Goblin Squad Member
|
No, the best 'counter-argument' to that kind of aversion to PvP is to just realise that PFO isn't going to be a game for that player. Maybe the player who isn't prepared to deal with any PvP plays a MMORPG where PvE grief doesn't happen. Maybe they don't play a MMORPG at all and are just looking at this due to the Golarion factor.
Berik, I was responding directly to the specific concern that Jameow was trying to shed light on in the post I linked. I acknowledged all the other viewpoints in the first sentence of my post after "@All".
My point was that 'that kind of aversion to PvP' (the situation that Jameow depicted in his post) that is based on somebody not wanting to experience a setback due to another player can happen plenty of the time in PvE games.
You will never find a PvE MMORPG where "grief doesn't happen." You may be able to find a PvE MMORPG where grief is a rare occurrence due to community involvment and norms of behavior.
PFO will give options to put an end to the sort of griefing you find in PvE MMORPGs. The downside, from the perspective of somebody that does not enjoy PvP, is that they will rarely be engaged in non-consensual PvP. It will be rare because the type of player that waits around looking for random people to kill will not be able to economically support the endeavor nor will their character be mechanically good enough to win at that in the long run. Also, PvP griefing is a bannable offense.
So while there are PvE MMORPGs where grief is a rare occurrence due to community involvement and norms of behavior, PFO will be a MMORPG with PvP where grief is a rare occurrence due to community involvment and norms of behavior, punishing mechanics, and a development team that will ban griefers.
Feel free to explain why you are happy with the system as it stands of course. But to say 'there are some games where PvE can have annoying griefing situations too, therefore you should be happy with what PFO is offering' just isn't understanding the objections. Some people will never enjoy a game where even the possibility exists that they'll be killed by a griefer. These people won't play PFO, but their preferences aren't objectively wrong. They just have a different desire for a game.
My only point is that many players equate PvP with Grief. We can and should try to explain the fallacy in this thinking, to the benefit of all involved.
What we should say to somebody that has this viewpoint is this:
Griefing can exist anywhere, regardless of the level of PvP involved. Here is how the development team and community of Pathfinder Online are going to handle it in OUR game...
EDIT:
It could be pitched as a limited introduction period before you make certain changes that unlock large chunks of functionality. But some players may just choose to stay with the limited functionality longer term and not make that choice in the full knowledge a lot of the game is locked off but they don't engage in PvP.
Then you will be very happy. This is already in PFO as I described, balanced in the way that it must be to not break the game :)
One of the issues with PvP games with this pseudo-consensual aspect is this.
Let's say my group of merchants set up shop on top of some really lucrative resources. We're neutral good, mostly, we just want to make money, we have no desire to go to war with anyone.
Another group (Lawful neutral, perhaps?) wants our resources. We don't give it to them. They declare war so they can fight us for it. We don't accept the war dec. Does the other group sigh and give up? Do they assault us outside of a WarDec and go chaotic?
No, most likely what happens is they find a chaotic group who are willing to destroy the settlement for them, outside of a WarDec. They pay this group in whatever manner that prevents mechanical reputation/alignment loss, even if that means out-of-game, real world cash.
Now, if there is no possible way for a chaotic group to be strong enough to kill this NG settlement, then they have no viable threats to their enterprise. They refuse WarDecs and sit on their goods and happily craft and make money and fund their fun projects and that resource is forever locked away.
If a chaotic group CAN kill them, beat them up, and open the area up for themselves or another group to step in, then you've got griefing. We didn't sign up to have our sand castle kicked over, and yet, there it sits. Now we have to fight back in PvP, or move, or quit.
Again, this is my disconnect. A settlement shouldn't be immune to being taken over by someone else. However, if it isn't immune to being taken over by someone else, then there is grief.
Maybe I'm missing something core here, but that seems like a big issue. In Eve, this is handled by making all the player structures be put out in low-sec or 0.0 space, and anyone can come try to kick your sand castle over, and if you aren't ok with that you stay in high sec. Maybe PFO will work the same way.
I should probably not overthink this, but so much verbiage has been attributed to 'we won't abide griefers, but we want meaningful human interaction' that I'm no longer sure what that even means. From what I've read from Ryan, if someone kills you to loot your caravan, or assaults your rare resource operation because they want it, that's meaningful... and as such *shouldn't* send you into a death spiral of Chaotic Evilness that marginalizes you and makes you suck so much you quit playing in disgust. However from what I read from many others, these types of assaults will send you down that path of no return.
Which means, of course, that the rational thing for me to do is wait and see, because I don't think kibbitzing on the forums will accomplish anything.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a player really can't stand ANY possability that thier player might be killed by another character unless they've specificaly agreed to it ahead of time... then PFO isn't going to be a game that is intended for thier preferences. That's ok, there are plenty of games out there that are designed toward those prefernces to choose from, no harm no foul.
By playing PFO, you are pretty much agreeing to the fact that your character may be killed ahead of time by another player at a time that is inconvenient to you...and that you may lose some stuff as a result. That IS part of the intended design of PFO.
There probably WILL be some ganking. However that doesn't mean that ganking or RANDOM PLAYER KILLING will be a dominant situation (as it is in so many games)....which I think is a big factor for alot of folks who have some interest/tolerance for non-consensual PvP but no interest in total "gankfests" (include me in that list as well).
Simply put the design intention is that, "ganking" will be a High Risk/Low Reward activity...which means it's going to be selected against:
1) They can't get at "lowbies" (the typical target) because the NPC starter areas ARE protected (via code) from attacking other players there.
