Goblin Squad Member
|
Or it could work like uo monsters looting and they get your heaviest item
A little more difficult, but carrying a rock (material for masonry or sculpture)shouldn't be too hard. Just enough to outweigh my rings, amulet, belt, etc. but not enough to push me into encumbrance territory.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't 'need' PvP for players to 'automatically create their own content', you can do that more so in a PvE environment, PvP can hinder that.
To me PvP is just a frustrating annoyance that hinders game play with others.
If you add along side a PvE server (with consensual PvP) I'll jump all over it and throw all the coin I can at ya..
I'm sorry, but I myself just can not support a game with 'non-consensual PvP' in it at all..
Good luck with it though. :)
Please add a PvE Server to pathfinder Online.
~ That Guy
As Ryan pointed out, creating tons of content for PvE is something Themepark mmorpgs have successfully (less so with each year?) been doing with large budgets and large publishers to provide the capital investment and marketing budget.
Yet, those companies are not doing as well as the expenditure they invested, would like to see returned (6 years dev, 150m$ sunk?). NCSoft is cutting devs in Seattle for eg atm. I'm not sure how related that is to the performance of GW2 (themepark) but it's sold well, just not REALLY REALLY well and equally the other titles in that publisher's stable.
Simply put it: a) would not work lastingly for a pve server b) would not be fair due to the paucity of content for your request for players.
Some background reading and watching that might add background to these conclusions:
Video: PaizoCon PathfinderOnline Presentation
CCP Online's three design pillars for sandbox MMOs
Personally I see the alignment system as an opportunity: It would be interesting to forge a kingdom that is peaceful in game via economics, trade, written treaties and allies etc.
Considering the above, I'm in favor of the design goals for Pathfinder Online.
Ryan:
I'll say I feel a little bit better to hear that there is acknowledgement of people like myself's concerns.
I'm ready to be on board, I just need to hear one more sentence from you to get on the "I'm ok with PVP bandwagon."
That sentence is:
"Long duration stun, interrupt, and other abilities that deny control of a character will be heavily restricted or completely absent in PVP scenarios."
Stunlocking is not skill, it is not talent, and is my largest turn-off to any sort of PVP encounter. Getting stunned for 10 seconds, killed to half health to be stunned again immediately after you make any sort of retaliation, until you die while you slam your fist against the keyboard unable to do anything is not "fun" in any way, shape, or form.
This is my biggest concern also (from the mechanics side. Players who get their jollies from griefing are a different issue). I'm willing to give it a shot - primarily because WoW has lost its luster and the rest of the crop doesn't interest me - but I'm doing so cautiously and with reservations.
This thread relieves some of those reservations. Addressing the stunlocking, and whether it is possible to level/badge up entirely within "safe" areas, wwould relieve more.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The pie-in-the-sky goals of for this PvP plan are a gedanken experiment. If it could be done, it would have been done already.
It has been. If what you mean is a successful single sever non-consent based PVP MMO. Darkfall was also quite successful if you consider how many problems there are with that game in terms of bugs, balance issues, lack of dev oversight or ANY effort made to restrict griefing (Or even macroing and hacking), the fact it was made by a tiny basement company, misses every release date by years, and it's unholy grind.
I'm going to go remove my pledge. This design plan sounds worse every time I read about it.
Bye.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This game is for PVPers.
Andius I usually agree with what you say but not this. The game is not just for PVPers. I guarantee you that many people who have been strictly PVE in other games (while hating PVP) will come to PFO and love it. The PVP does not need to be the focus of your gaming (as it does need to be in other PVP games), it's just something you need to be aware of. The game world is going to be immense.. there could be a lot of enjoyment for PVE'ers just to get out and explore, find those hidden areas away from the population where people looking for PVP don't frequent. My guess is there will be a lot of those such areas, where even though PVP is fully allowed, you can expect not to be harassed on most days.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The pie-in-the-sky goals of for this PvP plan are a gedanken experiment. If it could be done, it would have been done already. All anyone on the dev team needs to do to see what kind of people are going to be terrorizing the non-PvP centric populace is head over to youtube and check out the pwnage/ganking videos. Teabagging, jeers, name calling. And then they get to take your stuff. Tell me why anyone would be stupid enough to pay for that?
