Goblin Squad Member
|
If I wanted that sort of environment I'd go back to Darkfall... actually I might try it anyway since unholy wars comes out today lolDF:UW got delayed till at least january :)
Oh well, I'll save my money xD (by spending it on just about every other game I see... Ive been really impuslive recently... not good xD)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This discussion is going nowhere.
There are a lot of poeple that say PvP = griefing, which obviously how they feel and [b]nothing(/b] anyone says will change that. These people may play their themeparks and engage in the gear treadmill (and often complain about it) but they won't change.
This is why WoW is like WoW and why so many games afterwards have been like WoW - the "normal" classic fantasy MMO player is extremely xenophobic and seeks his WoW in every new game, only to quit bored soon after.
I am very happy that the game will likely start small, avoids a whole lot of problems, and I have no doubt that it will grow nicely and make GoWo a healthy profit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
Though I'm 'down' with the whole hard core PvP vibe, I know that means that you instantly make this a very 'niche' game that has zero chance of that 'mass' appeal. That's cool and all, as long as there is a never ending source of funds available from a benefactor that has no need to recoup his investment. if that's not the case, I fear for the financial viability of an MMO that is targeted at such a niche target.
seeing as I'll be one of the 'targeted' members of this community, my fear is that the game will quickly take the 'free to play / micro transaction' route and fast start to drain the pockets of the few players that really enjoy the hard core pvp experience.
I'll wish you luck, and if you really do have that generous supplier of funds, and this actually takes off with out a 'care bare / mass appeal' version that helps it to actually make money, I look forward to seeing you in game!
of the 8 friends that I'd most likely to get to play an MMO with me, only 1 of them would even consider ever playing on a PvP server again where the possibility of being killed by another player exists. And I doubt he'd 'really' get the game - I just think he likes the theory of hard core pvp, not the reality. sigh.
Good luck though! it sounds fantastic!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You enter an area to harvest mushrooms, and the NPCS attack. I snag all the mushrooms before you get a single one. I've now wasted your time and profited from it. PvP.
I find out you're trying to make a profit in game. I spend real money on training time, sell it in game for $$$, and then massively undercut your business. PvP.
I get a spy in your organization. You find the location of a dungeon and report it to your group. My spy tells me and my group goes and hits the dungeon first. PvP.
You're busy fighting a bunch of enemies. I grab a bunch of NPCs, run by you, and then stealth, or die, or break agro. They now jump you. PvP.
Funny thing about all of those? No physical attack was made. And you can't fight me back on it. You have to take it, with no recourse. That is PvP, far worse than a physical attack.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This discussion is going nowhere.
There are a lot of poeple that say PvP = griefing, which obviously how they feel and [b]nothing(/b] anyone says will change that. These people may play their themeparks and engage in the gear treadmill (and often complain about it) but they won't change.
This is why WoW is like WoW and why so many games afterwards have been like WoW - the "normal" classic fantasy MMO player is extremely xenophobic and seeks his WoW in every new game, only to quit bored soon after.
I am very happy that the game will likely start small, avoids a whole lot of problems, and I have no doubt that it will grow nicely and make GoWo a healthy profit.
See this is what I'm talking about. Just because they don't want to pvp doesn't mean they want a WoW like Themepark. They want a sandbox, or this would hold no interest for them in the first place.
You can have a sandbox without open pvp. Yes, it would take a lot of restructuring and be quite difficult to get right, but then, so is this idea they have now.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
the "normal" classic fantasy MMO player is extremely xenophobic and seeks his WoW in every new game, only to quit bored soon after.
Did... did you just call everyone who doesn't enjoy open-world PvP racist? :p (and, for the record, it is your duty as an Imperial citizen to loathe the Xenos!)
Aaanyway, more seriously, I don't think any of us are really trying to turn PFO into another WoW clone (well, again, there might be a few. I can't speak for everyone). I suspect most of us are here because PFO isn't WoW. The sandbox element is a large part of that. The open-world PvP, not so much (you can scratch that itch in WoW, or any number of other games, so I assume that's not actually the chief draw of PFO for anyone).
But I agree that the discussion isn't really going anywhere. From my perspective, it seems that at this part we're largely down to a few people trying to explain why they don't find PvP fun, and a bunch of people going "whaaat? That makes no sense!" I don't think anyone is actively trying to lobby for Ryan & Co. to change their core design philosophy at this point, it's more like we're trying to explain why our auto-response to "non-consensual PvP!" is "urgh".
I mean, sure, non-consensual PvP might be fantastic, and it might not be. The thing is that, thanks to the non-consent part, I don't really have a say in whether it's going to work for this game. I'm not going to grief you, but I'm just one out of tens of thousands. That's the problem with free choice, people can chose to be jerks, and at this point there's no way to know if any of PFO's preventative measures are going to work or not.
I just draw some comfort from that fact that Ryan & Co. seems well aware of the pitfalls of games like EVE, and are determined to do better. I hope it works out.
Oh, and just to offer a quick comment on a topic that died out long before I woke up this morning: I don't really want to be forced to be a weapon smith any more than, I'm sure, a PvPer would enjoy having to skill up basket weaving to unlock PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Jameow & @zWolf
Not exactly the idea is not that new as there is a game called EVE that pretty much proved that this concept can work AND generate money.
Also there is a sandboxgame without any PvP, it's called 2nd life and is very successful.
However you have to ask what crowd you target with your game. 2nd life clearly does clearly not target the classic fantasy MMO crowd at all while PFO targets a small part of this crowd (at least initially).
But a PFO with only consensual "arena" PvP aka Guild Wars would run the risk that you would please no one. The PvE crowd would be bored because the expect themepark content and the PvP crowd will be bored because there is no "real" PvP only "arena" PvP that they can also experience in WoW.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Jameow & @zWolf
Not exactly the idea is not that new as there is a game called EVE that pretty much proved that this concept can work AND generate money.Also there is a sandboxgame without any PvP, it's called 2nd life and is very successful.