2) Because of #1 and due to the power curve and the way the combat system operates there is a fair chance that they WILL actualy LOSE to thier targets in combat. Gankers depend pretty much on Sure kills because they depend on volume if it's a mainstay activity for them. There are no sure kills in PFO, they can improve the odds of a kill by following certain tactics but they won't be able to reduce it to null which means if they are doing the activity on a regular basis, they will be dying to thier targets on a regular basis.
3) They can't consistantly depend on getting a reasonable reward for thier kills because it's NOT a full loot system it's a RANDOM loot system where they get 1 random piece from the victems inventory...thus they are just as likely to get a worthless half-eaten ham sandwich as a result of a kill as a valuable ore they can sell....and I will assure that folks who might be targeted by gankers will specificaly start carrying a few worthless but low weight items in thier inventory for the specific purpose of foiling looters.
4) There will be groups of players specificaly out there hunting and killing gankers. They will do so not just because it fits who their characters are...but also because merchants and craftsmen and PVE players BENEFIT the economy of the settlements they control....thus it's in thier self-interest to create a safe environment for those types of characters to operate. There will be territories where it is VERY risky for a ganker to operate...and those territories are naturaly ones that can attract more PvE oriented players.
5) Because of #2 and #3 the gankers will be loosing thier own gear on a regular basis and if they try to mitigate that by operating with minimal gear, they will further reduce thier chances of defeating thier targets and surving the patrols hunting them.
6) The gankers own characters will suffer a bad reputation (both social and mechanical) due to thier activities making it difficult to obtain and maintain gear by regular means.
7) The ganker can try to mitigate #6 by creating an ALT but that means they'll need to split thier play and skill training time among multiple characters. Much less effective in real world dollars.
8) Because of 1-6 it will be difficult for the ganker to self-sustain thier activities and they would be FAR better off economicaly and in terms of improving gear and character abilities by participating in the Nation Building or PVE aspects of the game...they are effectively GIMPING themselves by thier choice of play-style.
Now someone that is NOT a RANDOM player killer but does plan attacks with specific purpose and against specific targets (i.e. disrupting trade to a specific player settlement) won't be in the same boat because there is some actualy benefit to someone for that happening. So there IS room for bandits and brigands and "bad guys" in the game....which is actualy what we and GW WANT..because those guys are a part of the intended CONTENT of the game. YMMV.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Kakafika
Thank you.
Yes, griefing will happen, but this too can be minimized, but if you look at some of the responses to the whole pvp thing, it's a very emotional response to the act itself. Obviously I'm generalizing, I have to, but I'm glad to see SOMEONE gets what I'm saying.
I do think the system in place is the best system without needing a bunch of restrictions that quickly gets complicated. Once you start making a system like that, things can quickly start going wrong, so gw came up with a solution to minimise the worst elements of pvp and make you think before you attack someone.
And honestly, we can't say "that won't happen" until we've actually seen how it works in practice. Players are resourceful.
If I didn't think the system had lots of potential to work, I would probably just stick to darkfall, since I like the pve there. But the pvp sucks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Marshall You bring up a lot of good points. And I think you're right, we really don't know enough to know which hypotheticals are possible and what the possible outcomes are :)
I think I speak for most of the people that are still here when I say that due to the myriad systems and dev responses that we've already seen to combat griefing, we have good reason to believe that the devs will continue to design their systems in such a way as to severely inhibit griefing. It is one of their core values; I don't see them throwing that away. It's kind of what sets them apart from other PvP-enabled games.
What Goblinworks wants from us:
When they release more details about a system, we should discuss it how it could be fun, talk about how it can be abused, and point out how griefers might exploit it.
That is what the community has been doing here for awhile now. The dev responses to our concerns are why we have stayed.
Just some ideas that popped into my head about your specific questions:
I expect that the Lawful group will exhaust all possible options before resorting to violence; that's kind of the 'drawback' of being lawful.
We don't know much about war just yet.
Fighting you once won't make those players turn chaotic. If those players tend to solve their problems with violence, they will become chaotic, and for good reason.
It has been stated that maintaining alignment of a LG settlement/character will be difficult, and is something to strive towards for the benefits of that alignment. This is probably one of the reasons why.
In the River Kingdoms, You Have What You Hold. If you have something that somebody can take from you (caravan, resource node, NOT your inventory [since it's random loot]), expect to come into conflict over it. That is a basic tenant of PFO.
If you wish to avoid PvP, let the LN guys have the node or share it, or negotiate a price for them to buy it from you (they may very well be willing to do this in order to save themselves the alignment hit from attacking you).
If they DO kill you to take your resource node, take your settlement, etc, that is not griefing. That is PvP for a reason. PvP=/= Griefing. Griefing is 'trying to ruin somebody's day for no reason other than that'. Following your group around after you leave to kill you repeatedly is griefing.
One thing that the community has discussed is letting you set a 'challenge flag' to claim an area. If persons do not leave the area of the challenge flag, they are attackable without consequence or with lower consequences.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If a chaotic group CAN kill them, beat them up, and open the area up for themselves or another group to step in, then you've got griefing. We didn't sign up to have our sand castle kicked over, and yet, there it sits. Now we have to fight back in PvP, or move, or quit.
That's not griefing. You may not like getting your settlement destroyed, but when you left NPC protected areas and set up on valuable resources, you agreed to the risk of other people coming to take them.
Say you're playing WoW or any other MMO. There's a rare ore spawn. You and another player of the opposite faction spot it and go for it. You start hitting the node first, and the other player hits you to stop you from getting it. That's not griefing, it's competition. Say they kill you and take the ore. Still competition. You run back to your body and spawn and they kill you again. Now they've crossed to griefing.
Any action that causes a player to be upset is not automatically griefing. If you duel someone and they win, they are not griefing you just because you do not want to lose.
