Elth wrote:
It saddens me that the core PvE fan-base are still unable to give this concept a chance. I am a adventurer, explorer, crafter and I am most looking forward to playing in a world where there is a real risk of losing my gear If I don't use my wits. I wasn't going to back the second kickstarter but I succumbed eventually because I believe in GWs vision. One thing is certain though, If GW give in and change their vision to placate the current sqeaky wheel then I will withdraw my funding. I am backing the current PFO vision, I will not back a watered down carebear version of it.

I will be perfectly willing to give the game a chance when it is released however in its current development direction I am not willing to invest in the possibility that it will truly manage to do what no PvP centric game has managed to date. So far it sounds like they are going for the Ultima Online approach to PvP and to be honest that was one of the ost grief intensive PvP systems I have ever encountered.

Isn't that what the big publishers would say as their reason not to back PfO - and the reason why someone might wish to back PfO. Personally I don't see it as a pvp centric game. I do see themeparks as pve centric. But the difference is pvp is just one part of the machine that drives the game dynamically eg the influence on the economy, on the map, on where is safe to explorable and where is risky and what PvE content is opening up and so forth. It's a perspective and as you say there is the danger of pvp becoming too much of a super set for the other game systems, but it's still a set that needs including imo.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

PFO isn't PVP centric. It will be a real facet of the game, but it's not the core driving feature.
It's more a side effect of being a sandbox game.

Goblin Squad Member

Anybody who has read my posts in this thread knows that I certainly don't feel PFO is a PvP-centric game, much to my dismay ;)

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

What is still boggeling me is that people still worry about the PvP aspect while there will be a whole bunch of PvE/Crafting/Trading/Exploring possibilites. Yes, PvP will be a part of PFO and it will be worthwhile, but saying no to backing it up or not giving it a chance, it is a shame since there will be enough to do!

For all we know those not signing up could be our next generation of diplomat, trademaster or master crafter...

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Marshall Jansen wrote:

...

I read about limitations on gear... not a problem. Any well-organized Chaotic Evil enclave is going to have some people invested in the LG side of things. All it takes is for a LG shell guild to craft a ton of consumables and gear, hire a band of stalwart adventurers to protect it, and go out into the wilderness. 30 minutes later I skype my evil buddies 'hey, got your shipment enroute, 20 guards, not much magic support. Kill them all, loot them, and take your stuff!'

A few days later, a team of LG (or LE, or any other alignment) vets raids the evil hideout and takes all of their stuff.

Actually if this is possible, a much more likely result will be: A few days later, a team of LG (or LE, or any other alignment) vets raids the evil hideout and gets nothing because after the Enclave took all the loot, they transferred it all onto their alts. And are now laughing at the group that raided them for nothing.

Unless you make things so restrictive that simply doing PVP even once is is so punitive, (would would make it pointless), you are never going to be able to completely circumvent griefing.

It is for this reason I withdrew my support for the game. I hate PVP with a passion and I won't contribute anything to a game that promotes it.

When I think of any Pathfinder game I've ever played (or for that matter any RPG I've played PVP has never once entered into the game. Do you kill humanoids? Sure. Do you kill other players characters at the table over and over with no real consequence?

The only way true PVP will ever work is if death becomes permanent if you attack another player and lose. I.e. roll up a new character. Then, if you decide you want to be a griefer, your career will be short lived and no one is going to want to be rolling up a new character, playing him for many months then decide to start griefing people and have to start over again.

Goblin Squad Member

Psyblade wrote:

What is still boggeling me is that people still worry about the PvP aspect while there will be a whole bunch of PvE/Crafting/Trading/Exploring possibilites. Yes, PvP will be a part of PFO and it will be worthwhile, but saying no to backing it up or not giving it a chance, it is a shame since there will be enough to do!

For all we know those not signing up could be our next generation of diplomat, trademaster or master crafter...

Because its the pvp aspect that ruins it for them. For them there is nothing fun about it, yet they would have to just deal with it.

Are you content to just deal with a theme park, or would you rather play something else? You're here, so you'd rather play something else, so why is it boggling that the same situation for a different system causes the same result?

Goblin Squad Member

@Alarian The LG players destroy the hideout or take control of the settlement/hex. Now the CE players have to find a new CE settlement or build a new one. In any case, the CE players are becoming poorer and poorer and cannot contribute enough for any meaningful character or settlement development. They can no longer afford armor and weapons to replace what they are losing from bounties and death-curses. Griefing gets more and more un-fun as time goes on.