However you have to ask what crowd you target with your game. 2nd life clearly does clearly not target the classic fantasy MMO crowd at all while PFO targets a small part of this crowd (at least initially).
But a PFO with only consensual "arena" PvP aka Guild Wars would run the risk that you would please no one. The PvE crowd would be bored because the expect themepark content and the PvP crowd will be bored because there is no "real" PvP only "arena" PvP that they can also experience in WoW.
Who suggested arena combat? no one.
And there you go again wit hthe "PvE crowd bored because they expect themepark content.That's like saying "you just like pvp because you like to hack and make abusive statements"
then you respond with something like "No, I like pvp because I like the dynamic, intelligent challenge it offers"
And me responding with "intelligent HACKS and dynamic abuse and griefing of people!"
If people wanted to play WoW, they would still be playing WoW. But they're here. BECAUSE THIS IS SANDBOX.
Salem is also a sandbox, there IS PVP, but it's difficult to get, you actually have to unlock it. Yet Salem has all the city building, in fact that is the PURPOSE of the game.
SWG had factional PVP rather than "open", and was a very popular and very successful Sandbox (until they tried to make it like WoW)
Minecraft is a very popular non pvp, indie sandbox.
None of these are Themeparks and none of them have "open world pvp"
Darkfall is a PvP sandbox, so there is already a pvp sandbox for the fantasy genre (granted that particular sandbox is a little scant on sand )
Even Planetside 2 is planning some sandboxy type content in the future, and you don't get much more PvP than a shooter.
Misrepresenting other people is not cool.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
Though I'm 'down' with the whole hard core PvP vibe, I know that means that you instantly make this a very 'niche' game that has zero chance of that 'mass' appeal. That's cool and all, as long as there is a never ending source of funds available from a benefactor that has no need to recoup his investment. if that's not the case, I fear for the financial viability of an MMO that is targeted at such a niche target.
seeing as I'll be one of the 'targeted' members of this community, my fear is that the game will quickly take the 'free to play / micro transaction' route and fast start to drain the pockets of the few players that really enjoy the hard core pvp experience.
I'll wish you luck, and if you really do have that generous supplier of funds, and this actually takes off with out a 'care bare / mass appeal' version that helps it to actually make money, I look forward to seeing you in game!
of the 8 friends that I'd most likely to get to play an MMO with me, only 1 of them would even consider ever playing on a PvP server again where the possibility of being killed by another player exists. And I doubt he'd 'really' get the game - I just think he likes the theory of hard core pvp, not the reality. sigh.
Good luck though! it sounds fantastic!
I've got to say, if something is worth doing, then strong attitudes to the contrary of it being possible, make it more rewarding to successfully achieve!
Sure the path is hard, but that's what I like about PfO compared to most other mmorpgs that have been announced in the last few years. Something to really get excited about as opposed to hyped about.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Salem
SWG
Minecraft
First, have you played salem and have first hand knowledge? I did some digging, couldn't really find anything, but everything I saw indicated Open PvP, you had to get up to a certian point to commit murder, but their boards have the same PvE requests as this one.
Minecraft isn't an MMO, and it is open PvP, you may not be able to attack each-other directly if the server has PvP disabled, but there are many more ways to kill someone.
SWG was failing well before the NGE, The Combat Upgrade(the one they actually told people about) had the biggest drop in population, and it was a patch that dumbed down PvP. And it had an overcrowding problem with free building placement.
The people that want a PvE sandbox have unrealistic expectations, they want the complexity that PFO will have, without the risk of Open PvP. They want to take oil, and mix it with water. They want to run a city without PvP, but they don't want the enormous upkeep price that keeps everyone from owning a city. They want a personal house, but they don't want to deal with over crowding of houses in the world. They want there to be epic gear, but then they complain when everyone has the same thing. They want a staff of CSR's online 24/7 to come and punish anyone who 'PvE griefs' them, but they don't want Open PvP to take matters into their own hands.
PFO will be widely unpopular when it launches, it is up to the crowd-forgers to create a healthy environment. I don't want to see a ton of 'on the fence' players early on, because I don't feel the game will be ready for them, and they will have bad PvP experiences, and then their group of 10 on the fence friends that haven't played won't come to the game.
If PFO goes out the way it has planned, I can see the game constantly growing. I'm sure the goal of many crowdforgers, and GW, is to create a game that PvE players can also enjoy. If anything, PFO is the game that is going to convert a lot of people to this style of play.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Salem
SWG
MinecraftFirst, have you played salem and have first hand knowledge? I did some digging, couldn't really find anything, but everything I saw indicated Open PvP, you had to get up to a certian point to commit murder, but their boards have the same PvE requests as this one.
Minecraft isn't an MMO, and it is open PvP, you may not be able to attack each-other directly if the server has PvP disabled, but there are many more ways to kill someone.
SWG was failing well before the NGE, The Combat Upgrade(the one they actually told people about) had the biggest drop in population, and it was a patch that dumbed down PvP. And it had an overcrowding problem with free building placement.
The people that want a PvE sandbox have unrealistic expectations, they want the complexity that PFO will have, without the risk of Open PvP. They want to take oil, and mix it with water. They want to run a city without PvP, but they don't want the enormous upkeep price that keeps everyone from owning a city. They want a personal house, but they don't want to deal with over crowding of houses in the world. They want there to be epic gear, but then they complain when everyone has the same thing. They want a staff of CSR's online 24/7 to come and punish anyone who 'PvE griefs' them, but they don't want Open PvP to take matters into their own hands.
PFO will be widely unpopular when it launches, it is up to the crowd-forgers to create a healthy environment. I don't want to see a ton of 'on the fence' players early on, because I don't feel the game will be ready for them, and they will have bad PvP experiences, and then their group of 10 on the fence friends that haven't played won't come to the game.
