@71gamer, another thing to remember is that none of this has been set down in code yet. It's all being hashed out, discussed and mulled over in threads like this one. GW is also giving players the chance to influence the game as its being created with early enrollment.
Once beta starts and these things are able to be observed while they happen, much will change. It will have to. No one can see every possibility beforehand.
I wonder if there will be limits to when a bounty can be placed on someone? Does that person have to kill you before you can place a bounty on them? In Eve now there is a problem with griefers running around placing minimum bounties on everyone they see for no reason. This needs to be considered if a free bounty system was what is planned.
Also I'm a bit confused on the non looted items proofing if left on a husk. Does the player have a set amount of time that they can recover their stuff that's left on their husk before it despawns? Or are those items just gone? I recall reading something about friends guarding a husk until the player can return to get his or her stuff?
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Imagine farming an item forever and finally seeing it drop, picking it up and being killed and losing that item before being able to "thread" it.
I think this is your real disconnect. The game is not designed as a "gear grind" like many other MMO's or really gear intenstive in the context you are thinking about it. I'm not saying that you are used to playing WOW (although I don't actualy see why that is a stigma at all, I played it and enjoyed it) but I think the disconnect alot of players may have is because they are thinking about what gear means in PFO in the same context that gear means in WoW and that's just not the case.
Gear in PFO is closer to cash in Monopoly or armies in Risk or units in a standard RTS game. It's a DISPOSABLE resource that you are going through, loosing and replacing on a regular basis. There is no +57 sword of uberness that you spent 30 hours farming to have drop and means the difference between you being able to function at your level or not.
Instead there is a longbow that has a 70ft range increment rather then the standard 60ft or a longsword that does d10+1 damage rather then d10. You didn't spend 30 hours raid/farming to get them either. What you did is you went down to the local market in the nearest settlement and spent 75 gold rather then the standard 50 gold (say maybe the real world equivalent of $300 rather then $200).
Think of it less as playing Aragorn who has just lost Anduril - Flame of the West, a precious heirloom of his house....but rather a real world mercenary that just had the nice new FN SCAR that he bought destroyed and now has to pony up some cash to replace it. The mercenary wants to be well equiped to do his work at peak performance, but as long as he's being productive...having to replace equipment occasionly really isn't that big a deal.
|
@71gamer -
Not sure you are seeing the same picture of how this "threading " is intended to work as I am? I replied to a similar concern here, if you wish to read that very brief summary of how I see it: PvP and Gear
I am pretty sure I see it the same way as written in the original article, you have a limited amount of "threads" you can place on items, those things not threaded are vulnerable to looting from your 'husk'. This doesn't change how I feel about the ability for a player that isn't me to take something from me. Because eventually something I took the time to find/craft/make/loot is going to be taken from me, and that alone is not worth the cost of admission (to ME).
I have no problem with those who WANT to participate in this sort of behavior, but without the option to turn it off (maybe like PVP flags on pvp-optional wow servers?), this is just VERY unappealing to me.
Also related is: To Live and Die in the River Kingdoms in particular sub-heading: "Many Shades Of Grief"
This is interesting, I like the idea of bounties, and this is a little different than I had originally understood, but I still think allowing a player to loot your body is a HUGELY unattractive option in a game.
In your other post you mention that this is similar to roguelike games, but that is a very old-school and frankly unappealing (to ME) way of thinking about games, it throws the idea of FUN out the window in order to create a punishment for dying. I don't want to give Paizo a monthly fee to be punished, I want a fun gaming experience with the option to go hardcore when I want.
Seriously though, I realize these are my own opinions, and if everyone likes the idea of husks and losing loot, more power to them. It's just not the game I want to play, and I love this world and system so much, I would be very bummed if the one game created with the Pathfinder property wasn't one I wanted to play.
|
|
I think this is your real disconnect. The game is not designed as a "gear grind" like many other MMO's or really gear intenstive in the context you are thinking about it. I'm not saying that you are used to playing WOW (although I don't actualy see why that is a stigma at all, I played it and enjoyed it) but I think the disconnect alot of players may have is because they are thinking about what gear means in PFO in the same context that gear means in WoW and that's just not the case.