Any alts they try to trade with also take alignment hits, slowly making them more CE so they can no longer get the 'mains' anything of value. That's completely disregarding the fact that it will take weeks or months of paid training time to get one of their alts to the point where they can be reasonably sure they can travel safely.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Alarian Darkwind wrote:
When I think of any Pathfinder game I've ever played (or for that matter any RPG I've played PVP has never once entered into the game. Do you kill humanoids? Sure. Do you kill other players characters at the table over and over with no real consequence?

Odd. I've played PnP games and, while rare, PvP does happen. Then again, I'm a pretty hardcore role-player, so that may have something to do with it. If I'm playing a Good character that believes strongly in the cause of good, he's going to stop healing your evil alchemist once he realises what is going on. (This took about 4 modules of an adventure path to come to a head, although they did get in a fist-fight by the beginning of the second module.) We don't hand-wave character differences.

Sure. I'd love everything to be roses and sunflowers. But really, that intercharacter interaction made the game memorable.

Goblin Squad Member

Gadareth wrote:


I will be perfectly willing to give the game a chance when it is released however in its current development direction I am not willing to invest in the possibility that it will truly manage to do what no PvP centric game has managed to date. So far it sounds like they are going for the Ultima Online approach to PvP and to be honest that was one of the ost grief intensive PvP systems I have ever encountered.

Just so we're clear, PFO's design approach is the exact opposite of the UO approach. Ryan has explicitly and at length laid this out, where he uses UO as the example of the opposite of what they are doing, and why.

Of course UO was the most grief-intensive game ever--their (lack) of social design made it that way. That's why GW is doing the literal, exact opposite.

Sovereign Court Goblin Squad Member

In PFO, the other players are an active part of the entire world, not just the quest doing part of it. They will also be the quest givers, and if they send you out for ten spider egg sacs, they won't disappear, they'll be for a cloak of the spider someone contracted them to make. Two groups of good-neutral guys and gals may go after the same contract. The bad gankers can't get into that settlement to know about said contract, so will have to randomly and likely accidentally find the good guys to try to gank them, in a large sprawling world. PvP is PvE, since the sandbox is full of real people.

There is no PvP gear and PvE gear; there is just gear. That +1 long sword works just add well against a PC as an NPC. That ganker with only a dagger and his armor and no risk waiting for you outside the dungeon? You just took down a freaking dungeon with your party, what the hell is he really going to be able to do to you? In a sandbox full of dangerous elements, clearing a dungeon shouldn't mean dropping your guard, or not sending a scout to check the exit.

Holding the same game play expectations won't do anyone any good.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mbando wrote:
Gadareth wrote:


I will be perfectly willing to give the game a chance when it is released however in its current development direction I am not willing to invest in the possibility that it will truly manage to do what no PvP centric game has managed to date. So far it sounds like they are going for the Ultima Online approach to PvP and to be honest that was one of the ost grief intensive PvP systems I have ever encountered.

Just so we're clear, PFO's design approach is the exact opposite of the UO approach. Ryan has explicitly and at length laid this out, where he uses UO as the example of the opposite of what they are doing, and why.

Of course UO was the most grief-intensive game ever--their (lack) of social design made it that way. That's why GW is doing the literal, exact opposite.

Glad to hear this about PF. I was a long time Beta Tester for UO and to be honest, during the Beta it was the best MMO I have ever played. Once it went open, it turned into the biggest nightmare MMO I have ever played. The masses surrounding towns ready to gank any and everyone was truly depressing. I went from love to hate in about 2 weeks and never logged in again.

I also want to say I hold no ill-will to the designers of this MMO. I wish them well, I just have no interest whatsoever in it's current direction. For me, getting PK'ed even once is a non-starter (that's how much I hate PK). Any remote chance there was of me playing went out the window when I heard they could loot your body after killing you. It's basically a way for them to bend you over and then give it to you not once, but twice.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Alarian Darkwind wrote:
For me, getting PK'ed even once is a non-starter (that's how much I hate PK). Any remote chance there was of me playing went out the window when I heard they could loot your body after killing you. It's basically a way for them to bend you over and then give it to you not once, but twice.

If you're truly this inflexible, then I'm sad to see it. The development team seems pretty adamant about their position that PvP is a cornerstone of the game design. Getting a trinket off of you if they kill you seems almost certain as well. If those are absolutely going to prevent you from playing, then there isn't much point in discussing it further.