If PFO goes out the way it has planned, I can see the game constantly growing. I'm sure the goal of many crowdforgers, and GW, is to create a game that PvE players can also enjoy. If anything, PFO is the game that is going to convert a lot of people to this style of play.
As I said, in salem there IS PVP, but it's difficult to get, yes I have played it, you have to get a skill to murder people. It's not THAT easy to get.
Yes, it is a lot HARDER to make a decent sandbox mmo without open PvP, it's complicated.
I never said Minecraft was a MMO, I said it was a sandbox. Yes you can make a PVP server. That isn't non consensual.
Factional PVP is the way to go for non open world PvP in a sandbox. Yes, there are issues to overcome with it, there has to be some way to regulate non factional players in factional areas.
As for all the best gear... no... it was the fancy new gear based system that killed much of the interest in UO. (they had already done away with non consensual PVP) I thought the new gear system had some potential that it didn't live up to.
The failing of SWG for me was that the combat was incredibly dull. You could queue your attacks up, and that's exactly what I did, I'd queue up a bunch of attacks and heals, then I'd wander off, make a cup of tea and come back to see how the fight was going. It made everything feel the same. But the player run economy, the interdependence of players for a functional society, these were very strong aspects of it, and it didn't take PVP to make it, even when you joined a faction, you could hide your flag.
Yeah if PFO's system WORKS it might bring more people over to the "PvP isn't so bad" camp. I used to hate PVP, I moved to Trammel on UO as soon as it opened and spent probably a cumulative 3 hours on the PVP facet over the next 5 years or so.
Yet I generally join RP-PVP servers in newer games, because when you run out of things to do, there's always PVP. But I'm bored long before I get to that point. TERA is the only one that held my interest for an extended period, because the combat and prettiness made it fun. But it got old very suddenly and had no redeeming features.
Darkfall still has the most potential, but since it's geared towards PVP, a bit Meh. Getting killed in that isn't exciting, just tedious. Plus it looks like they've gone class based. Boring. But the PvE in that I actually really enjoyed.
A game can not afford to be unpopular on launch. That's what kills them. They get a reputation as a failed game and then they get nowhere. Darkfall and Vanguard both had two launches to try and boost sales. Neither succeeded, because their reputations were already shot.
I'm so sad Wish was never made, I was in the beta for that and it was awesome.
EDIT: Removed smarmy paragraph about pvpers on other forums always complaining. Not helpful thing to say.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For something that doesn't unravel the idea I'd still like a firmly neutral faction in the game that had protection wherever they went. They'd have to have very limited access to a number of the other systems in the game and be able to visit rather than build and own settlements. But I think it would be a nice way to let people explore the game world even if they hate PvP. I wouldn't suggest such a thing be implemented until well into the game going live though, the initial vision of the game needs more 'active' participants through the beta and other early stages. Designed correctly however I can't see how such a thing can't sit alongside the current structure of the game.
This would be good to see, but player-created: "diplomatic immunity" - and this verbal contract formalized by players for the greater good of the game. Stuff like this is what really excites me about PfO - the possibilities. As to choosing, I think it should be earnt by people who do not want pvp and want such a condition. That would keep them honest and also a modicum of respect that they wish to be left to pve and negotiate with different kingdoms as "Neutrals" during a time of war, their interest to pve in their lands etc. As said, it's very interesting to see what can be achieved, given the freedom for players to exercise.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The people that want a PvE sandbox have unrealistic expectations, they want the complexity that PFO will have, without the risk of Open PvP.
A good PvE sandbox game might be a pipe dream, but so is the dream of non-consensual PvP that doesn't suck. :p
You seem to believe strongly in the latter. Why is it so weird that some of us think the former is, at least theoretically, feasible as well? I don't think it's any more or less unrealistic than what PFO is trying to pull off. Just different.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd be very interested to see better, more accurate figures, not just for RIFT, but for the PVE Themepark market as a whole. To the best of my understanding, WoW is doing well, and nobody else is.I appreciate your response, although we differ in our understanding of the facts of the case. For example, to the best of my understanding RIFT is a tiny game that's dying.
From my point of view as a Rift player, I can see that the game's population is growing.
The graph you linked is from MMO Data. They haven't updated their Rift estimates since Feb 2012.
- Added subscription / active account datapoints for WoW, EVE, SWTOR, WoW East and WoW West, Rift, LOTRO, Aion, SWG.
- Downgraded Rift accuracy rating from B to C.Here's what the site ways about its C accuracy rating:
C rating – Some of the datapoints may come from official or other reliable sources, many of the datapoints come from estimates, third party sources, unclear official sources or other indirect information.Last January was the low point in population for the game, for reasons I can expand on if you ask, but the population has been rising since February, except for a dip when GW2 came out.
Looks like Rift is NOT doing so well afterall:
Rift MMO hit hard by layoffs at Trion
As much as one-third of the development team working on MMO Rift at Trion Worlds was let go on Tuesday, Gamasutra has learned.
An affected source tells us that the number of developers out of work today -- developers spanning several disciplines, including artists and designers -- numbers somewhere in the neighborhood of 40.
The company confirmed that there were layoffs today "in response to market conditions, product timelines and the natural evolution of our company," though refused to confirm either the number affected or whether it was the Rift team specifically.
The first expansion pack for Rift launched just last month. Trion does not share its subscriber numbers (or the sales of expansions such as this), but it may be worth noting that the expansion became accessible for free just one month later as part of a promotion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd be very interested to see better, more accurate figures, not just for RIFT, but for the PVE Themepark market as a whole. To the best of my understanding, WoW is doing well, and nobody else is.I appreciate your response, although we differ in our understanding of the facts of the case. For example, to the best of my understanding RIFT is a tiny game that's dying.
From my point of view as a Rift player, I can see that the game's population is growing.
The graph you linked is from MMO Data. They haven't updated their Rift estimates since Feb 2012.
