Goblin Squad Member
|
I have one question for all the "anti-PvP" folks: Have you ever been tempted to go into a PvP battleground or whatever in a game like WoW?
I don't know if I'm all the "anti-PvP" folks, but I can answer for myself:
Once upon a time, I was playing in the World of Warcraft beta, on a PvE server. I was playing a Night Elf (just like everyone else :p) and had reached the point where a quest was being sent from Ashenvale to Ratchet.
This was my first time ever leaving Alliance territory, and it was both scary and exciting to sneak through the barrens, though horde lands!, carefully dodging trouble. Then, roughly halfway through, I suddenly realized: "Oh, wait. No one - except town guards - can actually do anything." So I just kinda walked the rest of the way there. It was such an anti-climatic feeling.
So anti-climatic, in fact, that when WoW was released, I persuaded my friends to roll on a PvP server. I don't like PvP, I'm not good at PvP, and I am not going to participate in PvP, but I liked the idea of the threat of PvP.
And, as I mentioned earlier, PvP is just a mild inconvenience and a slight delay to what you're really playing the game for. You would, fairly often, get jumped and murdered. You respawn and continue. Nothing major, just vaguely stressful. With the occasional highlight of an enemy waving to you when they ran by, instead of murdering you.
Years later, for some reason, we re-rolled on a different server, PvE this time, and it was such a relief. No more sighing when three guys land next to you, or a rogue unstealths behind you, or some level impossible guy one-shots you at random. It was such a blissful experience in comparison.
The idea of danger is cool and all, but it's nothing next to the ability to playing on your own terms. PvP is basically just an obstacle, and I don't have the free time to put up with the bored 12-year old who's currently ganking everything that moves in Hillsbrad, or whatever. I only have a few hours a night.
I have briefly tried PvP in a variety of games (I have a bunch of very PvP focused friends) and never cared for it much. With the sole exception of Warhammer Online: Well, I didn't care for the battlegrounds (forgot what they call them), that was just pointlessly running around, but the castle sieges were great fun. And not rammed down my throat.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How are all of these gankers going to level their skills up when they spend all of their time behind trees in the wilderness hoping for prey to come by?
I was under the impression that your skill increased over time whether you're hiding behind a tree, cowering in a city, or out slaying dragons.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Mic, I'm getting an overtone of condescension from your post; you may not intend it, but phrasing is important...
I am not a native english speaker, so I apologize for any condescending tones. I did not intend them, I merely wished to point out that you indeed can play PFO without even the risk of PvP, but you would miss out on many things.
The other 2/3 of your scenarios didn't strike my as problematic as you yourself said they were easily avoidable, so I snipped them out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Slaunyeh, I appreciate your response, but that question was merely an introduction to an idea. Did you consider my recommendation?
"[T]he bored 12-year old who's currently ganking everything that moves" really shouldn't be an issue in PFO. Just like a host of other things that pretty much everyone remembers from their prior bad experiences with PvP in other games simply won't be an issue in PFO. Ryan has spent a year talking to us about his ideas, and there are a large number of people who started out anti-PvP (myself included) who have gradually come around.
It's not possible to transfer that experience of gradual acclimation to the idea of PvP in a single post. But I believe that, if you seriously consider Ryan's arguments and analysis, and can let go of the reflexive instinct that PvP always means ganking, I think that you and many others will see what so many of us have already seen.
PvP in PFO will be different than the PvP experiences you've had in other games.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@all
There is a lot of information for how PvP interactions are going to be heavily penalized outside of declared wars. I made a really long post about it here.
I am as familiar with the design goals and features for this game as anybody else on this forum (ok, maybe not Nihimon...). The recent PvP mechanics that severely punish people for simply killing others in the wilds is making me rethink my character concept.
Players won't just be penalized for attacking new players or players near towns (though these are much more highly penalized, for good reason), they will be penalized for attacking a player anywhere. This on top of the fact that you only loot one-to-some random items of a players inventory and the dead player keeps the majority of his/her equipment, losing only the cheap stuff that you will "shrug when you lose" it, as Ryan Dancey states. This means there isn't really too much point in PvP outside of wars and specifically targeting an enemy's supply lines, anyway.
For this reason, as an avid PvPer (not griefer), I'm thinking of opting out of the PvP arena altogether and focusing on being a crafter/merchant, since I was interested in this almost as much as a Free Open PvP system (which no longer exists, due to the deterrants).
I would just join a Company focused on warfare, but I'm too happy with the direction and leadership of The Seventh Veil to leave :)
As a crafter/merchant I will severely limit my PvP interaction because I will only have to enter into well-traveled hexes. I will probably hire people to travel with me to protect my cargo. I expect that in the beginning there will be lots of players 'trying out' banditry, but after the penalties for such behavior are realized, it will slim down to mostly only attacks from settlements at war with mine.
If your settlement goes to war, I imagine that will be a decision in which you can have a voice (either by speaking up or moving to another settlement). I also wouldn't be surprised if there are a few Chartered Companies that will be pacifist (focused on crafting, adventuring, and exploring only) and will be supported in that by other Companies that protect that stance. I imagine Andius's Company would likely come to your aid in war, for instance.
Please, if you are reading this, read the link I provided for a little more information to see what leads me to my conclusion.
EDIT: lol@Nihimon. Figures you get a post in before I finish mine. Thanks for your post, though. I think it's important for people to understand that people that hated their initial conceptualizations of PvP in PFO are now much more optimistic about it, and people that were excited about their initial conceptualizations of PvP in PFO are now not so interested. It shows how the 'gut-reaction' of people on both sides of the issue has been proven wrong.