Maybe I'm missing something core here, but that seems like a big issue. In Eve, this is handled by making all the player structures be put out in low-sec or 0.0 space, and anyone can come try to kick your sand castle over, and if you aren't ok with that you stay in high sec. Maybe PFO will work the same way.
That is exactly how it works, and how it has been described in several blog posts and threads. There are major NPC settlements which have guards protecting them and their surrounding areas. If someone tries to kill you there, very strong NPC guards will come to your aid, likely killing the enemy before they can kill you. The wilderness, where players establish settlements and kingdoms, do not have this protection.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Now, if there is no possible way for a chaotic group to be strong enough to kill this NG settlement, then they have no viable threats to their enterprise. They refuse WarDecs and sit on their goods and happily craft and make money and fund their fun projects and that resource is forever locked away.If a chaotic group CAN kill them, beat them up, and open the area up for themselves or another group to step in, then you've got griefing. We didn't sign up to have our sand castle kicked over, and yet, there it sits. Now we have to fight back in PvP, or move, or quit.
Again, this is my disconnect. A settlement shouldn't be immune to being taken over by someone else. However, if it isn't immune to being taken over by someone else, then there is grief.
Maybe I'm missing something core here, but that seems like a big issue. In Eve, this is handled by making all the player structures be put out in low-sec or 0.0 space, and anyone can come try to kick your sand castle over, and if you aren't ok with that you stay in high sec. Maybe PFO will work the same way.
I should probably not overthink this, but so much verbiage has been attributed to 'we won't abide griefers, but we want meaningful human interaction' that I'm...
No that's not actualy called "griefing" that's called "playing the game as intended". It's no more "griefing" then when someone shoots you when they are tring to take over a control point in Battlefield2 so they can win a match.
"Griefing" is harrassing a player with the specific intent of causing them misery. "Non-Consensual PvP" is NOT the equivalent of "griefing" in a PvP oriented game. You must understand that PFO IS at it's core design a PvP oriented game. In the above example, the groups were attacking the territory you operated in to fulfill objectives specificaly designated as part of the game. There probably was no specific animus toward your group by the other groups...they had no intent of causing you grief...they were just playing the game as it was designed.
For example if you are playing Ping-Pong against some guy, and you lose the match...you may feel bad about it....was the other guy "griefing" you simply by playing the game and winning the match?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also there is a sandboxgame without any PvP, it's called 2nd life and is very successful.
@MicMan hehe, 2nd life? really? I have played 2nd life - but could think of at least a half dozen better matches of sandboxgame without any PvP to draw comparisons to... 2nd life would be at the bottom of that list. it 'is' run on a computer... it 'does' have other people in it...
Either way, I'm not arguing against PvP - though I definitely think that the game would be more financially viable in the market place if it was offered with the option to not allow other players to damage you non consensually. That way I'd get at least half a dozen RLF's to join up that won't otherwise - and have a bunch more online friends that would play that won't touch it as it stands now. (forced PvP.)
that's my only point - more people, hopefully = more $$'s, and for me, it = better social integration with the groups that I like to play with... Guess I hang with CareBears.
Like I said before, I'm certainly going to play - if I get in a strong guild, I'll probably stay... as long as the micro's don't get crazy out of hand to stay viable.
I wish them luck! I'm just surprised that they went this route as it's so obviously rare as a success (EvE being the one exception that I can think of.) I sort of envy the moxy they must have, and look forward to watching it grow - I do feel bad that it will most likely always be a small team of Dev's so, content will have to trickle out instead of flow fire hydrant style like it might with a bigger budget that a more 'mass appeal' option might bring to the game. se' la vi.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Jameow and others
I hope you understand that I'm really glad to have you all here. Like I said before, some of us posting (like GrumpyMel, above) had some of the same concerns that some of you have.
In the end, it does come down to an issue of trust. Trust in GW to hold to their word, and trust in the community that is being built here.
I'm heartened to see that so many that had strong objections have done more information gathering and have continued to engage the community here (with patience when ours occasionally runs out ;) to come to a position that you also are optimistic that Goblinworks can build what they envision for Pathfinder Online.
I've had a lot of free time recently and am pretty excited about this game, so I've been spending a lot of time on these forums. I hope my replies don't seem too evangelical in nature, and that you don't take my attention the wrong way.
I know we have had different opinions on a few things, but I am glad to have new contributors to the discussions. Already I've seen a wealth of new suggestions and new perspectives. Our community is stronger for having you, and we have a much better chance of marginalizing griefers after release with your involvement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One of the issues with PvP games with this pseudo-consensual aspect is this.
Let's say my group of merchants set up shop on top of some really lucrative resources. We're neutral good, mostly, we just want to make money, we have no desire to go to war with anyone.
I understand you have no desire to go to war, but the game rules already dictated that.
Another group (Lawful neutral, perhaps?) wants our resources. We don't give it to them. They declare war so they can fight us for it. We don't accept the war dec. Does the other group sigh and give up? Do they assault us outside of a WarDec and go chaotic?
War DEC are not accepted to my knowledge.
No, most likely what happens is they find a chaotic group who are willing to destroy the settlement for them, outside of a WarDec. They pay this group in whatever manner that prevents mechanical reputation/alignment loss, even if that means out-of-game, real world cash.
Perfectly viable strategy. Although people will not be able to advance their CE characters due to the alignment hit. People willing to purchase an additional account just for this purpose will be minimal, due to the cost associated with it. Out of game dealings cannot be enforced by any company for any game type which is why Skymetal is being introduced as a form of currency to alleviate this.