- Added subscription / active account datapoints for WoW, EVE, SWTOR, WoW East and WoW West, Rift, LOTRO, Aion, SWG.
- Downgraded Rift accuracy rating from B to C.Here's what the site ways about its C accuracy rating:
C rating – Some of the datapoints may come from official or other reliable sources, many of the datapoints come from estimates, third party sources, unclear official sources or other indirect information.Last January was the low point in population for the game, for reasons I can expand on if you ask, but the population has been rising since February, except for a dip when GW2 came out.Looks like Rift is NOT doing so well afterall:
Rift MMO hit hard by layoffs at Trion
...As much as one-third of the development team working on MMO Rift at Trion Worlds was let go on Tuesday, Gamasutra has learned.
An affected source tells us that the number of developers out of work today -- developers spanning several disciplines, including artists and designers -- numbers somewhere in the neighborhood of 40.
The company confirmed that there
They delayed End of Nations too (refunded my purchase even)... Trion apparently is not having a good year.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Who suggested arena combat? no one.
And there you go again wit hthe "PvE crowd bored because they expect themepark content.That's like saying "you just like pvp because you like to hack and make abusive statements"...
From
"PvP is only fair and good if I can only do it when I am totally ready for it"to
"the other side had more peeps, thats unfair"
it is only a very very small step, which is likely the reason why the PvP in classic fantasy MMOs is mostly arenas.
Also please point me to a classic fantasy MMO that is PvE only and not themepark (this is not me being cynical , as I really know none).
For something that doesn't unravel the idea I'd still like a firmly neutral faction in the game that had protection wherever they went. They'd have to have very limited access to a number of the other systems in the game and be able to visit rather than build and own settlements. But I think it would be a nice way to let people explore the game world even if they hate PvP. I wouldn't suggest such a thing be implemented until well into the game going live though, the initial vision of the game needs more 'active' participants through the beta and other early stages. Designed correctly however I can't see how such a thing can't sit alongside the current structure of the game.This would be good to see, but player-created: "diplomatic immunity" - and this verbal contract formalized by players for the greater good of the game. Stuff like this is what really excites me about PfO - the possibilities. As to choosing, I think it should be earnt by people who do not want pvp and want such a condition. That would keep them honest and also a modicum of respect that they wish to be left to pve and negotiate with different kingdoms as "Neutrals" during a time of war, their interest to pve in their lands etc. As said, it's very interesting to see what can be achieved, given the freedom for players to exercise.
I'd love to see such an option and would definitely pursue it if it were in-game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For something that doesn't unravel the idea I'd still like a firmly neutral faction in the game that had protection wherever they went. They'd have to have very limited access to a number of the other systems in the game and be able to visit rather than build and own settlements. But I think it would be a nice way to let people explore the game world even if they hate PvP. I wouldn't suggest such a thing be implemented until well into the game going live though, the initial vision of the game needs more 'active' participants through the beta and other early stages. Designed correctly however I can't see how such a thing can't sit alongside the current structure of the game.This would be good to see, but player-created: "diplomatic immunity" - and this verbal contract formalized by players for the greater good of the game. Stuff like this is what really excites me about PfO - the possibilities. As to choosing, I think it should be earnt by people who do not want pvp and want such a condition. That would keep them honest and also a modicum of respect that they wish to be left to pve and negotiate with different kingdoms as "Neutrals" during a time of war, their interest to pve in their lands etc. As said, it's very interesting to see what can be achieved, given the freedom for players to exercise.I'd love to see such an option and would definitely pursue it if it were in-game.
it will be ingame, it is called, player reputation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Being "a neutral" would likely need to be a lengthy process (not simply switch on and off) and imply that you can never be a member of a guild and thus never build your own shop/house within a guilds settlement.
I think this is a severe limitation and would lead to a lot of frustration because it would signal that this game can be played as a PvE only game when it just isn't fact really.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Who suggested arena combat? no one.
And there you go again wit hthe "PvE crowd bored because they expect themepark content.That's like saying "you just like pvp because you like to hack and make abusive statements"...
From
"PvP is only fair and good if I can only do it when I am totally ready for it"to
"the other side had more peeps, thats unfair"
it is only a very very small step, which is likely the reason why the PvP in classic fantasy MMOs is mostly arenas.
Also please point me to a classic fantasy MMO that is PvE only and not themepark (this is not me being cynical , as I really know none).
No non consensual pvp. Not no PVP. There is a difference.
I don't know of any PvE Fantasy only sandbox MMOs. There aren't even that many sandboxes, and yes, the majority of them are PvP centric, OR crafting centric.
Edit: LinkRealms seems mostly PvE, but I don't know for sure, and I'm not sure exactly HOW sandboxy it is. That's just my impression, it feels like UO though, so sandbox to the same degree probably.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
it will be ingame, it is called, player reputation.For something that doesn't unravel the idea I'd still like a firmly neutral faction in the game that had protection wherever they went. They'd have to have very limited access to a number of the other systems in the game and be able to visit rather than build and own settlements. But I think it would be a nice way to let people explore the game world even if they hate PvP. I wouldn't suggest such a thing be implemented until well into the game going live though, the initial vision of the game needs more 'active' participants through the beta and other early stages. Designed correctly however I can't see how such a thing can't sit alongside the current structure of the game.This would be good to see, but player-created: "diplomatic immunity" - and this verbal contract formalized by players for the greater good of the game. Stuff like this is what really excites me about PfO - the possibilities. As to choosing, I think it should be earnt by people who do not want pvp and want such a condition. That would keep them honest and also a modicum of respect that they wish to be left to pve and negotiate with different kingdoms as "Neutrals" during a time of war, their interest to pve in their lands etc. As said, it's very interesting to see what can be achieved, given the freedom for players to exercise.I'd love to see such an option and would definitely pursue it if it were in-game.