Silver Crusade Goblin Squad Member

Well I personally think that the ability to have open PVP is the truest way to carry over the freedom of Pathfinder. If you want to do something you can, there might be consequences however. I also think there is so much more to this game than PVP.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

Jameow wrote:
Psyblade wrote:

What is still boggeling me is that people still worry about the PvP aspect while there will be a whole bunch of PvE/Crafting/Trading/Exploring possibilites. Yes, PvP will be a part of PFO and it will be worthwhile, but saying no to backing it up or not giving it a chance, it is a shame since there will be enough to do!

For all we know those not signing up could be our next generation of diplomat, trademaster or master crafter...

Because its the pvp aspect that ruins it for them. For them there is nothing fun about it, yet they would have to just deal with it.

Are you content to just deal with a theme park, or would you rather play something else? You're here, so you'd rather play something else, so why is it boggling that the same situation for a different system causes the same result?

The reason why it is mind boggeling to me is for the simple fact that PvE'ers can become rich (with game money) by playing a game like this. If you as a player decide to do the following.

You start the game, decide to become a weaponsmith, specialize in say swords. You get your ducks in a row, regular suppliers drop of the ore needed, you make decent profit, you die once in a while, lose some egar but you are still on top and the game is good. The people killing you due to PvP you put bounties on them and you keep going on. Then, you learn 2 settlements go to war, you know both settlements and are neutral. Seeing this you buy up the swords there, buy the ore needed and you mass produce weapons. Once the war starts you start selling the swords in both settlements, and you make a more then healthy profit. You walk away with a good chunk of momey and continue your happy life.

This kind of stuff is what is making a sandbox game, and the pvp involved worthwhile and you as a player can profit from it. The thing is, yes, I love pvp and I love it in a sandbox, i am not hiding that. But PvP'ers in a sandbox need the PvE counterparts, those who enjoy the crafting, the harvesting, the exploring to continue as well and have fun. It is a very fine balance but both sides need each other in a sandbox.

Also, this might be a fun thing to read about how a PvE Mining player is able to make a pvp'er his game time sucky and not worth hunting down the player

Eve Online: Retribution Revenge

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Psyblade wrote:
Jameow wrote:
Psyblade wrote:

What is still boggeling me is that people still worry about the PvP aspect while there will be a whole bunch of PvE/Crafting/Trading/Exploring possibilites. Yes, PvP will be a part of PFO and it will be worthwhile, but saying no to backing it up or not giving it a chance, it is a shame since there will be enough to do!

For all we know those not signing up could be our next generation of diplomat, trademaster or master crafter...

Because its the pvp aspect that ruins it for them. For them there is nothing fun about it, yet they would have to just deal with it.

Are you content to just deal with a theme park, or would you rather play something else? You're here, so you'd rather play something else, so why is it boggling that the same situation for a different system causes the same result?

The reason why it is mind boggeling to me is for the simple fact that PvE'ers can become rich (with game money) by playing a game like this. If you as a player decide to do the following.

You start the game, decide to become a weaponsmith, specialize in say swords. You get your ducks in a row, regular suppliers drop of the ore needed, you make decent profit, you die once in a while, lose some egar but you are still on top and the game is good. The people killing you due to PvP you put bounties on them and you keep going on. Then, you learn 2 settlements go to war, you know both settlements and are neutral. Seeing this you buy up the swords there, buy the ore needed and you mass produce weapons. Once the war starts you start selling the swords in both settlements, and you make a more then healthy profit. You walk away with a good chunk of momey and continue your happy life.

This kind of stuff is what is making a sandbox game, and the pvp involved worthwhile and you as a player can profit from it. The thing is, yes, I love pvp and I love it in a sandbox, i am not hiding that. But PvP'ers in a sandbox need the PvE counterparts, those who enjoy the crafting,...

Assuming that you want to be a weapon smith, not an adventurer and that it's about money. That is a MASSIVE assumption.

Just for perspective, lets flip the argument. Lets remove non consensual pvp altogether. You can be an adventurer, you can be a soldier in a town army, you can still be a weapon smith, there's just no bandits or gankers that you HAVE to deal with.

Is it boggling to you that anyone would enjoy that less?

If your whole goal was to be an anti pk and spend your time killing the nefarious element, your entire playstyle has just been severely changed in a way you don't like.