Mic, I'm getting an overtone of condescension from your post; you may not intend it, but phrasing is important...I am not a native english speaker, so I apologize for any condescending tones. I did not intend them, I merely wished to point out that you indeed can play PFO without even the risk of PvP, but you would miss out on many things.
The other 2/3 of your scenarios didn't strike my as problematic as you yourself said they were easily avoidable, so I snipped them out.
Ah, thank you, that clarifies things.
It's that uncertainty regarding my ability to mitigate risk around assassination (largely because I know so little about it) that makes it worrisome. If it, too, proves to be something I can avoid through my own risk calculations and adaptations, then it falls into the same category as the first two.
But staying within settlements all the time would be boring, and thus not a valid solution for me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, I too am under the impression that PvP will not be that common under all these restrictions, the save zones and the huge world.
Also by growing the community slowly and letting in only the most dedicacted fans first, I guess the number of people that will randomly gank passerbys will be extremely small and soon extinct as a big number of bounty hunters descends on the would be bandits.
I think the real power of this concept will come to bear in guild wars.
And I very much like that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@MicMan
I think you're right, there. Meaningful PvP in PFO is about settlement conflict; gaining and losing territory.
It is not about killing random players you encounter, which is the only purpose of world PvP in themepark games such as WoW, which I think most here are familiar with. It is also more-or-less the focus of games with full player loot. It also became the focus of other games that did not or could not curb it on initial launch, as those types of players flocked to the game and the developers could not change it without hurting their bottom line.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This means there isn't really too much point in PvP outside of wars and specifically targeting an enemy's supply lines, anyway.
True and not true. You can deal with the penalties and just go chaotic evil. But as you are seeing there are some serious downsides and deterrents to doing this.
What this effectively creates is an mechanical reason why the minority of players will opt to go chaotic evil, just like in real life. This is why chaotic evil bandits will opt for hideouts instead of forts, and chaotic evil nations will only be established in remote regions where it is hard for good aligned nations to root them out.
It's why when you move goods from the Player City A to Player City B, 95% of the players you encounter will be friendly or at least not rob you. And Player City B isn't just going to kill you and take your goods when you arrive. It's why when you occasionally do meet bandits on the road, they might just make you pay a toll rather than immediately opening fire.
This is opposed to games like EVE and Darkfall where 95% of players who aren't allied to you are going to open fire on you the minute they see you, and Player City B is surely going to blow you straight to hell if you weren't expected / didn't receive permission to enter their territory.
This game is catered at an entirely different breed of PVPers than those games.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also by growing the community slowly and letting in only the most dedicated fans first, I guess the number of people that will randomly gank passersby will be extremely small and soon extinct as a big number of bounty hunters descends on the would be bandits.
This is why I am excited and optimistic about the beta period & early release of Pathfinder Online. The flexibility of the flagging system allows players to make decisions with consequences but with freedom.
The second half to that is the community/the players themselves, and how they handle that freedom. And I feel the early days are going to have the most chance for an interesting game experience because a smaller player base (with limited monthly additions of new players) with a more compatible mix of players added to a great design is a good match.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The other nice part about the slow launch is say the game starts out, and most players actually DO decide to go chaotic evil, and leaving the safe areas turns into a massive gankfest.
They can adjust the alignment system, adjust the rewards for being lawful and good, and penalties for being chaotic and evil. If what it takes is allowing lawful good players cheap cities with powerful NPC guards and perks, and reducing chaotic evil players to nothing but hidey holes and shanty towns... that is what they can do.
They can make sure that by the time this game reaches a larger audience, that it isn't a tab targeted version of Darkfall.
Nihimon, Kakafika, thanks. I'm sure this is a repeat discussion for a lot of you, but simply taking someone's word that it won't be like PvP in Game X isn't necessarily going to work. Call it aversion therapy; if I've been bitten by ten Dobermans in the past ten years, it will be a bit difficult to accept that your particular Doberman is different!
(Note to Doberman lovers: the only Dobermans I've ever known were more likely to crush you to death by climbing in your lap than anything else. Just a handy, recognizable dog breed to use.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Andius: Yeah, not likely, but yeah.
And as an added bonus we have the chance to know each other well because there is not a huge numbers of player so that you almost never see the same guy twice. Quite contrary, if BobX is constantly p*ss*ng off anyone he meets, he will have a very hard time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... simply taking someone's word that it won't be like PvP in Game X isn't necessarily going to work.
I totally understand. In fact, I tried to say the same thing. That's why I am so enthusiastically trying to encourage you and others not only to read up on Ryan's analysis and ideas, but to seriously consider the problem from a position that isn't married to the idea that PvP always results in Griefing.
Above all, though, I hope that your interest is strong enough to get you to try PFO and see for yourself :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If GW's analysis of the market is correctIt's not, but I still think a game like Pathfinder Online is very much needed.
The era of the theme park isn't over. The market is just too saturated with them. Those developers that treat their game as a service and provide frequent quality updates can continue to do well. Consider Rift, its population has been growing since February(one month after SWTOR came out) and it's had twelve major content updates in less than two years with a thirteenth update that should hit next week or at least before Christmas.
I appreciate your response, although we differ in our understanding of the facts of the case. For example, to the best of my understanding RIFT is a tiny game that's dying.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Slaunyeh, Chiassa: Could you explain how GW will make any money if they were to make this a PVE game?Uhm. Box sales? Subscriptions? Micro-transactions? You know, the same way every other video game ever made has managed to make money? The same way it will make money as a PvP game or an Airbus flight sim.
No, that would be a way to loose money. As Ryan has explained many, many times, the investment costs far exceed the revenue potential.