I keep forgetting about reputation. But I think the above could be "meta" to such in-built systems. For example, players could campaign and fund-raise for a "bounty fund" so that players who are decreed such "immunity" to enjoy the game (perhaps paying a small tiff to the kingdoms they adventure in, eg homage to the rulers etc "Have some mead and sing me a song! (and pay me 1/6 of your earnings)" ;)) if molested by gankers, could be given reserves of cash from this fund to bounty such transgressors indefinitely; though they'd do well to hire a few guards of the kingdom for such work would also be prudent. So this way such a fund could be player-driven on top of the reputation system? Again a lot of canvassing would be required to get kingdoms on board, but that's taking the game to the next level...
Being "a neutral" would likely need to be a lengthy process (not simply switch on and off) and imply that you can never be a member of a guild and thus never build your own shop/house within a guilds settlement.
I think this is a severe limitation and would lead to a lot of frustration because it would signal that this game can be played as a PvE only game when it just isn't fact really.
As above, there would be the reputation, real alignment system referring you to neutral for in-game mechanics, but I don't see why players could not add a meta on top of that that is purely player-driven and player-promoted? Sure it'd take some "work" to set up, but the possibility seems open and productive eg "Adventurers just want to PvE". Of course, such an honorary title might be only available in limited numbers as a condition, to regulate this in a manageable way. It's boiling down to the will and self-organisation of the community to aid what the game can provide.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Really not wanting to plit hairs, but PvP has never been the problem if it can only happen with your consent (i.e. you can fully ignore it).
About sandbox:
If you think about it, then Minecraft is not really a sandbox game in the sense that PFO/EVE is/will be.
How many players would still play Minecraft if there would have been no additions since release?
I say not a lot because the game itself becomes shallow fast if no new features are added regularily - exactly the core problem of a themepark.
Minecraft is missing the struggle that MUST be present in true sandbox games. The risk of loosing what you've build (aka the giant creeper) that drives you to action again and again.
Now you could say that this threat could be PvE as well but I say this is not possible. Why? Well, because you can't really engage a PvE threat like you can a PvP threat. You can't be diplomatic, you can't spy/turn traitor, you can't do all these things which make the game interesting in the long run.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Really not wanting to plit hairs, but PvP has never been the problem if it can only happen with your consent (i.e. you can fully ignore it).
About sandbox:
If you think about it, then Minecraft is not really a sandbox game in the sense that PFO/EVE is/will be.How many players would still play Minecraft if there would have been no additions since release?
I say not a lot because the game itself becomes shallow fast if no new features are added regularily - exactly the core problem of a themepark.
Minecraft is missing the struggle that MUST be present in true sandbox games. The risk of loosing what you've build (aka the giant creeper) that drives you to action again and again.
Now you could say that this threat could be PvE as well but I say this is not possible. Why? Well, because you can't really engage a PvE threat like you can a PvP threat. You can't be diplomatic, you can't spy/turn traitor, you can't do all these things which make the game interesting in the long run.
So you expect no new content in game?
Do you expect the dungeons and monsters not to be an important part of the game? Would you prefer it if they removed them and replaced them with resource control points and made EVERYTHING in world PVP? would that improve the experience for you?
EVERY Online game adds new content. What about the PVP makes it more interesting? The destroying cities over and over again? The killing people over and over again? The fact that this guild wears blue instead of green, like the last one you went to war with?
What you are describing, isn;t dramatically different from Planetside 2... as things that make it endure.
Thinking about it, UO is classified as sandbox and the majority of it's content is PvE and PVP is entirely optional now. Yes, they add new content, but it's not a themepark. Unless you think themepark is "anything not directly controlled by the players"
Or you could just play Darkfall, which is focused on the PVP aspect, has the town control and all of that. What makes Pathfinder special to you? It isn't the fact it has open world PvP. You can get that in lots of places.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think Micman, what people are opposed to without actually spelling it out is the extreme versions of pvp: FFA-pvp and Full-loot pvp leading to a PvP game with sides of pve, crafting.
- FULL FREE-FOR-ALL PvP - no escape whatsoever -> High-risk low reward world map everywhere you go: Big pvp guilds stomp everyone, no down-time from "stress".
- Exaggerated by high power/stat differences between characters -> Unfair combat 100% of the time.
- Full looting -> The Elite become more wealthy and better equipped
- New players can never catch-up with the above power curve
- PvP becomes the superset that eats all the other sets in game which limits options for players who don't want to pvp or want an interesting game
- pvp players drive out the other types of players
All the above has been discussed and considered as antithetical to Pathfinder Online: There are games that already serve that small niche better than PfO is aimed to. So instead of potential players seeing "players as meaningful content" they see the above. I guess that's what GW's needs to do to convince players of the benefits of: Instead of another fedex kill ten rats quest, you can actually take a contract to be a politician, bandit, bounty-hunter, trader, transporter etc... but those require other players to interact with either cooperatively via the pen or in conflict via the sword.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think Micman, what people are opposed to without actually spelling it out is the extreme versions of pvp: FFA-pvp and Full-loot pvp leading to a PvP game with sides of pve, crafting.
- FULL FREE-FOR-ALL PvP - no escape whatsoever -> High-risk low reward world map everywhere you go: Big pvp guilds stomp everyone, no down-time from "stress".
- Exaggerated by high power/stat differences between characters -> Unfair combat 100% of the time.
- Full looting -> The Elite become more wealthy and better equipped
- New players can never catch-up with the above power curve
- PvP becomes the superset that eats all the other sets in game which limits options for players who don't want to pvp or want an interesting game
- pvp players drive out the other types of players
All the above has been discussed and considered as antithetical to Pathfinder Online: There are games that already serve that small niche better than PfO is aimed to. So instead of potential players seeing "players as meaningful content" they see the above. I guess that's what GW's needs to do to convince players of the benefits of: Instead of another fedex kill ten rats quest, you can actually take a contract to be a politician, bandit, bounty-hunter, trader, transporter etc... but those require other players to interact with either cooperatively via the pen or in conflict via the sword.