@GrumpyMel: I don't see it as a "disconnect," I see it as I don't want to lose a thing I bought/scrounged/found/created to someone who kills me, whether it's a 50G bow or Glamdring or a stack of herbs. Whether it's gear or a healing potion or a piece of vendor trash, that's not a game I want to pay my money to play.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@71gamer
You have to keep in mind though this is a completly different style of game from WoW. The majority of the content will be player created. To have player created content there needs to be player factions and player enemies. If there isn't any risk/benefit to player fighting, then players won't do it and that severely limits the content that players can create.
IMHO I feel that GW is balancing the risk/benefit pretty well for the whole PvP aspect and that the risk that will be generated will make the game a more interesting atmosphere.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@GrumpyMel: I don't see it as a "disconnect," I see it as I don't want to lose a thing I bought/scrounged/found/created to someone who kills me, whether it's a 50G bow or Glamdring or a stack of herbs. Whether it's gear or a healing potion or a piece of vendor trash, that's not a game I want to pay my money to play.
I think this is your real disconnect. The game is not designed as a "gear grind" like many other MMO's or really gear intenstive in the context you are thinking about it. I'm not saying that you are used to playing WOW (although I don't actualy see why that is a stigma at all, I played it and enjoyed it) but I think the disconnect alot of players may have is because they are thinking about what gear means in PFO in the same context that gear means in WoW and that's just not the case.
Ok, but I think you are expecting a different game then what the designers are intending to build. It's kind of like saying, "I want to play monopoly but I don't want to ever lose any dollars" or "I want to play Risk but I can't stand to ever loose an army". I'm not saying that to be offensive or as a GTFO statement. Nothing wrong with having preferences but I think you need to understand the design intent they are going for here (which they've written alot about). Alot of people see "MMO" these days and they come in with a certain set of assumptions about what the game is supposed to be.
If you can't stand to lose anything to another player ever (which is not an uncommon sentiment among many MMO players) then your preference is running in contradiction to one of the core design mechanics of the game.
You could probably stay in one of the starter NPC hex's....which I believe are 100 percent safe from PvP....not sure how exciting that would be.
You could make arrangements that mitigate your risk to a high degree outside of that...as there are organizations that are focused on trying to make thier territories secure for PvE players to operate from...but that risk is never going to mitigated down to zero. If you play long enough, at some point or another, it's almost a certainty that you will get killed and looted. Alot of us (through in game play) are trying to make sure that's not an every day occurance for people not interested in it but it IS an expected part of play in the game....just as occasionaly loosing a PvE encounter is in other MMO's.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@demonman24
I think the assumption is that evil settlements will be far and few between and not as easily run as good or neutral settlements, so if you are pure CE you are going to have a more difficult time gaining access to a settlement that has what you need.
Look at the proposed Charterd Companies I would say approx. 85% are good aligned.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In your other post you mention that this is similar to roguelike games, but that is a very old-school and frankly unappealing (to ME) way of thinking about games, it throws the idea of FUN out the window in order to create a punishment for dying.
As long as I can provide some interesting info to whatever your preference and opinions are. :)
Well what I am attempting to espouse^ is the idea of tension between risk and reward and YOU the player are able to set the gauge HOW you like on that scale. So you can set the risk very low and therefore avoid loosing items, but you will be out in the PvE bush in an area where you might not find such valuable resources. Or you reduce the risk by attaching to a very well-prepared party that is going to an area already controlled or aided by friends... etc etc...
The "possibility" of looting can be mitigated by your decisions - but the distaste of any possibility of looting cannot be and it will sometimes happen.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Also bear in mind, Pathfinder is primarily a roleplaying game, and it is my hope that PFO will bring many of these roleplaying elements from TT to MMO. In that way, getting killed by some bandit in the wilderness and losing a random item from your inventory opens up a whole bunch of roleplay avenues.