So again, given are so hot to have a PVE version of this, can you think through and articulate a way to get what you want without GW going bankrupt?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Slaunyeh, Chiassa: Could you explain how GW will make any money if they were to make this a PVE game?Uhm. Box sales? Subscriptions? Micro-transactions? You know, the same way every other video game ever made has managed to make money? The same way it will make money as a PvP game or an Airbus flight sim.No, that would be a way to loose money. As Ryan has explained many, many times, the investment costs far exceed the revenue potential.
So again, given are so hot to have a PVE version of this, can you think through and articulate a way to get what you want without GW going bankrupt?
I don't think that Slaunyeh or Chiassa, or really anybody who hasn't been following PFO closely for a while, will understand the context you're referencing.
Unfortunately, there's simply no way for those of us who have this wealth of information that we've already processed to transmit that information to new members of the community in a short period of time.
Hopefully, these new members of the community will make a genuine effort to consider the things we're saying without reflexively refusing to hear anything that contradicts the idea that PvE servers would solve the problems they're concerned about.
One of the most important things we can try to convey is that the game just won't work as a PvE experience. PvE MMOs require the developers to create content (dungeons, etc.) quickly enough to keep players busy. Goblinworks does not - and will not - have the budget for that kind of development pace.
That is a critical piece of information, stated as clearly as possible, and yet I know that many will refuse to hear it. I hope that some of you do hear it, and really consider the implications of it, before insisting that a PvE server is a good solution.
...without GW going bankrupt?
Well, Andius said "GW doesn't need/shouldn't aim this game at the majority of players. If they make their target niche very happy, a minority though we may be, we'll take care of them."
Seriously? The niche seems to be only part of the PF players. That's an awfully small starting niche. I think that's a guaranteed path for a short life in a flooded genre (EVE online has the niche advantage of being a space game), so I'd say that's not a way to avoid going bankrupt.
Has anybody analyzed the kickstarter progress? I recall the first 24 hours being something like $120,000 or so. That right? Which would leave $150,000 in the ensuing 8+ days (we'll call that $18,500/day).
If the project maintains that $18,500/day, it would finish somewhere around $995,000. But I don't think it's reasonable to expact a zero decrease over the next 38 days. Especially with money getting tighter as Christmas approaches. I'll revisit that average number next Friday.
Just making the point that a huge rush of support came from PF players who liked the idea of PFO. Once that surge was over, there's been a trickle of support. The PF players who did not support the project initially aren't coming around much and the PvP issue certainly seems to be the most visibly debated topic.
I've read some more arguments today and I'm a little more okay with the PvP structure (if you join a guild). But $100ish today for a game I HOPE I get to beta test in two years (and pay for after that) isn't too enticing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How are all of these gankers going to level their skills up when they spend all of their time behind trees in the wilderness hoping for prey to come by?I was under the impression that your skill increased over time whether you're hiding behind a tree, cowering in a city, or out slaying dragons.
I suppose. I was under the impression that you earned a pool of skill points each month regardless of activity, but to apply them to skills you had to actually use those skills.
It is quite possible I am wrong on this, but the idea of the PvP griefer bogeyman, in this particular game, still seems missplaced.
@Slaunyeh, Chiassa: Could you explain how GW will make any money if they were to make this a PVE game?Uhm. Box sales? Subscriptions? Micro-transactions? You know, the same way every other video game ever made has managed to make money? The same way it will make money as a PvP game or an Airbus flight sim.No, that would be a way to loose money. As Ryan has explained many, many times, the investment costs far exceed the revenue potential.
So again, given are so hot to have a PVE version of this, can you think through and articulate a way to get what you want without GW going bankrupt?
I don't think that Slaunyeh or Chiassa, or really anybody who hasn't been following PFO closely for a while, will understand the context you're referencing.
Unfortunately, there's simply no way for those of us who have this wealth of information that we've already processed to transmit that information to new members of the community in a short period of time.
Hopefully, these new members of the community will make a genuine effort to consider the things we're saying without reflexively refusing to hear anything that contradicts the idea that PvE servers would solve the problems they're concerned about.
One of the most important things we can try to convey is that the game just won't work as a PvE experience. PvE MMOs require the developers to create content (dungeons, etc.) quickly enough to keep players busy. Goblinworks does not - and will not - have the budget for that kind of development pace.
That is a critical piece of information, stated as clearly as possible, and yet I know that many will refuse to hear it. I hope that some of you do hear it, and really consider the implications of it, before insisting that a PvE server is a good solution.
I would like to reiterate here that I AM NOT suggesting a PvE server. I have never done so. I am not sure how my name got attached to the idea that I want one.
I accept the idea that PvP is an integral part of the game as envisioned. My interest here is in how well a non-PvPer like myself will fit into the world as planned.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I didn't mention hacking, I spoke only about in game mechanics. Guard towers in darkfall were meant to provide some protection in town and provide enough protection to make the game playable for weaker characters, yet not only could someone stroll into town and kill someone without setting off the towers, even when they did, they had time to dry loot- at the bank.
But that's not what I was getting at when I mentioned darkfall. The purpose of darkfall IS PVP. The purpose of PFO is meaningful human interaction. This is not the same thing as pvp. If you want a pvp oriented game, I said there already is one. Or there's planetside 2.
My question remains will the currently planned mechanisms actually work?
You are asking a question that no one can really answer right now, because until it's field tested no one will if there is something they neglected to take into account. Just like no designer will really know for sure just how well some new car/airplane design will work until a proto-type is actualy built and starts running through field tests.
The most productive thing we can do right now is when GW starts posting more specifics on mechanics try to figure out logical ways you could poke holes in them are issues that might be problematic so the Dev's can try to benefit from that feed-back.