Now, if there is no possible way for a chaotic group to be strong enough to kill this NG settlement, then they have no viable threats to their enterprise. They refuse WarDecs and sit on their goods and happily craft and make money and fund their fun projects and that resource is forever locked away.
We don't know for fact a CE won't be able to remove this settlement. TBD. Don't forget there will be bandits that may gain information to whereabouts/location which can challenge their enterprise.
If a chaotic group CAN kill them, beat them up, and open the area up for themselves or another group to step in, then you've got griefing. We didn't sign up to have our sand castle kicked over, and yet, there it sits. Now we have to fight back in PvP, or move, or quit.
You're in Settlement, & your NG, call for back up if needed from guild mates or Settlement partners. It's not considered griefing when the settlement your already in, has threats. Just because you don't acknowledge this, is not viable.
Again, this is my disconnect. A settlement shouldn't be immune to being taken over by someone else. However, if it isn't immune to being taken over by someone else, then there is grief.
This is a community driven based game. You will need to call on reinforcements/allies to survive/flourish. Dying is part of this game, (to another player) once you come to terms with that, I think you feel much better.
Maybe I'm missing something core here, but that seems like a big issue. In Eve, this is handled by making all the player structures be put out in low-sec or 0.0 space, and anyone can come try to kick your sand castle over, and if you aren't ok with that you stay in high sec. Maybe PFO will work the same way.
I should probably not over think this, but so much verbiage has been attributed to 'we won't abide griefers, but we want meaningful human interaction' that I'm...
I think it great you express your interest & possible issues with the game. That's what these forums are for. =) I think we have people on extreme ends of the spectrum and the ole phrase " the truth is somewhere in between " needs to be adhered to when the developers are describing proposed game mechanics. GW are very early in production, none of us truly know all of the details at this time. I suggest you not over think this, as we get more information on the game as it develops.
@lots of people:
'Griefing' is personal. For some people it is getting killed 100 times in a row by the same person. For others it is someone following the same resource node path and grabbing every other one.
This is one of the reasons this argument is so difficult, there's no good definition of these terms. I can justify nearly any player kill, no matter how random it seems, if I'm allowed to talk about it.
This is why the *mechanics* are what matter, because at the end of the day, the mechanical issues are what will determine if griefing is occurring.
If the game says you get to kill one random person for every 10 criminals you kill, you can rest assured there will be people that keep that ratio sparkly clean, but still take their 11th random kill every time it comes up.
There will also be people that won't care, and will kill everyone they think they can with their CE fantasy version of the Joker, no matter how ineffective they are. Some of these will also have a LG pillar of the community as their main.
That said, the more I read (and I'm catching up on a lot, but it's all over the place and not easy to keep track of), the more I think that what most PvE enthusiasts think of as griefing will be 'normal play' according to the designers. I think the amount of PvP grief available will be less than your average Eve player who explores low-sec will experience, but orders of magnitude more than what a PvE WoW player does. That's a pretty vast gulf of player experience, and it means a lot of people who think there won't be any of what they consider 'griefing' to be will be surprised.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is why the *mechanics* are what matter, because at the end of the day, the mechanical issues are what will determine if griefing is occurring.
Actually, the mods will be the final arbiters that determine whether or not "grieging" is occurring. They've specifically avoided laying out specific rules that everyone can recognize because they don't want people to game the system and rub right up against the line saying "But I didn't cross this line you drew". In essence, we all have to trust that Goblinworks is serious about swatting griefers, and that their judgment will be reasonable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Marshall
I do have a few concerns that the alignment based combat, and factional combat with drive people into factions where there will always be people who can kill them without penalty, people say "but it's meaningful if its faction based because there's some resource factor, but really, if someone goes say neutral evil and makes a town as a group, they can go to war with any good group they like and kill other good at less penalty, and depending on the rules, end up lawful evil for their trouble. Maybe not that SPECIFIC example, that one might not work out, but pretty much if you have to participate in factions to fully experience the world, you'll end up in a situation where a group that just wants to randomly kill people CAN just by going to war.
Do you need to HAVE a town to go to war? I assume not, or you'd just need to destroy a town to end a war. So anyway, this group can declare wars and run around killing people for free, just for the lulz. That isn't meaningful.
Also, as someone in an Aussie time zone, will I even get to attack a town? Or will I have to play at 2 am to take part in core content?
It also goes in reverse, a group makes their town attackable at times when most enemies won't be on, minimizing their risk, or forcing people into stupid time frames to get rid of a particularly annoying enemy settlement, which is one of the things that I loathed about WoW "I can't do that, or I have to leave early because I have a raid in PFO tonight"
You shouldn't have to construct part of your life to a game to enjoy it, the game should conform to your life.
I expect a lot of these things will be worked out before beta, but it's still potential for a load of grief.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Griefing" is based on intent. Intent gets determined all the time in real world court cases. It doesn't matter what technical rationalization someone thinks they can lawyer up....because intent is based upon what a reasonable person would conclude based upon the actions.... in this case the judge and jury are GW and they've made it perfectly clear that they are going to bounce anyone who they believe are specificaly out to drive away customers who are trying to play the game it was intended.
If peoples personal definition of "griefing" doesn't match up with what GW percieves as reasonable then they are skating on pretty thin ice.
Someone saying that they consider getting thier sand-castle knocked down as "griefing" really isn't going to fly very well when GW has been amply clear that non-consentual PvP is a core aspect of gameplay, as is territory control with sand-castles getting built up and knocked down all the time.
These aspects of the game aren't any great mystery, they've been published over and over again. It's kinda like walking into a football game and being surprised that you got tackled after someone threw you the ball. It's kinda what the games all about. Even though some folks might prefer the game were Golf instead...it's not going to make the guys with helmets go away.