Goblin Squad Member

Jameow wrote:

Just for perspective, lets flip the argument. Lets remove non consensual pvp altogether. You can be an adventurer, you can be a soldier in a town army, you can still be a weapon smith, there's just no bandits or gankers that you HAVE to deal with.

Is it boggling to you that anyone would enjoy that less?

If your whole goal was to be an anti pk and spend your time killing the nefarious element, your entire playstyle has just been severely changed in a way you don't like.

For what it's worth, the problem with removing PvP isn't that my entire playstyle is being changed in a way I don't like, it's that the most important features of the game no longer function in a rational manner. The most obvious being that the first 256 players who try will set up Settlements that no one else can ever tear down. The rest of us will be bugging the devs to increase the map size so we can build our own indestructible Settlements, too. But we won't, really, because there won't be any point... There won't be any reason to hire anyone to gather resources, because there won't be any risk in going out and doing it yourself.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Jameow wrote:

Just for perspective, lets flip the argument. Lets remove non consensual pvp altogether. You can be an adventurer, you can be a soldier in a town army, you can still be a weapon smith, there's just no bandits or gankers that you HAVE to deal with.

Is it boggling to you that anyone would enjoy that less?

If your whole goal was to be an anti pk and spend your time killing the nefarious element, your entire playstyle has just been severely changed in a way you don't like.

For what it's worth, the problem with removing PvP isn't that my entire playstyle is being changed in a way I don't like, it's that the most important features of the game no longer function in a rational manner. The most obvious being that the first 256 players who try will set up Settlements that no one else can ever tear down. The rest of us will be bugging the devs to increase the map size so we can build our own indestructible Settlements, too. But we won't, really, because there won't be any point... There won't be any reason to hire anyone to gather resources, because there won't be any risk in going out and doing it yourself.

Not so, by taking part in building a town, you're joining that faction, you are consenting to a pvp situation. That's consensual pvp. If you want to avoid pvp you can still adventure, still craft, still do all of that, but you can't be PART of the town faction system without being part of pvp. Yes, it would require changes to the system, and I'm not arguing for that, I'm arguing the point that, just because you can do something, if something else can be inflicted on you that you don't like, that can ruin the things you can do for you,

I was not actually advocating any sort of alternate system, just trying to raise awareness of the perspective. There is nothing baffling about people who don't like non consensual pvp, feeling systems they DO enjoy are ruined by pvp being forced on them.

The same goes if you flip it. Removing pvp totally changes the way the system would work. Making it far less exciting or desirable for other people.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

@jameow

I'll bite :)

If that happens you are creating a themepark MMO with a PvE server where nothing can happen. Which means you will be a run in the mill MMO that will need it's content created by the dev's (Raids, encounters, scripted stuff). If that doesn't happen people would leave because the game would become stale, nothing happens and they need to wait to long for their updates.

What also can happen is you will see the Wv3 from GW2 being implemented for the pvp'ers, same map all over to bash, some items to destroy but it will all be build up back when you recapture it. People once more will leave because the content turns out to be stale.

So yes, it can be done, but this game will be F2P within half a year, people will leave the game because it is boring and the content isn't showing up to soon. GW goes bankrupt and people will all point and say, see we should have gotten a sandbox game.

Also as Nihimon pointed out, the settlements that we can build, they cannot be destroyed, they will remain, grow bigger and if a charter quits the game the settlement will remain standing and nothing can be done about it. So once more a DEV team needs to step in and sort it, more people for something that could have been avoided.

Also, as an adventurer in this setting you can explore, find a hidden settlement, sell the information to a charter looking for a place to settle and sell it. Once more, there is the risk of being killed, but that is just like you going into yellowstone or the old wild west when looking for something to make you rich.


Runnetib wrote:

In PFO, the other players are an active part of the entire world, not just the quest doing part of it. They will also be the quest givers, and if they send you out for ten spider egg sacs, they won't disappear, they'll be for a cloak of the spider someone contracted them to make. Two groups of good-neutral guys and gals may go after the same contract. The bad gankers can't get into that settlement to know about said contract, so will have to randomly and likely accidentally find the good guys to try to gank them, in a large sprawling world. PvP is PvE, since the sandbox is full of real people.

There is no PvP gear and PvE gear; there is just gear. That +1 long sword works just add well against a PC as an NPC. That ganker with only a dagger and his armor and no risk waiting for you outside the dungeon? You just took down a freaking dungeon with your party, what the hell is he really going to be able to do to you? In a sandbox full of dangerous elements, clearing a dungeon shouldn't mean dropping your guard, or not sending a scout to check the exit.