All I can say right now is GW has stated a commitment to address the issue, seems to be aware of them main issues and from a 10,000 ft level has described what sound like pretty solid mechanisms for dealing with them. As far as I'm concerned that's pretty much the most anyone can expect from any developer at this point.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would like to reiterate here that I AM NOT suggesting a PvE server.
My apologies.
My interest here is in how well a non-PvPer like myself will fit into the world as planned.
I don't know how you want to fit into the world, so I can't really answer. But I can tell you how I see myself - generally, a non-PvPer because I've never been all that good at it - fitting into that world.
I expect to be able to Explore areas by myself, but I realize I'll need to be on my toes and keep my eyes open for threats - whether from other players or from wandering monsters.
I expect to be able to Harvest - and you should probably read Adventure in the River Kingdoms and Butchers, Bakers and Candlestick Makers to understand how different from the standard see an ore deposit and click it form of harvesting - but I don't expect to be able to do it myself. Not only is there a possibility that a group of player bandits will try to steal from me, but there is a near certainty that I will encounter Harvesting Hazards (monsters that are attracted to my harvesting operation).
I expect to be able to Adventure with my friends. We'll explore Dungeons together, and guard Trade Caravans, and patrol the countryside around our Settlements to clear out Encampments of monsters.
I really expect to have a lot of fun, to be honest :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, Andius said "GW doesn't need/shouldn't aim this game at the majority of players. If they make their target niche very happy, a minority though we may be, we'll take care of them."
Seriously? The niche seems to be only part of the PF players.
You are making the assumption this game's audience is solely PF players which is entirely incorrect. I heard about this game through a conversation on Mortal Online. It was discussion of game mechanics that brought me here, not the Pathfinder connection. I never cracked a Pathfinder book until AFTER I was following this project.
I know some of this game's most avid supporters and community figures like Nihimon have a similar story. A LOT of this game's community has a similar story.
Has anybody analyzed the kickstarter progress? I recall the first 24 hours being something like $120,000 or so. That right? Which would leave $150,000 in the ensuing 8+ days (we'll call that $18,500/day).
If the project maintains that $18,500/day, it would finish somewhere around $995,000. But I don't think it's reasonable to expact a zero decrease over the next 38 days. Especially with money getting tighter as Christmas approaches. I'll revisit that average number next Friday.
This game's Kicktraq projections now have it likely to succeed. All Kickstarter projects have a flurry of last minute pledges toward the end. That why it doesn't matter that we aren't making the 18k+ every day. And you are right I full expect this project to slow WAY down during the Christmas Season.
What I can tell you is this. If GoblinWorks back's down on the PVP issue. Not only will I withdraw my 275$ pledge. I will also withdraw my 166+$ from our guild's pledge, and may or may not disband one of the largest guild's in the game, depending on if Jak Blitz is interested in taking over leadership of this game after Goblinworks abandons it's vision, and proves they are more concerned with chasing every last supporter they can get, than taking care of their core audience. Just like SWG proved with the NGE, and we all know how that went.
I can guarantee you that if I leave some GL members will leave with me, and if GL disbands, a lot of people of them may lose interest in this project.
I can also guarantee you that the recruitment campaign I'm planning for this upcoming week with the dual purpose of bolstering our numbers, and bringing attention to this game, will not be happening.
What's more. That is purely what will happen if leave. Do you think I am the only established member of this community that won't be sticking around for GW to break more promises? If GW backs down on this issue, this Kickstarter and this game WILL fail. I can almost guarantee it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Been looking through the thread, wondering weather or no to support Pathfinder Online or not.I see the PvE people ask if there could be a separate server just for PvE so they can enjoy the game too.
I see the PvP people say play it our way or go away.Then there is the middle people, I found the post by some of these to be the worst out of the lot. very rude.
If the community is so split and rude like this now, and the people voicing what they like and don't like are being told off, Then I am sorry I don't think I can support this game with a community like this.
My opinion, I am not a fan of PvP and would rather a separate PvE server, but I was willing to give the game a shot and see how the 'anti PvP mechanics' played out.
The 'Player looting' is a real issue with me, I do not think this should be in at all, but was willing to wait and see the final say before making to much of a judgement on that..But the worst so far, is the community especially some people in this topic, is turning me away.
And Yes I have seen the issues here work their way into Pathfinder at the Table-Top RPG session I go to and split the community and destroy the Table Top game as well ..A lot of people have a lot of Strong opinions, Pathfinder is a game many many people around the world cherish and I can see the frustrations on all sides when it comes to Pathfinder Online.
Many people really love the Pathfinder world, and have been waiting so long for a virtual Pathfinder Online world to come about and able to experience it in there own time and style.
To many Pathfinder is more than just a RPG game, It is an escape, a place they dream of, and to many this dream is being torn down and striped away.
I just hope Goblinworks and Paizo Know what they are really doing with Pathfinder, limiting the game acceptability to so many players. It should not be taken lightly or selfishly.
:/
Constar,
I get the concerns of the people who would rather see Pathfinder be a purely PVE focused game then a PvP one. The PnP game is pretty much purely PVE experience, afterall. Truthfully as far as MMO's go, I'm more of a PVE focused then PVP focused player myself.
Here's the thing, you can't successfully be all things to all people. It's like trying to make golf and football work on the same field at the same time, it just won't.
So GW has chosen a focus for PFO, it's a focus that WILL include some PVE elements and I'm hopefull that those will be robust and enjoyable, especialy as the game develops but it's one that clearly relies heavley on PVP as a foundation.
You might ask WHY GW decided on this particular focus for PFO. I won't presume to speak for GW, and I think they already addressed this issue themselves elsewhere, but I can tell you 3 things:
1) The market is absolutely SATURATED with PVE games right now. Most of the recently released ones are struggling for revenue, in fact. That means the only way PFO could be successfull from a financial perspective in being PVE focused is mostly by taking customers away from those other PVE games...many of whom have $100 Million or $200 Million development and marketing budgets...something Paizo and GW can't even begin to approach for PFO.