What's going to hold down "Ganking" or "Random Player Killing" is the simple fact that the mechanics don't make that a very economicaly rewarding activity compared to just about anything else in the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
TL;DR at bottom for those not willing to wade through my rather long winded thoughts. :P
I will admit that PvP looting is a big issue for me as well. I've been reading this thread for the last few days before I posted to see if what I'd thought about had been totally covered, but it didn't come up at least fully in the form I'm writing about.
I totally agree with the frustration of being someone else's mining mule - spending an afternoon of my time collecting whatever, to have it gone in one time being killed by a jerk. It concerns me that even if what I collected isn't won in the 'loot the player' lotto by the PvPer, it will (apparently) still be destroyed by the act of the PvPer looting my body. Whether the killer gets it in the lotto or not is immaterial: my collecting time is still wasted, my collected items are still gone, and I had no control over it. As soon as I collected that first crafting consumable, if I get killed, I'm out of luck.
So the big issue to me is allowing PCs to manage the risk to their items - all of them, at any time. If you can choose what to risk and what not to risk that, I think, goes a long way to removing the angst from losing items. So I was very happy to hear of the threading idea from the devs.
So I was pondering the use of threads as described in the Dec 12 blog to tie items to your body to reappear with you at respawn. And then wondered whether or not you can change what is protected by these threads while out in the field to protect your newly collected items. At the time you got that new crafting consumable you'd need to decide what to remove a thread from (unprotect that pair of steel toed boots) and what to put it onto (that pile of hides you just spent two hours collecting, or maybe that rare albino hide you just got?). Then if you get killed, your stack of hides shows up with you at your bind spot.
But then that brought to mind the stated goals of GW:
a) to act as a drain on goods in the world
--> This would still act as a drain, just let gatherer types managed what they are risking to a drive by killer.
b) add to the tension
--> You still lose some items, you just get to always manage which ones are at risk.
c) to give value to goods being transported from high availability areas to low availability areas
--> Ok this is an issue. Most people talk about the solo gatherer, but for the sake of discussion, they are a caravan of sorts. If a caravan is an actual wagon (ie a separate entity from the PC), and is going to be filled with stuff too heavy for any one pc to carry (either in whole or in part), then yes the caravans are still at risk. If the load could be broken up into pc-carryable portions, then for really valuable cargos Pcs would do so and thread protect these stacks, so we have to take that into account as a reverse tactic and whether or not that is a legit use of the system. (Option 2 below helps address this tactic).
Whether or not crafting goods can be threaded, I'd say a compromise is in order, to try to both allow the devs goals to be met and allow the PC to mitigate their loss / manage the risk. Neither of these compromises will make those who get frustrated and angry by any loss at all happy, but in order to meet the goals of the devs, either some inventory destruction/loss has to stay in or another equal drain on the economy has to be added.
Option 1: If you can't thread protect crafting goods at all: If the PvPer didn't win it in the lotto, then crafting goods are returned to the player by the gods once the Pvper releases the body. You'd still lose your other unprotected items on the husk, to contribute to the drain. This presupposes that items have tags and can be tagged as crafting goods by the devs to make it easy to determine what to transport. Possible maintenance issue: items mis tagged will need fixing.
Option 2: (My preference) If you can thread protect crafting goods: a thread only protects a portion of the stack (I'd suggest at least half to three quarters protection, rounded up). The remainder can be won in the lotto by the killer or is destroyed along with the other left behind items when the corpse is released. In this option the risk is partly managed by the player (they choose what to protect in the field as they collect it). Breaking a caravan up into pc loads (if the weight permits) is now another valid decision to make to manage risk. One caravan with 20 alert fully kitted guards or 20 lightly kitted easily killed runners that flee in all directions if the convoy is attacked?
Now, if the majority of consumable crafting goods never resided in a PC's inventory that would be another kettle of fish all together. If the goods went from camp storage (medium risk) to conveyance storage (largest risk) to craft building storage (low risk) then the whole issue of losing the items to random asshat pker types from personal inventory is gone. In order to get goods from any of the three storage types should (hopefully) require a heck of a lot more effort on the part of the raider (ie grouping) than just a drive by ganking would. And presumably the raiders would need a conveyance to move their ill gotten gains since it doesn't go in inventory, which opens up the possibility that someone else will come along and take it from them before they get it home.
The only crafting items I can think of that is tough to keep out of PC inventory, would be items collected from monsters. Those items could be covered under partial thread protection (if stackable). Note: Animal part collecting could be covered under the 'build a camp to collect' dynamic rather than the 'PC kills the deer and loots it' dynamic if the developers want to go that route.
I guess it all will come down to what the developers want to do, and how far they want to go on the manager-crafter vs hands-on-crafter route. But I thought I'd throw out my various and sundry ideas for discussion. And also, of course, in case I've had thoughts along lines the developers haven't and have given them some new ideas and food for thought. :)
TL;DR - Allowing non-PvPers to manage risk to all their items, even newly collected crafting goods out in the field would go a long way to mitigating concerns. Its all about having it in your control as to what to protect. Stacks of crafting goods could be partially protected rather than wholly, to allow for some resource loss on death without full resource loss as it (might be) currently.
But, if the majority of crafting consumables are never in PC's backpacks in the first place, but instead in a storage of some sort (camp, conveyance, building), then that removes the crafter's worry of personal inventory loss except for crafting consumables that need to go in in personal inventory: ie monster parts. And partial thread protection of field gathered items would help with that.
=====
Lady of the LazyLeopards
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks, Rintrah. I know it took a lot of us much time and patience to respond to all the newcomers' concerns here. We changed a few minds back there, and I'm happy we were able to get another to take a second look at the game =)
A lot of people share your concern. I thought it was a very strange move at first, as well. Usually when so many people bring up a concern like this, something changes or more information gets released to allay concerns.