First of all there are open PVP MMORPG's that are made up largely of the PVE crowd, and do not have rampant PVP or griefing going on! Those games are called Dragon Realms and Gemstone III. The reason it works is because they have mechanics in place similar to PFO, and a strict anti-griefing policy. It's going to be a shift in mindset from those coming from other PVP games.. PVP does not equal open ganking opportunities. People who do so are going to find themselves quickly at a large disadvantage in the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I realize there will be a lot to do in this game other than PVP but it will all revolve around a PVP driven economy. What I mean by this game is for PVPers, is that if you are unwilling to put yourself in danger of PVP ever that you will not be catered to here. Not that PVP is the only thing to do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Kheru-hotep: People as content is what I thought mmo's were all about before I ever started the genre. I'm personally amazed so many mmorpg's have so many AI mobs as replacements. So is everyone anti-social, not in RL I find, far from it. I think mmorpgs need to build communities as well as build mmorpgs, is the answer so players can find the community that aligns with their interests.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Open-PVP is one feature that falls into the love/hate category. Personally I'd rather have PVP than not but I have also seen what happens when jerks takeover the community and make the game unplayable for new players.
With open-PVP then it will be the community of players who play the game that will decide whether PVP is a curse or a blessing, and not any rules that can be coded into the game. PVP is basically right by might. If enough PVP ability is in the hands of gamers committed to keeping the game fun for all, then all is fine. If all the hardcore PVP-ers are jerks then good luck...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bye.Thank you for making my case.
I have simply lost my patience for carebears coming in here, throwing temper tantrums, and then loudly announcing they are leaving.
Most of this games current fan-base would leave if your demands were met. Or they would produce a watered down version of their vision neither side would be happy with.
GoblinWorks and this community are bending over backwards to ensure this game won't be a gankfest. I offer training on survival to everyone I see expressing reservations about the PVP rather than crocodile tears and dramatic "I quit" posts.
You aren't getting what you want so you are leaving? Fine. Nobody cares. Just quit the drama and go.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Open-PVP is one feature that falls into the love/hate category. Personally I'd rather have PVP than not but I have also seen what happens when jerks takeover the community and make the game unplayable for new players.
With open-PVP then it will be the community of players who play the game that will decide whether PVP is a curse or a blessing, and not any rules that can be coded into the game. PVP is basically right by might. If enough PVP ability is in the hands of gamers committed to keeping the game fun for all, then all is fine. If all the hardcore PVP-ers are jerks then good luck...
You are 100% right, and I think that the plan to slowly role out the game is a good one because of this. GW should be able to mold and prune the founding community so that when the game gets released it starts with a healthy community from the get go.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose I got the completely wrong personality (pve/social/explorer/carebear) for thinking like a ganker. Anyhow, currently I just see a lot of mechanisms to spoil ganker fun:
-crime tag, meaning everyone else (ganker or carebear) gets rewarded by the system for killing you, and also restricts your movement
-alignment and reputation, which starts to sound like having "ganker" in neon letters above your head and restricts entry to settlement and guilds
-training system and no level cap, which means you have to pay real $ to keep a (competitive) ganker alt, and rerolling is a poor option
-bounty system, relatively small community and declared anti-ganker guilds
on the other hand:
-fullfilling assassinations contracts is generating content, and you might even get respect from other players.
-building hideouts and robbing caravans is generating content (even if it is 99% the same as ganking, it somehow enrichens the game)
-settlement warfare and legit group fights is obviously generating content
There seems to be niches and incentives for ruthless player killer powergamers to contribute constructively to the game - maybe not quite "white hat gankers" but certainly grey hat.