Eve Online has all of that and it's still growing, just sayin'
In fact it released a new update for the game this week with an overhaul for certain aspects of the game (bounty system, empire wars and faction warfare). In this game there is a good chunk of players who never see PvP because they are in hi-sec trading, crafting or never get attacked.
Also, a new player in eve online can get into pvp within a week of training (if he knows what he is doing and has some advice). The wealthy and elite are there to stay (but that is because of the fact that they can make billions per week due to controlling systems (a hex in GW terms)). And they are willing to throw it all in the fight to defend it (25b isk loss for a super carrier, happens at least 1 or 2 a week if not more often).
Also in Eve, the players are making the game, not the devs who are handing out raid content all the time or updating arena's etc. This is why GW is going for the Sandbox route, they don't have the manpower to keep rolling out PvE content every 3 or 4 months. Thus a sandbox will give them the flexibility to put down the foundation and then expand it with more hexes over time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Stuff
I understand the possibility of players showing up and ruining your day is unpleasant.
I'm sure this will happen in any game with open PvP.My point, though, is two-fold:
1)At least it will have meaning (RP), and there will be recourse to take (more RP);
2)In the case of PFO you can't seperate the mechanics aspect from the discussion. They are integral to it, and a big reason why open PvP in PFO should be given a fair shake, other than assume past PvP experiences will be repeated.
That's all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@All There is a lot of noise in here (34 posts since I went to bed!). Some people are/were indeed asking for a PvE server, asking why there had to be PvP, etc. They have been answered at length.
Jameow is simply trying to explain the reason why some people are so turned off by getting killed in PvP: They don't want their activities interrupted by another person doing something that they did not predict. Jameow understands that many of us enjoy that aspect of danger and unpredictability, but many of those posting do not.
Your responses are correct, if a bit heavy-handed (I feel you): With a simple change in mindfulness and expectations, those people can probably have a great time in PFO, since PFO won't be a 'gankfest' at its core. If those people wish, they can also adventure in a 'safe area' where there is very little chance of coming across a hostile player, regardless of how mindful they are being.
But it's really hard for somebody completely new to what PFO is to take all that from a few days' worth of posts by players and devs and to be OK with that. Here is the post Jameow made that really spelled it out:
Post here
I think that the best counter to the argument of 'my day will be ruined by some player in PvP' is what I posted here.
"Your day can more easily be ruined by some player in PvE when there is no PvP." There is no avenue for recourse, there is no punishment for the griefer.
By clearly explaining the similar situation of griefing in a PvE-only environment, we can explain how a limited-PvP system can minimize both Random Player Killing as well as cut down on the total amount of griefing. We can also help new players feel comfortable by explaining (preferably quoting) the explicit and staunch support of the developers to this end, to the point that they will not hesitate to ban griefers.
For something that doesn't unravel the idea I'd still like a firmly neutral faction in the game that had protection wherever they went. They'd have to have very limited access to a number of the other systems in the game and be able to visit rather than build and own settlements. But I think it would be a nice way to let people explore the game world even if they hate PvP. I wouldn't suggest such a thing be implemented until well into the game going live though, the initial vision of the game needs more 'active' participants through the beta and other early stages. Designed correctly however I can't see how such a thing can't sit alongside the current structure of the game
There may be ways to severely limit non-PvP players mechanically, but it is somewhat disingenuous to say 'yeah, you can opt out of PvP' but gate those players from most of the game (which would be necessary given the design of PFO).
Actually, GWs vision already does this: You CAN avoid PvP completely by being a crafter (not adventuring/exploring/merchanting). You CAN avoid PvP completely by adventuring only in those hexes next to the NPC settlements (maybe be killed six times a year). The reason why the devs are avoiding saying 'you can avoid PvP' is because that would be disingenuous to say in an adventure-based IP, as the people playing that way are also 'avoiding' most of the game.
Putting in a mechanic to 'turn off' non-consensual PvP but that also balances it such that the basic premise of the game isn't broken achieves the same end. 'Factional PvP only,' even for just a small set of players, is not possible in a sandbox as complex as PFO.
Despite that, I predict that there will be at least one settlement that declares 'neutrality,' and that other player groups will pledge to defend that 'Switzerland' if anybody breaches that neutrality. I have made a few posts in this thread (and other threads of the topic of PvP or griefing) on this topic, my most recent post being the one on the previous page, last paragraph.
EDIT: And I cannot stress enough, those that are on the fence, please, don't take my word for it, though I hope the fact that I love PvP and am now probably going to opt out of adventuring and PvP in favor of crafting and merchanting (because PvP won't be as free as I'd like, mostly relegated to the consensual sort) carries some weight...
There are numerous posts in this thread of people that detest getting killed by other players, but believe that PFO will be a happy home for themselves and their friends. These people have done extensive research on the subject, and have overcome their gut reaction with the well-developed, compelling base of evidence that PvP in PFO is not 'open FFA PvP' and will not be like anything we have yet seen.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So you expect no new content in game?
The difference is that in Minecraft/themeparks when there is no new content, you effectively have nothing much to do.
In games with ncPvP you have to defend your stuff and look that your agressive neighbour will not become stronger than you.
Of course will PFO have PvE content and thus new content will come out regularily, it's just that if there would be a year without new content the game would very likely not be called "dead".
I think we can all understand that there is a difference.
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 :)
You say this, but I still don't understand how it is possible in a game with meaningful interaction. If I attack your caravan to loot it, because I was told about the guard contract over skype by my LG friend, and that action causes me to quickly become CE and irrelevant, then there will soon be NO GUARD CONTRACTS! Because there's no need to guard things if all the people that might take your crap are trivial, with no effect on gameplay. There has to be a viable threat to people coming out of a long dungeon or hauling loot long distances. If there is no viable PLAYER threat to these actions is a de facto PvE game. This is my disconnect, and why I'm not able to grasp *HOW* GoblinWorks is going to pull this off. If a bandit assault on your dungeon group or caravan is the core content, then those bandits are either going to be effective (ganking happens) or not (no one plays bandits, all threats are PvE). I want to see how this works out, because I honestly can't figure it out on my own.