I know a dev posted once that settlements will have ratings on the good vs evil axis, lawful vs chaotic axis, and reputation. If two of these degrade, settlement growth will be more difficult, if not impossible. If this is still their current plan, only CE settlements would be difficult to grow; I think that might make sense. CG and LE settlements will be fine, so long as they maintain a high reputation. I would think they would not punish CN or NE settlements too harshly, though those settlements may have trouble keeping out the CE riff-raff that might otherwise drag their reputation down.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You know, the escalating mob mechanic might end up rolling over not just a harvesting site, but entire settlements.
I'm not really sure what the practical difference would be if you were rolled over by another player or by a Mob invasion.
As far as I'm concerned, there's no real functional difference between fighting PCs and NPCs, except, perhaps, the odds of winning said fight. And, I guess, knowing that there's a real person on the other end gloating at your misfortune.
I like NPCs better than people. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As someone who traditionally avoids PVP as much as possible, there's a sense in the PVE aspects of the game that conflict occurs on your terms. The mob will just sit there and pick it's nose until I walk over and slap it. In a PVP scenario, it's a mental shift to think that *I* might now be the target waiting to be attacked. Many people are resistant to the change in thought and behavior that realization generates.
It certainly will add an extra dimension to being in a guild, or a member of a settlement. You won't be able to just run a caravan by yourself. Oh I guess yous could try, but you really will need others, more so then in a theme park. So the relationship aspect will return to the game like it used to be.
It'll be interesting to say the least! That's why I joined the Circle.
The PvP, even though I hate PvP, I would be able to handle the annoyance off it..
,But what I will not stand for or support is Player looting (also not a fan of the staggered launch, unfair).
So This game will be a no go for me and it is very very disappointing that the devs have chosen to go this path with Pathfinder Online..
I just can not see why they refuse to even try to have a separate PvE no player looting server.
if EvE online did this they would double their subs overnight, just like Pathfinder Online would almost double their pledges as well..
The more I think about it the more it upsets me, I think I am totally done with the whole Pathfinder universe books and all..
>8-\
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The more I think about it the more it upsets me, I think I am totally done with the whole Pathfinder universe books and all..
>8-\
I recommend taking a step back and not thinking about it for a bit. That's an pretty harsh overreaction. You don't like a couple design elements of the MMO so you're going to stop playing Pathfinder completely? You really want to stop playing the tabletop game because of an MMO that will have negligible impact on your regular games?
Also, EVE likely wouldn't gain many subs at all; their game is heavily entwined in PvP at its deepest roots. The economy of the game would need serious overhaul because the rarest materials would be easily accessible to everyone with practically no risk. There would be no reason to make any ship larger than a battleship since you can't use larger in PvE missions. CCP would end up just closing their non-PvP server due to low demand and high attrition rate. They'd lose money.
|
At no one in particular,
Personally I think there is a misconception about PvP games, People think that they should be able to play a game with reasonable but challanging combat. If you don't want combat at all, then don't play a game with combat, if you do want combat, then play a properly balanced combat game. The problem with a lot of MMOs with PvP, is that players (unlike NPC enemies) can cross into areas where they are substantially more capable then other PCs, thus non-consentual PvP isn't really the problem. The problem is in the inability to avoid getting in a situation well beyond one's abilities (generally by encountering a much higher lvl PC in a low lvl area).
The two possible solutions are, one, to prevent PCs from going anywhere other then zone for their lvl, or two, follow PFOs example and make all PCs close enough in power lvl that encountering another PC is never an encounter "well beyond one's abilities."
You also acomplish the latter by saying that NPCs take dmg from a PC based on the PCs lvl, but taking dmg from another PC is not affected by player lvl, in essence players always deal simlilar dmg to each other even when they deal vastly differing amounts of damage to NPCs, this could also lead to players remaining close in power level while maintaining the vastly different abilities vs monsters and still retain the ever growing abilities thing, not that I really care about that myself but some might.
It truly doesn't matter about the PCs, the same problems could arise if monsters could wander from their zones. Imagine WoW, what if a lvl 30 monster wandered into the lvl 5 area? Same problem as a lvl 30 PC wandering into a lvl 5 area, overkill. Truly whether your enemies are controlled by computer or player doesn't honestly matter, just need to keep players from getting overkilled, unless they could have avoided it (in some way other then refusing to play)
|
|
I think it's that when you here "open world pvp" you think of all the times you playedf a game, were minding your own business and someoe came along, totally outclassing you completely and wiping the floor with you. It leaves you with negative memories.
AKA, unable to avoid a situation well beyond your abilities.
As for minding your own business, in a combat game you get combat, period. It just needs to be done in a balanced fashion, and considering players as the primary "monsters" goes a long way towards that, particularly when you make it so that there is no such thing as being "completely outclassed."
|
|
The problem that led to this imbalance, was the idea of having NPCs as the main "monsters" and only worring about balancing players to them within each level zone, without any regard for the players ability to freely cross zones, thus players as "monsters" and opponants for other players was never balanced. Sure they might try, but they always made the mistake of treating PCs as monsters that would stay in a zone of equal lvl, and completely ignoring the ability of the PCs to cross zones.
Something that isn't happening in PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I just can not see why they refuse to even try to have a separate PvE no player looting server.
if EvE online did this they would double their subs overnight, just like Pathfinder Online would almost double their pledges as well..