Fellow PVE-carebears: don't dismiss open world pvp until you have felt the adrenaline rush from simply having survived a trip to the next town (but remember to invest in stealth or speed). Real emotion is better entertainment than virtual loot!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bye.Thank you for making my case.I have simply lost my patience for carebears coming in here, throwing temper tantrums, and then loudly announcing they are leaving.
Most of this games current fan-base would leave if your demands were met. Or they would produce a watered down version of their vision neither side would be happy with.
GoblinWorks and this community are bending over backwards to ensure this game won't be a gankfest. I offer training on survival to everyone I see expressing reservations about the PVP rather than crocodile tears and dramatic "I quit" posts.
You aren't getting what you want so you are leaving? Fine. Nobody cares. Just quit the drama and go.
From a funding standpoint, the developers probably do need to know why people are pulling out of funding. It may even be part of the reason there hasn't been more funding; people who have been burned badly by PvP in other games are less likely to give it a try in a new one.
At this point PvP doesn't seem to be a make-or-break issue for many people but there are definitely concerns around it. Were I managing the company, I'd certainly want to know if I could win back former supporters, either through reassurances about behavior/consequences for antisocial behavior, or through mechanics (stunlocking), or if it's possible to enjoy the game without engaging in PvP.
And FYI, "carebear" tends to be one of those divisive terms that really doesn't help move discussion toward consensus. I'm a non-PvPer who's still willing to give the game a try, but I'm very put off by the term.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have a question in regards to the PVP element ( I couldn't find it listed in the goblin works blog): since there are player-made settlements, will it be possible to attack the buildings/walls etc in the settlements directly? I would assume that attacking a settlement would flag you the same as attacking a player character.
I would hope so as it would allow for greater stategy, plus it would allow enterprising alchemists to set up shop with bore bombs...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From a funding standpoint, the developers probably do need to know why people are pulling out of funding. It may even be part of the reason there hasn't been more funding; people who have been burned badly by PvP in other games are less likely to give it a try in a new one.
At this point PvP doesn't seem to be a make-or-break issue for many people but there are definitely concerns around it. Were I managing the company, I'd certainly want to know if I could win back former supporters, either through reassurances about behavior/consequences for antisocial behavior, or through mechanics (stunlocking), or if it's possible to enjoy the game without engaging in PvP.
And FYI, "carebear" tends to be one of those divisive terms that really doesn't help move discussion toward consensus. I'm a non-PvPer who's still willing to give the game a try, but I'm very put off by the term.
For every person pulling funding there are several more making new pledges. For every person who won't play because of this games stance on PVP there is someone who wouldn't play if they withdrew their statements.
I'm all for alleviating the fear of people with reservations about Open World PVP, but people coming here to bad mouth this game's vision then leave have a bit more than reservations, and we aren't going to win them over.
I started out in Open World PVP as someone who simply wanted to PVE and mind their own business, and I grew to love it. Anti-griefing is the most rewarding play style on any game IMO. I'm not directing my "carebears" comment at general PVEers. It's directed at the people coming in here being openly rude to GW, bad mouthing this game so many if us are fully behind, saying it will fail because it isn't what THEY want, and then storming out the door... but actually hanging around to stir up a bit more drama.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I really hope not only that the resources available in safe areas are low in value, but that there are taxes on refining, crafting, transactions... everything. Ideally I would like to see player run cities be the optimal place to do EVERYTHING. Even trade or break flour down into wheat. Safe areas should purely be places to learn the game without worrying about getting attacked, a short-term base of operations for players and groups with no holdings, and a place to interact with NPC that aren't killable.
This is what I'm talking about making the player cities important enough not to destroy on a whim. Also, it would be nice if they only allowed certain high level crafting to be done in them period.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine an MMO where every single monster, from the lowliest rat to the mightiest demon, had an aggro range as long as your visual range, and required a small team to take down. And usually outnumbered you. Does that sound like a fun game? Or a frustrating game?
That is, essentially, what open-world PvP games amount to, to me.
Honestly, I don't really care whether there's another player or an AI behind the thing I'm fighting. You're all NPCs to me. The main difference is that I have a fair chance against an AI controlled NPC designed to not auto-gimp me. While I can accept failing particular difficult encounters on occasion, I don't like to lose every time.