Now, some people will say an organized bandit group that assaults caravans and fights fair won't be 'ganking' or move all the way to CE. However, at that point we're splitting hairs on terminology. Some people will see *any* PvP component that hurts them as 'ganking/griefing' where others will only call it that if there is spawn camping on no profit to be had.
Anyway, I can't see how we're each others content AND everyone that is the aggressor becomes trivialized. It doesn't compute.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Marshall Jansen,
You're right in your analysis, but I think there's an angle you're not considering.
There will be Bandits who make the occasional score by attacking a Trade Caravan. They will face consequences in that those characters will gradually move towards Chaotic, and suffer all the penalties of that. But they'll generally be okay with that. And this is the kind of content we expect and want.
What we don't want is someone who just hangs around the edge of the wilderness killing everyone who wanders near. There are a host of mechanics to prevent this. First, game mechanics will make it difficult to reach the pinnacle of power doing that. Second, the devs will freely ban griefers according to their own subjective judgment, meaning that even if someone did build themselves up to that pinnacle of power before going on a griefing spree, they wouldn't last long and then they'd have a character they'd invested two and a half years in ripped away in a flash.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You say this, but I still don't understand how it is possible in a game with meaningful interaction. If I attack your caravan to loot it, because I was told about the guard contract over skype by my LG friend, and that action causes me to quickly become CE and irrelevant, then there will soon be NO GUARD CONTRACTS! Because there's no need to guard things if all the people that might take your crap are trivial, with no effect on gameplay. There has to be a viable threat to people coming out of a long dungeon or hauling loot long distances. If there is no viable PLAYER threat to these actions is a de facto PvE game. This is my disconnect, and why I'm not able to grasp *HOW* GoblinWorks is going to pull this off. If a bandit assault on your dungeon group or caravan is the core content, then those bandits are either going to be effective (ganking happens) or not (no one plays bandits, all threats are PvE). I want to see how this works out, because I honestly can't...
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 :)
Short answer: Trade caravan interdiction will largely be a function of war :)
The devs have always (since almost a year ago) had a strong stance against griefing. This is what drove all the 'hardcore, open FFA PvPers' out of the community.
The recent mechanics that the devs have unveiled deal out punishing consequences for Random Player Killing. This leads me to believe that the vision for PvP in PFO is not 'the wild, wild west (without griefing),' which is what I would prefer.
PvP in PFO will overwhelmingly happen as a wartime mechanic, not as a choice that an individual will make whenever they meet another character.
Players that want to act as bandits will flock to settlements that have many declared wars, to maximize their choices of targets for ambushes.
I believe that there will be relatively peaceful settlements that will try to avoid warfare as much as possible, maybe even never declaring war. They will instruct their members not to trade with warring factions so that neither side has a reason to declare war on them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To be completely honest, I don't feel we have a ton of information on how wars will be declared at the moment. Maybe once two settlements are at war, any players in the opposing settlements can be attacked, regardless of whether or not they are affiliated with that settlement or not. Kind of like the USA in WWII trying to provide arms but stay out of the war... merchant ships still got torpedoed by German U-boats. In the end, it doesn't really matter, because then all people have to do to avoid wartimePvP is avoid joining a settlement at war and avoid venturing to hexes of settlements at war.
EDIT: And I believe Nihimon is correct, the only way a CE player might be able to keep up with players of any other alignment is to organize with others in order to ambush rich trading caravans.
If you are moving a large portion of goods, expect some player-built hideouts along your route, with some of those hideouts containing players waiting for you to travel by. Hire a contingent of guards for a fraction of the profits you expect to make. Or, simply make a buy order for the items you want where you want for the price you want, and see if the price you set entices anybody to take all the risk upon themselves. Also, to avoid most of the risk, a merchant could choose to travel along only the safest routes. These will likely be short hops between LG settlements on roads which the members of these settlements constantly patrol, bringing along characters capable of discovering and destroying hidden hideouts.
CE players will not be able to keep up by killing players walking down the road. Even if they are transporting a few valuables, the CE player
A: Doesn't know what is in your inventory.
B: Doesn't have a very good chance of getting the valuables when they try to loot you.
It doesn't make economic sense for a player to go around killing randoms. That penalties for that sort of behavior will ruin their game experience in time.
@Nihimon, in that case I need to get an understanding of how war will be declared. Will WarDecs be one-sided, or must both sides agree? If both sides must agree to a WarDec, then they'll be putting themselves into PvE mode... I don't foresee that happening. Limits on WarDecs may make sense, but even then I'm sure groups will declare war just for the ganking privileges that come with it. That will be an important update when it comes out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Will WarDecs be one-sided, or must both sides agree?
Both sides must agree.
From Goblinworks Blog: Signed... in Blood:
Letters of Marque
When two entities (characters, Companies, Settlements or Kingdoms) both set their relationship standing to "Hostile", a state of war will exist between them. Killing someone you are at war with (or burning down their Inn) is not a criminal act. It probably won't have alignment implications either.
Both sides have to agree however, because otherwise you'll have a situation where people are being targeted for wars against their will, and they'll lose the value of the safety of the security system - thus negating a lot of its value.
Wars are a "big deal", and we'll probably have to have several blogs to talk about things like how long you have to wait before a war goes into effect or can be cancelled, how it affects allies, how it affects reputation, etc.
But "War" is effectively the mechanical expression of the letter of marque idea. Except you can't grief someone with it.
My question is how do caravan/mining site attackers avoid getting chaos/evil points from attacking mercs allies of the caravan/mining site?
What makes you think they will/should?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Marshall: That is a very good question. There is a discussions already taking place about it. We (and the devs) welcome your contribution to that discussion, which has the overall goal of limiting griefing. For anybody that is interested, here is the link:
A Serious Discussion of Alignment & PVP Starting with the first post, continuing through to discussion of a 'casus belli' system.