Here's some perspective on the server model in EVE:
You could be forgiven for thinking that an MMO's server model doesn't affect its gameplay significantly but EVE Online has proven this wrong for five years running. Putting all players together in one server drastically increases the opportunity for PvP. Instead of the MMO norm of less than 5,000 potential players for you to interact with and barely 1000 online at peak hours, EVE's server houses over 300,000 players with a peak concurrent user record of over 40,000. Additionally, since there's only one server for all players, there's no option to sign up to a non-pvp version of the game. This puts all players in the same world with the same rules whether they like it or not. If all you want to do is trade, mine and run missions you're just as vulnerable to PvP as everyone else and that's a major factor in defining the harsh feel of the EVE universe.
If EVE did offer a non-PvP server option, roles such as the pirate or corporate spy wouldn't really be possible any more because most potential targets would be playing on the non-pvp server. The players on the non-pvp server would also suffer from having a duller, less challenging game experience. We'd have one server full of hunters with no prey and one server full of prey with no excitement to their game.
Ultima Online experienced this issue in the Renaissance expansion when they released Trammel, a server where non-consensual PvP was no longer possible. With all the cut-throat villains separated from the general population, the villains had nothing to do and the remaining players lost their opportunity to be heroes.
The truly "Massively" in MMO-rpgs is evident on an order or so of magnitude more than most other mmorpgs. Another eg is World Of Tanks. Pathfinder is choosing the same single-server model for related reasons. They are very good reasons imo.
NB: Pathfinder Online will take the similar server model: Not all the same design intentions eg "meaningful interaction" is a key design for all systems and features of the mmorpg.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@DLH & Avena It's nice to see other people preaching this. I've made the point repeatedly myself. It's a point worth making for all, especially those with a bad taste from senseless player killing. That's simply not what PvP is about.
I don't understand how beating a computer can possibly be more rewarding than a far more capable opponent. Why would anyone not want to have the opportunity to improve their skills in a way computer controlled opponents are incapable of teaching you?
Who ever heard of role playing.. against a computer? You do it for the benefit of social interaction, pretending to be a wizard isn't as fun when you're alone.
It's sad that so many people only remember the griefers, and that the experience did not instill a desire to do something about it.
Me? I'm the type to dissect a game's mechanics until there remain no unknowns, no wild cards and using everything I know to handle a situation. PvP sublimates this in a most incredible fashion. How can I possibly know what another player is going to do? I can guess, but that's all I'll ever have, a guess based on past experience with no way to be sure. It becomes a battle of wits and an arsenal of tricks, it's the absolute best fight anyone could ask for.
Even if you think you've figured it all out, eventually you'll meet someone who teaches you otherwise.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The PvP, even though I hate PvP, I would be able to handle the annoyance off it..
,But what I will not stand for or support is Player looting (also not a fan of the staggered launch, unfair).
So This game will be a no go for me and it is very very disappointing that the devs have chosen to go this path with Pathfinder Online..I just can not see why they refuse to even try to have a separate PvE no player looting server.
if EvE online did this they would double their subs overnight, just like Pathfinder Online would almost double their pledges as well..The more I think about it the more it upsets me, I think I am totally done with the whole Pathfinder universe books and all..
>8-\
I hope you reconsider. The GW blogs explain in detail why they are going the route they are both in the areas of PvP and staggered launch. I find this to be a pretty compelling case. Check out those blogs and think on it.
|
|
I personally don't play games for the challenge (I did the Bartle Test and got a 0% for Killer) but for the story or social interactions. I don't care much for PvP, but I love the idea of playing with others who do.
Then I would suggest playing a support caster / crafter, so when you go out with friends, if your group gets attacked, you get to just focus on staying away from enemies and just help your friends.
|
|
The PvP, even though I hate PvP, I would be able to handle the annoyance off it..
,But what I will not stand for or support is Player looting (also not a fan of the staggered launch, unfair).
So This game will be a no go for me and it is very very disappointing that the devs have chosen to go this path with Pathfinder Online..I just can not see why they refuse to even try to have a separate PvE no player looting server.
if EvE online did this they would double their subs overnight, just like Pathfinder Online would almost double their pledges as well..The more I think about it the more it upsets me, I think I am totally done with the whole Pathfinder universe books and all..
>8-\
Now you're being ridiculous, the PnP has nothing to do with the game, and the stories are just stories not logs of player inventory loss. Don't like the game, then don't play the game, no need to associate one bad game with another perfectly good game with completely unrelated mechanics.
As for the player looting, I agree, I hate the looting system, it breaks consistancy, but you know what? It's just one aspect that I intend to minimize in my gameplay.
And the staggered launch? The have a very good reason for this, the majority of content in the game will be player created, so letting a few players I. First allows a basic infrastructure to be set up, while if they went straight to open release, such basic infratstructure would never have the chance to be made.
It also buys them time to include more things in the game, because those in the beginning are there because they dn't mind playing an incomplete game.
So frankly, if there is just a couple bad things why not actually try it? Maybe the good and awesome things will overshadow the bad things for you, if not, then stop playing PFO, and go back to the good old days of PF, which PnP will always be better anyway.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I personally don't play games for the challenge (I did the Bartle Test and got a 0% for Killer) but for the story or social interactions. I don't care much for PvP, but I love the idea of playing with others who do.Then I would suggest playing a support caster / crafter, so when you go out with friends, if your group gets attacked, you get to just focus on staying away from enemies and just help your friends.
Which is the opposite of what I'm doing, but thanks for the suggestion!
I didn't get the staggered launch comment really. Normally games enter alpha with no publicity whatsoever, and often start beta with the alpha crew for a bit before letting in slowly growing increments of players. Maybe they were bummed about there being no wipe between EE and launch though?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the objection to the staggered launch is based on the skill training system.