2) Making a successfull PVE game requires tons and tons and tons of content (in game, not background) which requires both tons of resources to build and tons of time. Neither of which GW has access to. Even then, users will blow through that content at a rate faster then any Developer can keep up with....as many AAA Developers have started to recognize.
3) With a PvP focus alot of the "content" is created by the players themselves as they play. The game can be released at a fraction of the cost in a fraction of the time of the AAA PVE games...something that falls within GW financial resources to do. More importantly it's an "untapped market". ALOT of MMO players have been dreaming about exactly sort of game for a LONG time....and there is litteraly nothing else out there to meet that demand. There is a huge OPPORTUNITY out there for GW to exploit.... but it's one which will only exist for a limited time. Many AAA Developers have started to notice this opportunity as well and are moving to exploit it.... but PFO has the chance to get there FIRST....and getting to an untapped market first is a huge, huge advantage.
Consider that when you question why PFO is being developed with the focus it is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lot's of worries here over random pvp. I have faith GW will balance the risks and rewards for killing/attacking someone so that it will not be rampant by any means and will be far more strategical. I don't remember where I read this but didn't they say people won't be dieing fast by any means either, this opens up random strangers to help fight the criminal completely free of punishment.
As for a case like Chiassa pointed out, the non pvper in a position of power. Well I would surround myself with friends/bodyguards (wouldn't that be neat if kingdom leaders could hire bodyguards to help with assassins? or at least to help spot them :p). That or even have a puppet as the actual leader and you be the controller of the strings. Just like in those settings if they can't fight, they hire people who can and will fight for them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well I would surround myself with friends/bodyguards (wouldn't that be neat if kingdom leaders could hire bodyguards to help with assassins? or at least to help spot them :p)
I've already put a lot of consideration into this myself. If my company comes into this game with 50+ members and continues to grow, I imagine my passionate opinions and tendency to express them quite bluntly, will earn me about as many enemies as my ideals and the fact we are going to be a major hindrance to any evil aligned company in this game.
Given evil aligned companies are generally going to be the ones with assassins... It has me thinking on ways to guard my back. If there are NPC followers that can watch my back I will probably train to use them. If there aren't I will probably not do much of anything solo. And I think I may try to make some friends in low places whenever I can do so without compromising my ideals... so they're less likely to put a knife in my back.
The fact I am having to consider these kinds of things proves assassination is a pathway to meaningful player interaction. So despite the fact I think it's implementation may hurt me more than 99% of other players... I fully support it.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to clarify: If there is a major change in the core concept of the game, everybody is going to have to reevaluate whether it is still the game they want to play. Lots of the people that have been here since the beginning were attracted to the open competitive/cooperative sandbox world idea first, and the PF license second. Many of them would rather the PF license be dropped and go to a generic fantasy setting with open sandbox gameplay than keep the PF license and change to playground or theme park gameplay.
Additionally, most of the people who have already decided that they won't play an open sandbox game won't review their decision even if they could be told of the change; they've already left the likely customer base and will be hard to coax back with marketing promises.
Further, all of the development work so far is based on the model that they've had so far; changing the core model requires either revisiting every decision and all of the work done so far, or making a game with a disjointed vision. One of those is expensive, and the other will bankrupt the company.
Finally, the open sandbox model wasn't just a niche- it was a vision. The decision makers in charge of the model are unlikely to abandon their vision easily.
Those are the main reasons why I think that trying to convince GW to change their decisions is a waste of time.
There have been well-founded complaints, there have been concerns, there have been complaints founded on factually inaccurate premises, there have been trolls disguising themselves as complainants, and there have been people who appear to have a personal ax to grind against the principles. Sometimes it's hard for the people most involved to tell the difference.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Chiassa
If it makes you feel any better, I think (hope) you'll ALWAYS be able to manage your risk in PFO...you just won't be able to manage your outcome. In other words, just as in the real world....you can vastly reduce the risk of something happening (if you have the resources) you just can't reduce it to ZERO.
In fact, I think the Dev's did mention that in the starter towns/areas PVP would actualy be impossible (not just improbable)....although the reward for staying there would be very low.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
@All - Let me head off some conversations before they spiral out of control.
We are not going to change our stance on having PvP throughout the game. It's integral to our design. We will not have a separate server for people who don't want to engage in PvP; doing so would break our game community and thus break our game.
Again, I appreciate that there are people who don't want PvP in their MMO experience. In no way should anything about Pathfinder Online or how we are presenting it suggest that I think there's anything wrong with having that preference. The market shows clearly that there are millions of people who express that preference and it would be foolish to argue otherwise.
However, a critical part of making a successful business is by being clearly different than the competition, and by meeting an unmet need in the market.
We believe strongly that there is an unmet need for a fantasy sandbox MMO where PvP is a significant component of the game. We accept that the people who want that product are not a majority of the people who are currently playing MMOs. And that is OK.
To be successful, we don't need a million players. We need tens of thousands of players, that slowly grows to hundreds of thousands of players. And I am 100% convinced there are enough players who want what we're building - a fantasy sandbox MMO with a PvP component - to more than adequately fulfill our business goals.
In turn, I would ask that you have an open mind to what Pathfinder Online is going to offer. You may have had experiences with PvP in other games that you hated. Please don't let that completely color your perception of Pathfinder Online.
I've said before that the MMO industry has had a problem with PvP for nearly 15 years and done almost nothing to address it. We're all students of those 15 years and we have a pretty good grasp on what the problems are and what kinds of solutions have been tried in the past to address them, and some pretty strong opinions on why those solutions failed.