@avari3 Well, assuming that the caravan/mining site attackers are already at war with the caravan/mining site owners.
When the merc allies of the owners sign up to defend them, they would need to declare war against the owners' enemies. If they didn't, when the attackers come they would shift alliance for attacking a party neutral to them.
It falls upon the mercs to make sure that they can defend the caravan/mining site. There is no real reason why the attackers must attack some mercs standing around looking tough
EDIT: NIHIMON'D!
In that case, I'm curious how they are going to deal with a settlement that refuses to go to war, that is occupying a hex another settlement wishes to gain control over.
It would really make it easier if one-sided declarations with some of the limits that we were discussing were possible.
I'm interested to see what GW comes up with for this.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Two nations are at war.
Nation A caravans supplies to an outpost.
Nation B attacks the caravan.
Nation A has mercs who are not at war with nation B in the caravan
Nation B gets chaos/evil points for attacking a caravan they are at war with because they attacked some mercs who are not at war.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@avari3 Well, assuming that the caravan/mining site attackers are already at war with the caravan/mining site owners.
When the merc allies of the owners sign up to defend them, they would need to declare war against the owners' enemies. If they didn't, when the attackers come they would shift alliance for attacking a party neutral to them.
It falls upon the mercs to make sure that they can defend the caravan/mining site. There is no real reason why the attackers must attack some mercs standing around looking tough
The mercs can stay neutral on purpose to purposefully give evil/chaos points to attackers. Attackers would be in trouble on any AoE attack. Mecrs would not accrue chaos/evil points because they are defending themselves.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nation B gets chaos/evil points for attacking a caravan they are at war with because they attacked some mercs who are not at war.
Okay, I understand your hypothetical now.
I would think that characters working in service of a Contract for a Nation you're at war against should be valid targets without suffering Reputation/Alignment penalties.
If that's not sufficient, I think there needs to be a way to declare a Blockade and have the legal right to attack Traders trying to run it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nation B does not attack the neutral mercs, only taking stuff directly owned by nation A.
If Nation B wants to stop all supplies coming into Nation A's outpost, Nation B declares war on the merc allies of Nation A.
The only issue is if war declarations are still intended to be two-sided only...
One solution would be that once war is declared, any characters in a warring hex are fair game to any characters that are at war with the settlement in that hex.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One solution would be that once war is declared, any characters in a warring hex are fair game to any characters that are at war with the settlement in that hex.
I think that's a much simpler and more elegant solution than my Blockade suggestion. In essence, if Nation A is at war with Nation B, then everyone in their hexes is subject to attack by the other.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You say this, but I still don't understand how it is possible in a game with meaningful interaction. If I attack your caravan to loot it, because I was told about the guard contract over skype by my LG friend, and that action causes me to quickly become CE and irrelevant, then there will soon be NO GUARD CONTRACTS! Because there's no need to guard things if all the people that might take your crap are trivial, with no effect on gameplay. There has to be a viable threat to people coming out of a long dungeon or hauling loot long distances. If there is no viable PLAYER threat to these actions is a de facto PvE game. This is my disconnect, and why I'm not able to grasp *HOW* GoblinWorks is going to pull this off. If a bandit assault on your dungeon group or caravan is the core content, then those bandits are either going to be effective (ganking happens) or not (no one plays bandits, all threats are PvE). I want to see how this works out, because I honestly can't...
Based on the game design they've articulated, the same way it works in real life: social behavior is marginally more effective than anti-social behavior.
Robbing banks is generally a bad long term strategy. It has a low success rate, and a very high risk to reward ratio. But because the reward is high enough (to some people), there are bank robberies.
It's really not that hard.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nation B does not attack the neutral mercs, only taking stuff directly owned by nation A.
If Nation B wants to stop all supplies coming into Nation A's outpost, Nation B declares war on the merc allies of Nation A.
The only issue is if war declarations are still intended to be two-sided only...
One solution would be that once war is declared, any characters in a warring hex are fair game to any characters that are at war with the settlement in that hex.
well if it's two sided, that makes war PvP pretty difficult.
If it's one sided whats to keep ganker guilds from just declaring war on everybody?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's all speculation that this point but what about this...
Nation A Caravan has unaligned mercs escorting.
Nation B attacks the beligerents of the caravan whom they are at war with, but not the mercs to start.
Mercs retaliate and get flagged (and THEY get the evil points for not being at war with Nation B.
Another option,
Caravan is unaligned but supplying Nation A.
Nation B can declare war (if the caravan is from a nation) on them, or send diplomat characters to work out a solution. (Imagine that!) LOL
In the former case, should they choose to just attack without war declaration, they're technically attacking a non-aggressive group and thus deserve negative rep and alignment. If the caravan people aren't directly attacking you, you don't really have cause to attack them if you're purporting yourself to be "good".
OOG Note: Wouldn't it be cool if real life nations had to both agree to war? LOL. "I'm sorry, Mr. Hitler, you cannot attack Poland because they don't agree to your war. Please return to your bunker and try again."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
well if it's two sided, that makes war PvP pretty difficult.
If it's one sided whats to keep ganker guilds from just declaring war on everybody?
That's why having allies within settlements/player Nation will matter. You will be able to call upon their support if at War with an opposing settlement/Nation.
If multiple Nations A & B attack a single Nation C, they could make the resources to maintain battle during WAR higher for Nation A & B. Then Nation C could be given a bonus to lower the amount resources needed to maintain arms/field equipment during WAR.
If another Nation D also decides to wage war on Nation C, their cost would drive All A, B & D of maintenance higher, while driving the cost of C lower. This will deter " piling on ".
The ability for a single Nation to attack multiple Nations should require an extreme amount of resources to maintain. This should make it very difficult to carry out multiple Nation attacks.