Holding the same game play expectations won't do anyone any good.

This is a little naive. PvPers will know about those contracts because the LG spy in the town will tell them over Vent/Skype. The gankers with daggers and armor won't attack you fresh on your way from the dungeon, they'll wait til you're mid-combat with all your refreshes spent and jump you then. That's the core problem with people worried about PvP when they want to PvE. PvPers don't play fair. You don't ambush people in a fair fight, you ambush them with overwhelming force.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

Jameow wrote:
Not so, by taking part in building a town, you're joining that faction, you are consenting to a pvp situation. That's consensual pvp. If you want to avoid pvp you can still adventure, still craft, still do all of that, but you can't be PART of the town faction system without being part of pvp. Yes, it would require changes to the system, and I'm not arguing for that, I'm arguing the point that, just because you can do something, if something else can be inflicted on you that you don't like, that can ruin the things you can do for you,

this is the most dumb logic ever, sorry to be so blunt. Yes, you join a settlement and you hook up with said alignment. But if you don't want to fight then you don't do that. You are a trader in the settlement and will be treated like that.

Here is another eve example, because it all resembles in a way.

In eve you have corporations, they are all part of an alliance and have their own piece of space land. There are people in those alliances who never ever see a pvp fight and are just mining, ratting etc till they quit the game. Yes, they are at risk to be attacked because of where they are, but that is part of the location, same deal in PFO.

Goblin Squad Member

Psyblade wrote:
Jameow wrote:
Not so, by taking part in building a town, you're joining that faction, you are consenting to a pvp situation. That's consensual pvp. If you want to avoid pvp you can still adventure, still craft, still do all of that, but you can't be PART of the town faction system without being part of pvp. Yes, it would require changes to the system, and I'm not arguing for that, I'm arguing the point that, just because you can do something, if something else can be inflicted on you that you don't like, that can ruin the things you can do for you,

this is the most dumb logic ever, sorry to be so blunt. Yes, you join a settlement and you hook up with said alignment. But if you don't want to fight then you don't do that. You are a trader in the settlement and will be treated like that.

Here is another eve example, because it all resembles in a way.

In eve you have corporations, they are all part of an alliance and have their own piece of space land. There are people in those alliances who never ever see a pvp fight and are just mining, ratting etc till they quit the game. Yes, they are at risk to be attacked because of where they are, but that is part of the location, same deal in PFO.

I think you're missing the point. We aren't arguing about mechanics. We are arguing about a perspective. I'm not trying to propose an alternate system. Although I can see how some could potentially work.

If non consensual pvp is the deal breaker, saying "but you can be a weapon smith and make money" is utterly irrelevant.

I can just as easily say "but YOU can kill opposing factions on a pvp server in rift, why do you need it here?" It utterly misses the point. As for "if you remove non consensual pvp, settlements are indestructible" utter nonsense.

Who do you think will be attacking and destroying settlements, random gankers in associated with a settlement, or rival alignments and settlements?

If the former, what is the POINT of there being factions or alignments?

If the latter, why do you need to allow ganking at all?

I AGREE with you that GW's vision is the most open and flexible while minimizing pointless killing. But it doesn't ELIMINATE it, and THAT is the deal breaker for the people you're saying "but you can do this or that anyway" no. They can't. That has been ruined from their perspective.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marshall Jansen wrote:


This is a little naive. PvPers will know about those contracts because the LG spy in the town will tell them over Vent/Skype. The gankers with daggers and armor won't attack you fresh on your way from the dungeon, they'll wait til you're mid-combat with all your refreshes spent and jump you then. That's the core problem with people worried about PvP when they want to PvE. PvPers don't play fair. You don't ambush people in a fair fight, you ambush them with overwhelming force.

You are absolutely right. And those gankers will become low reputation, CE characters. And they will lose access to training. And they will fall farther and further behind the power curve. And they will be trivial and have no effect on gameplay.

So yes, you absolutely run the risk of being ganked by people, but since the game is expressly designed to make that sub-optimal, and more and more difficult over time, it's very naive to to not think through the 2d and 3rd order effects of that possibility :)

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Perhaps something to consider during these discussions is that, no matter what we will not be able to eliminate jerks. It doesn't matter if it is PvP or PvE. I have been equally annoyed by jerks regardless of the mechanics of the MMO in question.

601 to 650 of 807 << first < prev | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Kickstarter Community Thread: Player vs. Player Conflict All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.