If we're right, and we create a game where there is a lot of PvP but not a lot of grief, we'll unlock a tremendous value in terms of deeply immersive game play and strong communities. And I think we'll be right. Not perfect, not right all the time, not right always at first, but in the long run, right; that a game that maximizes meaningful human interaction (and that includes PvP) does not degenerate into a terrible experience for people who don't want to make PvP a big part of their play experience.
All we're asking now is that you give us a chance to build our game and see if we can break through 15 years of past misbehavior.
@Andius - Hadn't seen kicktraq before. Thanks.
I don't think GW is going to change the system and break their promises. I think they've made their choice and they'll stick with it. I also think they're going to struggle mightily to keep this game alive.
PvPers are going to great lengths to assuage worries of non PvPers and trying to show it won't be a big problem. That's fine. And I read a post from Ryan Dancey last night/this morning where he said characters will "absolutely" be robbing other characters for gold. So, even if they can only get one item from me, they can still repeatedly rob me for cash.
I typed this on page four of this thread, related to "Meaningful player interaction." I think a lot of current non-PFO folks feel the same way. If Goblinworks:
A - builds a game where meaningful interaction lets a player enjoy the MMO;
B - without being randomly/consistently killed/robbed, or spending copious amounts of time playing in a way to avoid being killed/robbed (like cowering in NPC settlements or adventuring with bodyguards);
C- then THAT will succeed in meaningful player interaction for a large group of the current Pathfinder fan base.
Punishing bad guys for killing me is nice, but me not getting killed is nicer. Time will tell if they successfully took care of "B" or not.
BTW, some of the early posts in the Grand Legionnaire thread are among those that have softened my stance on PvP today.
Visually, Age of Conan is fantastic and the game mechanics are good. It deserves many more players than it has. But membership is way down (I usually see less than 10 people in multi-hour gaming session) and I assume Funcom will pull the plug at some point.
If PFO, with a subscription basis, can't maintain a significant membership, how is it going to stay afloat? And if Pathfinder Online isn't getting a LOT of Pathfinder players behind it, isn't it fighting an uphill battle? The lure of the River Kingdoms should be a strong one for PF players (it's the only reason I'm interested).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Note: I can't speak for for anyone else, but I think if I were planning an expidition out into the deep wilderness to explore...not something nearby, not just hunting a few mobs localy....or going to clear out a dungeon....I would be planning on taking a decent sized party with me. I would plan on this not just due to PvP issues but I fully expect (and hope) the PvE content at that scale actualy be DANGEROUS.
I fully expect there will be plenty of stuff you can do solo.....but getting out into the deep wilds or pushing into a serious dungeon, I certainly don't expect to tackle that solo...and that's purely considering PVE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@All - Let me head off some conversations before they spiral out of control.
We are not going to change our stance on having PvP throughout the game. It's integral to our design. We will not have a separate server for people who don't want to engage in PvP; doing so would break our game community and thus break our game.
Again, I appreciate that there are people who don't want PvP in their MMO experience. In no way should anything about Pathfinder Online or how we are presenting it suggest that I think there's anything wrong with having that preference. The market shows clearly that there are millions of people who express that preference and it would be foolish to argue otherwise.
However, a critical part of making a successful business is by being clearly different than the competition, and by meeting an unmet need in the market.
We believe strongly that there is an unmet need for a fantasy sandbox MMO where PvP is a significant component of the game. We accept that the people who want that product are not a majority of the people who are currently playing MMOs. And that is OK.
To be successful, we don't need a million players. We need tens of thousands of players, that slowly grows to hundreds of thousands of players. And I am 100% convinced there are enough players who want what we're building - a fantasy sandbox MMO with a PvP component - to more than adequately fulfill our business goals.
In turn, I would ask that you have an open mind to what Pathfinder Online is going to offer. You may have had experiences with PvP in other games that you hated. Please don't let that completely color your perception of Pathfinder Online.
I've said before that the MMO industry has had a problem with PvP for nearly 15 years and done almost nothing to address it. We're all students of those 15 years and we have a pretty good grasp on what the problems are and what kinds of solutions have been tried in the past to address them, and some pretty strong...
Well said, and glad to hear. These sentiments are precisely why I am supporting the project.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
HW,
I appreciate where you are coming from HW. I believe you can have a certain level of meaningful player interaction without pvp, but there is nothing like the threat of death to put an edge on interactions. Additionally, this threat makes it much more exciting for a whole range of other activities (e.g. traders, crafters, guards, merchants of all sorts, etc). The way I see it, is to think about those pnp games where there is a real threat of death, and the ones when there isn't. Nothing like that threat to make everything more meaningful and exciting.
HW,
I appreciate where you are coming from HW. I believe you can have a certain level of meaningful player interaction without pvp, but there is nothing like the threat of death to put an edge on interactions. Additionally, this threat makes it much more exciting for a whole range of other activities (e.g. traders, crafters, guards, merchants of all sorts, etc). The way I see it, is to think about those pnp games where there is a real threat of death, and the ones when there isn't. Nothing like that threat to make everything more meaningful and exciting.
Okay. Sticking with the PnP idea: suppose, every time your character went out to adventure, alone or in groups, the GM brought in some guy to kill you and take your stuff. How long would you stick with that game?
That is exactly why I left the Age of Conan PvP server and started over on PvE. And enjoyed it enough to sign up for a six month subscription.
So, as I said before, the extent that GW makes it so that some of us can play in the River Kingdoms (the setting is the only reason I'm looking into PFO) without the griefing experience, the more successful they'll be in getting people to try the game.