See, I just don't have the mentality to excel in PvP. If you fight me, you will always have better than 50-50 odds of winning (unless you really suck :p). But that doesn't matter, because no one is going to gamble on the 50-50 win. So you'll bring friends. And I will die as a matter of course, probably busy ignoring you on the off chance that you find no fun in defeating someone who isn't fighting back. I can recognize impossible odds when I see them. I can go make a cup of tea for the 10 seconds it takes you and your buddies to gank me.
Nobody likes impossible fights, and if every encounter in the game is an impossible fight, there really isn't much point in playing. It's frustrating, and if frustration is what I'm looking for, I could just stay a couple extra hours at work instead.
I played EVE. I'm going to play PFO. I suspect I will stop playing PFO for roughly the same reasons I stopped playing EVE: The lack of any meaningful content for people who don't have the free time and dedication for the kind of guild/corporation/whatever you need to get into the game.
We'll see, but I'm not being super optimistic.
On the other hand, I do like the notion that there'll be actual consequences to senseless ganking. I know Blizzard flirted with that idea originally, but eventually chickened out. "Nobody likes negative feedback." Guess what? Senseless ganking is 'negative feedback'.
Oh, and if I can offer one last piece of advice from a PvP hater to an Open-PvP game? Imagine, say, World of Warcraft. Your level 20 rogue is running along the road, when you suddenly spot a level 85 shaman of the opposite faction coming the other way. You have time to think "oh cra.." He Earth Shock you. You die. He continues on like nothing happened.
There is, literally, no consequence to his action. It doesn't slow him down. It doesn't cost him anything. It buggers the hell out of you.
Now, compare this to a game like Warhammer Online. You still get the random ganking attempts of course, but you don't (or should I say didn't? :p) instant-kill anyone. A fight might take a couple of minutes. You have to stop and actually duke it out. You have to be pretty dedicated to the fight to see it through (and win it) so it's not just some drive-by-free-gank scenario (that, plus fights lasted long enough that either side could get help so it was never a sure thing). This seemed to cut down on the random ganking and *gasp* actually made PvP kinda fun.
So I guess it boils down to this: no matter how experienced your character is, a 1-1 fight should never be decided in advance. Even if you're a long-time vet and your enemy is a complete noob, it should at least take some time and effort duke it out. The difference in power should never approach the "bam, instant kill" levels.
If that makes sense.
It's directed at the people coming in here being openly rude to GW, bad mouthing this game so many if us are fully behind, saying it will fail because it isn't what THEY want, and then storming out the door... but actually hanging around to stir up a bit more drama.
Rude behavior on the boards (heck, in life) is always wrong.
But people posting here why they're anti-PFO is appropriate. I play an MMO (Age of Conan). I play and GM Pathfinder PbP and buy lots of product, Paizo and third party. I'm a member of PFO's core target audience.
And I have ZERO interest in this HEAVILY slanted towards PvP MMO. As an active PF PbPer who plays an MMO, Goblinworks could have expected me to want to play PFO, plus be a kickstarter supporter. Folks like me that tell them they're not offering an attractive game are telling them something useful.
Again, manners in posting matter, and in this "look at me" culture, people aren't as civil as they should be. No defending poor behavior here.
But I was excited when they announced PFO. I hadn't played an MMO and I decided to try AoC to get familiar with the genre. And as more details became available, I became less and less interested until I crossed PFO off the list.
On a semi-related note, I started AoC on a PvP server. Which was fine until about 30th level, when my ranger started running into people on the road who simply attacked and killed me. Time after time. That got old fast and I restarted on the PvE server and I'm now hooked on AoC.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Go get 'em Dancey & GW!!
This game that's being promised is exactly what a ton of players want. Open pvP with consequences and MEANING. This is what the real Rp'ers want, this danger and conflict is what creates real storylines.
The PvP level promises to be about one full notch below EVE and I also think that is exactly the sweet spot that so many of us have been clamouring for.