If you start the game late you will NEVER catch up unless the early enrolees stop training for some reason.
You can invest all the time, effort, money, etc you want but you can NEVER EVER EVER catch up.
Some people have a problem with that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@DLH & Avena It's nice to see other people preaching this. I've made the point repeatedly myself. It's a point worth making for all, especially those with a bad taste from senseless player killing. That's simply not what PvP is about.
I don't understand how beating a computer can possibly be more rewarding than a far more capable opponent. Why would anyone not want to have the opportunity to improve their skills in a way computer controlled opponents are incapable of teaching you?
Who ever heard of role playing.. against a computer? You do it for the benefit of social interaction, pretending to be a wizard isn't as fun when you're alone.
It's sad that so many people only remember the griefers, and that the experience did not instill a desire to do something about it.
Me? I'm the type to dissect a game's mechanics until there remain no unknowns, no wild cards and using everything I know to handle a situation. PvP sublimates this in a most incredible fashion. How can I possibly know what another player is going to do? I can guess, but that's all I'll ever have, a guess based on past experience with no way to be sure. It becomes a battle of wits and an arsenal of tricks, it's the absolute best fight anyone could ask for.
Even if you think you've figured it all out, eventually you'll meet someone who teaches you otherwise.
That's very interesting, because I don't do that at all. I don't dissect the whole game, I have no interest in knowing every little detail. That ruins the fun. I like to explore it, and play how I want to play, which is one reason I really dislike moderns MMORPGs, they expect you to fit into their statistical table for your role and if you aren't up to the maximum possible, they don't want you.
I choose abilities because they're fun, not for the statistically best result. PvE is interesting because they're not player characters, they can do all sorts of things that players can't and have abilities that would just be abused by players.
Fighting a demon is more interesting than fighting another human, even if technically the human is the greater challenge. I'd rather kill demons and dragons and go on an adventure WITH people than against them.
I also would not that you can't RP against someone attacking you either unless it's part of the roleplay. You don't have time to talk to a group who are there to kill you for the luls either.
But I still think PvP is fundamental to get this vision of the world working. Also why I think most of the PvP will be along factional lines (whatever factions they are, nations, alignments, all that sort of thing) rather than just randomly killing people.
|
|
Players might not be dragons, but they certainly make better bandits then computer bandits, I personally like fighting monsters, but I hate the modern concept of fighting some sort of giant thing like greater challanges can only come from a bigger monster. It's a ridiculous and hollow notion, and how people can be pleased with it is beyond my understanding.
Of course your argument about monsters being more interesting ti fight just brings us back to the desire of myself and others to allow monster races as playable races. Though when players are allowed to step outside the archtype molds of classes then the players become more interesting (another reason I HATE classes)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Players might not be dragons, but they certainly make better bandits then computer bandits, I personally like fighting monsters, but I hate the modern concept of fighting some sort of giant thing like greater challanges can only come from a bigger monster. It's a ridiculous and hollow notion, and how people can be pleased with it is beyond my understanding.
Of course your argument about monsters being more interesting ti fight just brings us back to the desire of myself and others to allow monster races as playable races. Though when players are allowed to step outside the archtype molds of classes then the players become more interesting (another reason I HATE classes)
It's not just that, it's also flavour. I liked wandering fire Isle in UO and hunting dragons and demons, it was a challenge, but there's something different about having a dragon roaring on your doorstep to having a player ready to kill you on your doorstep.
You can create a npc like Neira the Necromancer that gets faster and faster the more damage she takes and who summons whole armies of undead. You can't put those kinds of abilities in the hands of players.
You can make spiders with poisons so deadly you need a team of healers to stop it killing you, you can't let other players run around with poisons that strong, it'd make it the only viable playstyle.
You can make orc scouts that will teleport and stealth 3 times in a second so that you have no idea where they are, and then they start shooting at you again, but it makes for very tedious gameplay if every pc opponent does it every time they're in trouble because it's an effective timeout mechanism.
I remember training up in a graveyard in UO, killing skeletons and zombies, the occasional wraith (they were more dangerous) and then you hear the cackle of a Lich... and you RAN. It was scary, it was exciting. When it was a murderer instead it didn't have a chance to be that, it was just annoying, they came in hard and fast, kill you before you had a chance to react or run and take everything you spent the last half hour looting. Exciting? not so much.
Don't get me wrong, I had some fun PvP encounters, some exciting and interesting ones that tought me a great deal about my build... I also had some really fun times where someone would try to use mindblast on me (which does higher damage based on the difference between your highest and lowest stat) and finding I took nearly no damage... then I did it to them and they took a great deal more. Fun times.
But generally I don't find PvP shows you exciting new things, it shows you the same combos used all the time... the most efficient "kill player" combo is used on the most efficient "kill player" build.
|
|
I don't know much about UO, but I'm thinking most likely it runs on classes, which severely limits high level options.
If properly balanced, a classless system similar to what PFO is doing will lead to a rather large set of viable options, like a really large set of viable options. Also all those abilities you described? They would fit as really high lvl abilities for players, yeah some restrictions would apply, like a massive cooldown, but you could do it. It is more viable in PFO then most MMOs because PFO has such a long time-to-max, thus dedication is to the game is required to achieve them.
In most MMOs, you reached max very quickly and adjusted your build within your limited set of abilities. Not the case here, though I do grant you, fighting interesting NPCs would likely be more often, if there was a focus on PvE content. But this game is built to have much more interesting PCs then most other games.
I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying the difference between PvE experiences and PvP experiences (in terms of interetsting and challange) is far less then what you will find in other games. There will also be a lot of interesting situations, where the interesting part comes from the situation itself more then the enemy, this is far likely then in a PvE game.