I don't mind the threat of death. I don't like the idea of being subjected to it from other players every time I take my character out for a spin. I hope GW succeeds in creating a game where that's a minimal experience.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
HW,
I appreciate where you are coming from HW. I believe you can have a certain level of meaningful player interaction without pvp, but there is nothing like the threat of death to put an edge on interactions. Additionally, this threat makes it much more exciting for a whole range of other activities (e.g. traders, crafters, guards, merchants of all sorts, etc). The way I see it, is to think about those pnp games where there is a real threat of death, and the ones when there isn't. Nothing like that threat to make everything more meaningful and exciting.
I've started and erased this post five times now, as I'm afraid I've come off a bit strident today. So here's attempt number six.
I realize you're trying to be encouraging here, Elorebaen. But not everyone reacts the same way to the same stimuli. I've tried PvP in multiple MMORPGs over the past seventeen years, and never - not in a single one - has it made the gaming experience "more exciting" or "more meaningful" for me. More stressful, yes, but that's a different animal.
I'm cautiously optimistic here; certainly the posters I've encountered - you included - have been, by and large, very welcoming, and the developers have put a lot of thought into making sure that the sort of griefing that runs rampant elsewhere won't occur here. But that cautious optimization is that I will be able to minimize stress, not that I will find PvP exciting. It's simply not how I react to it. It doesn't mean I won't try... but you (general you) need to try and understand, in return, that I'm not going to have the same reaction to it that you do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
but there is nothing like the threat of death to put an edge on interactions.
Meaningful human interaction is not about killing, but about situations where the interaction matters. If you don't have any choice how to respond it is not meaningful, but if it doesn't affect your game it is also not very meaningful.
Of course "meaningful" doesn't require pvp or item looting - there can be plenty of it in joint adventuring, settlement building, trade and competition for area and resources. The threat of death is just there to make the stakes higher so that -for better or worse- you cannot just ignore the other players trying to interact with you.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Berik, it's been said before, but it's worth repeating.
You're absolutely right that there can be "meaningful human interaction" in cooperating to overcome PvE challenges. However, those challengers take a lot of time and money to create, and it's simply impossible to create that content fast enough to keep players busy without going bankrupt.
What Ryan is trying to create with PFO is a system where the other players, by pursuing their own interests, create situations around which there can be lots of "meaningful human interaction" that doesn't require the devs to invest huge amounts of time and money.
The devs will certainly be creating dungeons and such. But they won't be trying to stay ahead of the "progression raiding" community. Ultimately, there will be a lot more you can do with your character in PFO than is normally the case in other Theme Park MMOs.
I hope you give it a chance.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
@All - I think there is a tremendous amount of meaningful human interaction that doesn't involve combat and isn't directly affected by combat.
And it certainly happens in theme park games as well as sandboxes.
What we're saying is that maximizing meaningful human interaction is the goal of the game. It isn't something that we'll leave to chance, or that only some players will experience - and only those players that jump through hoops and/or metagame to get it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
-snip- So, as I said before, the extent that GW makes it so that some of us can play in the River Kingdoms (the setting is the only reason I'm looking into PFO) without the griefing experience, the more successful they'll be in getting people to try the game.
I don't mind the threat of death. I don't like the idea of being subjected to it from other players every time I take my character out for a spin. I hope GW succeeds in creating a game where that's a minimal experience.
I think this falls along the lines of what,
The other nice part about the slow launch is say the game starts out, and most players actually DO decide to go chaotic evil, and leaving the safe areas turns into a massive gankfest.
They can adjust the alignment system, adjust the rewards for being lawful and good, and penalties for being chaotic and evil. If what it takes is allowing lawful good players cheap cities with powerful NPC guards and perks, and reducing chaotic evil players to nothing but hidey holes and shanty towns... that is what they can do.
I'm in agreement, I'd like to have a mix of players enjoying PfO and being "street smart" around the appropriate localities and being more relaxed around safer localities. And as GrumpyMel said:
Note: I can't speak for for anyone else, but I think if I were planning an expidition out into the deep wilderness to explore...not something nearby, not just hunting a few mobs localy....or going to clear out a dungeon....I would be planning on taking a decent sized party with me. I would plan on this not just due to PvP issues but I fully expect (and hope) the PvE content at that scale actualy be DANGEROUS.
I fully expect there will be plenty of stuff you can do solo.....but getting out into the deep wilds or pushing into a serious dungeon, I certainly don't expect to tackle that solo...and that's purely considering PVE.
Even PvE should keep players wary and necessitate groups for consequential objectives.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For perspective, I'd just like to throw an experience out there.
For years I was part of a RP community and player run town in UO. We were on Trammel (the consensual pvp only facet) so there was no random killing. We managed conflict through guild warfare, all involved guilds were always at war with each other, meaning that if we did end up coming to blows, it was possible to have the full extent of the conflict. You didn't go around killing warring guilds for fun, if you did, you'd be kicked out of the guild, then you couldn't.
My point is that you can have all the same meaningful player interaction including pvp without the non consensual component. I'm not saying "this is how it should be in PFO too" just that I Can see the "I don't want to take part in non consensual pvp" without it meaning "there should be no pvp! Ever!"
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
HW,
I appreciate where you are coming from HW. I believe you can have a certain level of meaningful player interaction without pvp, but there is nothing like the threat of death to put an edge on interactions. Additionally, this threat makes it much more exciting for a whole range of other activities (e.g. traders, crafters, guards, merchants of all sorts, etc). The way I see it, is to think about those pnp games where there is a real threat of death, and the ones when there isn't. Nothing like that threat to make everything more meaningful and exciting.
Okay. Sticking with the PnP idea: suppose, every time your character went out to adventure, alone or in groups, the GM brought in some guy to kill you and take your stuff. How long would you stick with that game?