I have never been so stoked for a game, you guys are aiming dead center for the ultimate sweet spot where RP'ers/pvP'ers/nation builders/crafters will all have the exact same amount of fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But I was excited when they announced PFO. I hadn't played an MMO and I decided to try AoC to get familiar with the genre. And as more details became available, I became less and less interested until I crossed PFO off the list.
That's fair, and I think there will be a lot of people in the same boat as you. There will also be a lot of people in that boat who give it a try later, find out the PvP will be absolutely nothing like what you experienced in AoC and will actually like the game. Ryan and Lee have given all the explanation they can about why it will be different but sometimes there is simply nothing more you can do to sway opinions that were built on similar experiences (perceived to be the same). There will be a large crowd of PVE-leaning late comers, who initially blow off the game after hearing PVP. I think that's fine. The only thing that will bring them here will be hearing positive experiences from other players in PFO once released.
Just keep your eye on the game and I think you'll be pleasantly surprised at a later date. Same to all the other PVE'ers who refuse to be swayed without further proof. In the meantime if you would like some cool Pathfinder flip charts and miniatures, with the potential of a MMORPG you will like, feel free to help the cause. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can understand people's reservations playing an 'open PVP' game. I have played alot of MMO's, some with PVP and some without. I am not, nor have I engaged in PVP where I was the aggresser.
a PVP style format allows the developers to make a game more interesting without having to dole out millions of development costs for extra PVE content.
If you are afraid to PVP, remember, theres going to be lots of other people in the same situation, and there are already guilds (on these boards) who promote a non-ganking more traditional style of gaming, where diplomacy > fighting. Those guildies are going to be your allies and friends for whom you rely on entering dungeons, travelling the world, help crafting, and yes, protect each other from jerk griefers.
Consider joining one of these guilds now...you don't need to be super active, but take a bit of time to get to know each other... its not like your going to play an MMO by yourself anyways.
I will personally pledge that if you join the Great Legionnaires (planning on a name change soon btw), I would love to get to know you, and would love to have you help me learn about the game as well.
Hope to see you hanging out in our forum, on teamspeak or in the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
On a semi-related note, I started AoC on a PvP server. Which was fine until about 30th level, when my ranger started running into people on the road who simply attacked and killed me. Time after time. That got old fast and I restarted on the PvE server and I'm now hooked on AoC.
Alot of us have been wounded by bad pvp experiences in MMO's, I also played AoC PvP server.
I'd suggest you go back and remember why you tried the PvP server first and why you thought it would be a good idea. Then read up how PvP will be in PFO.
PvP is like dressing on your salad. It's very boring without it and it's ruined with too much.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Let's not do the no true Scottsman thing here.
Some RP'ers do not like PVP, some do.
I got no qualms about "going there". The online RP crowd that absolutely refuses to set foot anywhere there is PvP deserves to be left behind, go play Sims and dance in taverns. This is the evolution of dynamic storytelling and as good as some in that crowd are they refuse to take the leap into places where their "gritty tough hero' might actually take a scratch.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's ruined with meaningless PvP.
If someone kills newbie PCs just for the fun of it over and over and over because there is not much else to do and noone cares about it then PvP is meaningless and indeed the game would be off better without it because it doesn't add anything.
This is not how it is in EVE and it is not how it is gonna be in PFO.
Tell me why anyone would be stupid enough to pay for that?
Will do right after you tell me why a lot of people pay to do the same raid over and over and over for the miniscule chance of some stuff that will be worthless within the year.
Then read up how PvP will be in PFO.
From Ryan's OP in this thread, my take on the PvP will be:
Unless I hang in or around NPC towns;
Or travel with others who can protect me, I'm fair game to just about everybody, all the time.
If somebody is around to save me, I might avoid death. Or at the least the person who killed me might have to pay a penalty (which is great in real life, but still not much fun to actually play)
But PFO will offer a very small amount of non PvP gameplay when I'm online, playing.
If a pro-PFO person wants to show me how Ryan's original post doesn't slant that way, I'm listening. Well, reading...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Holmes
You are correct to a degree. In previous blogs I believe that there will be different 'areas' each further and further away from 'civilization' which will have a decreasing amount of protection from PVP.
If you stay near friendly settlements, you should be quite safe, whereas if you go into a far off virgin wilderness, you will be more at risk.
I am not a PVPer, and I suspect that most people are not. I think if you meet someone in the wilderness, there should be some danger, but I wouldnt expect to get attacked everytime, or the person doing the attacking will find themselves extremely limited in both friends, and settlements to which they can go.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's a good question HolmesandWatson, and I wonder if anyone has a definitive answer?
I think the key part of Ryan's post might be:
Outside of NPC controlled territory, player character decisions will have a strong influence on how secure a given area is - or is not!
This is a question that interests me. I think there will be high frequency of kingdoms conflict but how much will that influence eg LG collection of Hexes which should be relatively peaceful/safe for adventuring/PvE?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GW blogs, imo, are the very best location for information concerning PFO. Below is a quick list of relevant blogs. Note, this is by no means an exhaustive list, and again I encourage everyone who has questions to check out the GW blog: https://goblinworks.com/blog/
Meaningful Player Interaction and PvP
https://goblinworks.com/blog/index.html#20120118
https://goblinworks.com/blog/index.html#20120201
https://goblinworks.com/blog/index.html#20120523
https://goblinworks.com/blog/index.html#20120703
https://goblinworks.com/blog/index.html#20120718
https://goblinworks.com/blog/index.html#20121121
PVE-related material
https://goblinworks.com/blog/index.html#20120425
Cheers!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Silly me, Nihimon is on the job!!!
Check out the thread: Community Information
for more info.
Cheers!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unless I hang in or around NPC towns;
Or travel with others who can protect me, I'm fair game to just about everybody, all the time.
It's true that you are "fair game" in the sense that anyone can attack you. However, they will suffer significant penalties for doing so without a reason. If they're doing so repeatedly for no reason in a way that makes the Admins think they're just trying to ruin your day, they'll be banned.
So, yes, you'll be "fair game" in the same sense that you're "fair game" walking down the street in the town where you live. Anyone can come up and attack you, but they usually don't without for a variety of reasons, ranging from "they're not a~$@#@#s" to "it's not worth their time" to "they don't want to go to jail".
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Has anyone bothered to explain how the hovering gankers that are predicted to be waiting at every border will be getting their equipment? They won't be making a lot of coin by reselling scraps from random people, they won't be active in gathering and crafting, and they won't be taking advantage of a coin faucet.
Assume they get an initial set of equipment that makes them competitive enough to kill people: After about 20 minutes, Andius and the GL come in and wipe them out and destroy their husks. Who is going to sell them new equipment, and how are they going to pay for it?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there are a couple key factors which will influence how effective PFO will be in achieving it's goals for meaningfull PvP without turning into a "gankfest". These are areas where some other open PvP games have had difficulty....
1) They are going to have to insure that the consequences for unwarrented violence (i.e. killing someone who was not hostile to you) are actualy meaningfull. Alot of other games had consequences that weren't really consequences. The player would be "flagged" or turn red for a few minutes...whereupon they might go hide someplace for 5-10 minutes for the tag to wear off and then walk back into town, free as a bird and untouchable. Even in games that had more permanent tagging of such individuals, they didn't really suffer any signifigant handicap as through the use of Alts or "red towns" they could just as easly obtain anything they wanted as if they weren't criminals.
It's a difficult line to walk, because you do want "bandits" and "robbers" and "bad guys" and the like to exist because without them there is significantly less conflict (which is an important form of "meaningfull human interaction"). That means such players have to be able to function. On the other hand the "good guys" are handi-capped because they have to abide by very specific rules of engagement (i.e. they can't attack a character that they KNOW is a "bad guy" unless that character is actively flagged by the game as hostile). The "bad guys" suffer from no such handicap and it's a pretty significant handicap so there has to be something that is non-trivial to avoid to balance that out.