That's pretty much how every TT D&D game I've ever played worked. Also, how every CRPG I've ever played worked, with varying degrees of playground versus theme park.
I don't see the difference between trying to sell an Iksar Berserker Club in East Commonlands and getting one-shotted by a vendor because I didn't have leathery skin (EverQuest) and being mobbed by blighted animals because I gained too many levels with non-combat skills (Morrowind) and getting intercepted by highwaymen because I look like my wealth to threat ratio is too high (PFO), except that I can try to make a deal when the event killing my character is sentient.
Also, taking down a gang of player controlled highwaymen is much more satisfying than killing lots of blighted Kagouti.
I should note here that I've played MMORPGs since 1995 (AOL's Neverwinter Nights), and given PvP an honest try in all of them. I am simply BAD at it, so I'm not sure how much good a survival course would be.
At the risk of coming across as aggressive (which I don't mean to be), I always thought this was a copout. Sure, some people will be better at it than others, but anyone who actually puts in a little reading and lots of practice, and seeks advice from people who ARE good at it, can improve to the point of being at least better than average.
If it actually mattered to you, you would improve. :) All about priorities.
I keep seeing "Meaningful player interaction" mentioned here.
Meaningful player interaction does not inherently involve a sword.
Meaningful player interaction does not mean Player VS Player.
(NOTE: it's called 'role playing game,' not 'kill other characters game')
I'd argue there can't really be much meaning to interaction if there cannot also be conflict. In PvE games your "conflict" ends up in the form of kill and node-stealing and leaves you little recourse. You can do nothing to these people, so there's nothing to discourage them.
However add bounties, add alignment restrictions, add PvP and add player looting, and suddenly, "to kill or not to kill" decision lasts longer than it takes to say "Meh, why not?"
Transporting my mined goodies from the camp site to the city is a chore if I have no chance of losing it. It's exciting as hell if I do. Nobody remembers all the easy, uneventful things in games. They remember having someone betray you and open your keep gates for your enemies, and STILL beating them back.
Making things a little personal ishow you make it meaningful and memorable, imo.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just to clarify: If there is a major change in the core concept of the game, everybody is going to have to reevaluate whether it is still the game they want to play. Lots of the people that have been here since the beginning were attracted to the open competitive/cooperative sandbox world idea first, and the PF license second. Many of them would rather the PF license be dropped and go to a generic fantasy setting with open sandbox gameplay than keep the PF license and change to playground or theme park gameplay.
Quoted for truth.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If it actually mattered to you, you would improve. :) All about priorities.
And I think here we have the problem. What if to pvp you had to grind killing living stones that did nothing, gained you nothing, but took a long time to kill and about six months to complete before you could actually do the piping you wanted? There's nothing fun about it and it would ruin your enjoyment.
"If it actually mattered to you, you would grind for six months"
That's the point though, it is NOT what she wants to do, she has no interest in it, yet this says she should divert time away from things she enjoys to do something she doesn't to get better at a system she doesn't want to take part in in the first place.
And that's why it's an issue.
If it actually mattered to you, you would improve. :) All about priorities.
And I think here we have the problem. What if to pvp you had to grind killing living stones that did nothing, gained you nothing, but took a long time to kill and about six months to complete before you could actually do the piping you wanted? There's nothing fun about it and it would ruin your enjoyment.
"If it actually mattered to you, you would grind for six months"
That's the point though, it is NOT what she wants to do, she has no interest in it, yet this says she should divert time away from things she enjoys to do something she doesn't to get better at a system she doesn't want to take part in in the first place.
And that's why it's an issue.
Sorry, no, that's not what I'm saying at all. :)
There are completely safe zones planned for Pathfinder, and there are almost totally safe zones planned. There are areas to function in if the idea is that abhorrent (which I know Chiassa is keeping a more open mind, so this bit isn't aimed at her). I would not enter a typical MMO's raid and expect to get to roll on loot if I don't know my class and I'm not prepared for the encounter. "Oh, I'm just bad at PvE" would not fly there for a second.
If I wanted to raid, and more importantly if I wanted the goodies that come from raiding, I would look at builds, I would talk to good raiders, I would practice rotations etc. If I cared, I would improve. If I did not improve, I would not expect to get very far in that content.
The vast majority of us will never be good at something the second we pick it up to try it. I hope I made myself a bit clearer. :)
EDIT: And most games DO make you do a lot of mundane grinding for gear to be competitive in PvP, lol. Your analogy isn't the best one. It also wouldn't take that amount of time to improve yourself in PvP via practice.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My point was not about a mechanical thing it was "something you really don't want to do, that you have no interest in being forced on you to do something you DO want to do.
I'm perfectly happy to deal with the occasional encounter, which is what PFO is promising, because there would be no benefit to roaming and killing random people.
But I have no real interest in that sort of encounter, so I won't be devoting my time to find out how to succeed when randomly attacked, I'll do my best, probably die, then go somewhere else. I'll pay more attention when I want to take part in factional combat (which is consensual, as you joined the faction.)
But my point is the "if you really cared, you'd put in the effort" that's the point- I don't- the concept has no appeal to me.
It's also why I never did get to a raiding point in wow, I was too bored of it before I got to that point and nothing appeals to me about "necessary" gear either :p
My original comment wasn't about what content is or is not available to what playstyles. I just said that virtually no one is good at anything without practice, and no one, perhaps barring extreme physical limitations, is incapable of learning to be at least an above-average PvPer. They just have to want to work at it.
If they don't, fine. But people use it as an excuse for why they can't participate in PvP, as though there's nothing they could do to change that.
I'm not big on raiding, either. It was just a PvE example I could think of. :B