2) Map size in relation to player base size. This is also really important. You want players to be able to encounter and interact with other players, including "bandits".....but you don't want players to ALWAYS have to deal with "bandits" on EVERY trip. For players who aren't interested primarly in PvP conflict. The POSSIBILTY of encountering a hostile player should always exist....but on MOST trips that shouldn't actualy happen. There should be ways of inreasing or decreasing the odds (e.g. getting off the beaten path) of a hostile encounter and ways to mitigate what the outcome of said encounter might be (e.g. hiring guards) but you shouldn't be almost certain that you get mugged the moment you step out of a "safe area". The problem here is most games tend to have VERY,VERY crowded maps. The territory is tiny in comparison to the number of players, so you always end up encountering players everywhere you go....and if you want to do certain usefull activities there are only 1 or 2 spots available to do so. Compounding this many games have significant "choke points" where players are always funnled through, especialy from "newbie" zones. This changes things from the possibility of conflict on a trip to the virtual certainty of conflict on every trip. That's something GW is going to have to work carefully to address (IMO).
All that being said, I think these issues (and others I haven't mentioned) ARE addressable....and I am cautiously optomistic that GW can achieve it's goals for PFO (else I wouldn't be here). The bottom line is that though the challenge isn't easy, the GW team includes very experienced proffesionals who are very aware of the pitfalls involved in the sort of game they are making. Everything they've written so far demonstrates that. There is also plenty of history of the struggles other games have dealt with that they can and I'm sure will be able to utilize to thier benefit. YMMV.
Unless I hang in or around NPC towns;
Or travel with others who can protect me, I'm fair game to just about everybody, all the time.
It's true that you are "fair game" in the sense that anyone can attack you. However, they will suffer significant penalties for doing so without a reason. If they're doing so repeatedly for no reason in a way that makes the Admins think they're just trying to ruin your day, they'll be banned.
So, yes, you'll be "fair game" in the same sense that you're "fair game" walking down the street in the town where you live. Anyone can come up and attack you, but they usually don't without for a variety of reasons, ranging from "they're not a~$@#@#s" to "it's not worth their time" to "they don't want to go to jail".
@holmes This is needed for a bit of realism. I dont think you will find anyone here who would enjoy the scenario you faced in AoC. But that is what most are getting at, with the right safegaurds that ryan illustrated in place then there is less chance of that happening.
My view is simple, as a ranger myself I dont plan on traveling in groups all the time. I will venture out on my own for hunting runs, there is an extremely high chance I could be ganked. Not only will the game enforce its own detrimental effects on that behavior, I have my own. I plan on being open to all organizations and companies as a gatherer, scout, and multiple other things that tie me to multiple communities and hopefully make me a valuable outside contact and asset to the larger community. Openly attacking me will have serious repercusions beyond what the game enforces and will likely cut you and or any affiliations you might have off from any future benefits you might have gotten from trade or other services I provide.
I think this is the "meaningful human interaction" that we all want.
Yes there is risk, but its on both sides and makes the choice/consequence matter.
That is where most pvp focused games fail, there is little to no risk or repercussions for the ganker, and plenty for anyone just trying to get from point a to point b. Now couple all this with the power gap that most games have and its twofold, another area that GW hopes to change for the better. A level 20 ganking a level 5 will only have a marginal advantage and be just as at risk if they underestimate their opponent.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Has anyone bothered to explain how the hovering gankers that are predicted to be waiting at every border will be getting their equipment? They won't be making a lot of coin by reselling scraps from random people, they won't be active in gathering and crafting, and they won't be taking advantage of a coin faucet.
Assume they get an initial set of equipment that makes them competitive enough to kill people: After about 20 minutes, Andius and the GL come in and wipe them out and destroy their husks. Who is going to sell them new equipment, and how are they going to pay for it?
In all fairness Decius, the typical way I've seen that accomplished elsewhere is through the use of ALTS, or simply waiting for thier "criminal tag" to wear off and saunter into town untouchable by the good guys...or going to a different town to do thier trading.
It actualy isn't as simple an issue to address as it seems on the outside. Although I think the mechanic that GW is implimenting where they only get to loot 1 random item rather the a full loot will really help here. It creates far less of an economic advantage to "ganking" in comparison to other activites....which means it will be difficult to sustain such activites even through the use of ALTS and other such mechanisms.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has anyone bothered to explain how the hovering gankers that are predicted to be waiting at every border will be getting their equipment? They won't be making a lot of coin by reselling scraps from random people, they won't be active in gathering and crafting, and they won't be taking advantage of a coin faucet.
Assume they get an initial set of equipment that makes them competitive enough to kill people: After about 20 minutes, Andius and the GL come in and wipe them out and destroy their husks. Who is going to sell them new equipment, and how are they going to pay for it?
I beleive you res with you weapons and armor, which is the only thing dedicated gankers will have on them. They will have lawful good mule alts logged nearby to take anything worthwhile they loot.
Since you get random items from husks you loot you could get scraps as you say, or the rare spellbook, weapon, armor or crafting recipie worth a years coin someone was trying to get to the central market to sell.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Has anyone bothered to explain how the hovering gankers that are predicted to be waiting at every border will be getting their equipment? They won't be making a lot of coin by reselling scraps from random people, they won't be active in gathering and crafting, and they won't be taking advantage of a coin faucet.
Assume they get an initial set of equipment that makes them competitive enough to kill people: After about 20 minutes, Andius and the GL come in and wipe them out and destroy their husks. Who is going to sell them new equipment, and how are they going to pay for it?I beleive you res with you weapons and armor, which is the only thing dedicated gankers will have on them. They will have lawful good mule alts logged nearby to take anything worthwhile they loot.
Since you get random items from husks you loot you could get scraps as you say, or the rare spellbook, weapon, armor or crafting recipie worth a years coin someone was trying to get to the central market to sell.
If they play without anything beyond your weapon and armor, then they become easier for someone who is fully kitted out to defeat; the vigilante is also going to cut their evil alt down, (the alt is evil because it typically associates only with a known criminal murderer)
I do find the posts since mine to be helpful. Not mind-changing, but informative. Thanks to those who posted.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A reminder about looting from Ryan earlier in this thread:
@All - what is lootable and how that system will work is very much on the drawing board. In fact, based on a diagram I saw in a conference room today, I think literally. :)
So don't get too caught up in the specific mechanics that we've discussed before.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The problem I have with Ryan's example is this: Is the loss of my rare ore equal to the death of the character who stole it?
I doubt death has much of a penalty. Even if a bounty hunter finds the guy right away I'm still out my rare ore AND whatever I payed for the bounty.
The risk vs. reward for the player killer is always in favor of reward. With hardly any risk at all.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The problem I have with Ryan's example is this: Is the loss of my rare ore equal to the death of the character who stole it?
I doubt death has much of a penalty. Even if a bounty hunter finds the guy right away I'm still out my rare ore AND whatever I payed for the bounty.
The risk vs. reward for the player killer is always in favor of reward. With hardly any risk at all.
And that is your fault for carrying rare ore and walking around alone.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
@All - lets not use the term carebear.
@All - lets not tell people to leave, encourage them to do so, or thank them for leaving.
PvP rises strong emotions because its the original sin of Ultima Online, and no MMO has really spent the time and effort to figure out a good resolution. I think we have the history and the experience to be the game that does so. But it's a legit issue to say "why should I trust you". A lot of hearts have been broken.
So, tread lightly, and do no more harm to the cause.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I doubt death has much of a penalty.
This is speculation on my part, but I believe it may be congruent with Ryan's thoughts.
While death may be a relatively trivial setback for players when they encounter it during the game "normally", that doesn't mean it's going to be equally trivial when a player is killed for a Bounty Contract. We already know that Assassination Contracts are likely to carry significant penalties beyond a normal death. It's not much of a stretch to expect similar, but perhaps not as severe, penalties for being killed for a Bounty.