I've posted a list of what actions you could take in two other threads, so I wont bore everyone again, but there are a heap of option up your sleeve that get you interacting with other players/characters and thus creating content for yourself, the others you're engaging and also the bandit.
To allay the fears of some around RPKers, Ryan has stated that the power curve associated with the traditional character levels is much shallower than other games or even TT Pathfinder. In this way, a 'level 10' character will not be able to walk into an area and slaughter a group of newbies (or even a single newbie?) without them having the chance to fight back, run away or call for aid.
Coupled with threading, the bounty system, many guilds being built around seeking out bandits and the rarity of magic items, I think griefing and RPKing for items will be at a minimum in PFO. Sure, it will happen as there will be legitimate bandits out there that are not griefers, but that will be a long and hard road and will not be as pervasive as in other online games.
Also some wilderness areas will be FFA, where anything goes, but others will not. In these "safer" areas you at least stand less of a chance of being jumped on and killed for what you might be carrying.
I believe these areas will be positioned closer to player settlements? I'm a bit unclear though, so someone correct me if I've mistyped :p
PFO is one of the only games I'm aware of being developed that has this mechanic. Most are safely copying Wows design, creating words where you only have to be concerned I with PvE creatures. Perhaps these sorts of games are what you are really seeking. Not to be a jerk, but I doubt that GW is going to change this part of their epic project, nor, in my opinion, should they.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is a very interesting system, I like it, and it seems to cover all aspects of ganking, ninja looting and griefing.
One point of concern: DeciusBrutus of Goblinworks mentioned that they (He) wants to create a disincentive for ninja looting. That is o.k., but there should also be an incentive for doing it as well.
Creating a risk for ninja looting is a good goal. But the negative reputation should have a positive reward within certain unsavory communities in the game world (ie Thieves' Guild).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think negative reputation should be given a positive effect, it's just that sufficiently unsavory characters may tend to ignore reputation altogether. They don't work on trust, they protect their interests by making examples of those who cross them. The 'reward' for stealing is getting valuable stuff for little work.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've read through a lot of the posts here, and I still don't feel like the issue brought up by Carlos Cabrera regarding un-looted item destruction has been adequately addressed.
That exact issue is something I find very concerning, unless there is some system in place where I can rent storage space in town. Does anyone recall such a system being mentioned? If not, I'm seriously considering withdrawing my pledge (and I've been incredibly excited about and supportive of this project since the beginning), since it would not be enjoyable to me at all if I will have to spend all of my time huddled in the safe confines of town so my non-threaded stuff won't keep getting destroyed.
Another idea is to not have un-looted items destroyed, but make it such that only one player can open the "looting" screen once; after that, only the player whose husk it is can access the screen. Meaning, Bob kills someone or finds a husk. Bob can only open the looting screen once, and once it's closed, neither he nor anyone but the husk's owner can get back into the looting screen. This means that un-threaded items are still very much at risk for disappearing, but it doesn't mean that everything is lost every time.
1. The concept is still fluid I think
2. Threading means you can choose which items are at risk and which items are required for the immediate activity pursued.3. Losing items is equivalent to a sink for the economy for crafters in the chain etc. from pov of the player who's husk is looted.
4. Destroying them if the attacker accesses the husk and gains choice of unthreaded items means there is no economic motivation for ganking
5. Risk of losing combat leads to meaningful consequences ie a small economic dent / likewise a small item gain for the victor
6. In groups friendly players can guard the husk for the player to retrieve before it is looted: Encourages parties
7. Yes you store your kit somewhere safe (bank?) - there is not much detail but eg settlements etc: Because of "encumbrance": You'll always have reserve kit eg best items stashed for safety: Most days you'll use "trash kit" that is easy and cheap to replace and you won't mind even if you do lose it - according to discussion.
Hope this helps provide more information. The exact scenario Carlos mentions: Ryan responded to already: Motivation makes no difference given all the above. As said, there's still fluid consideration how the system will work; I think I managed to summarise the bare bones.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do know from somewhere there are bags of holding.
I expect that if you build a house you will be able to store things there.
I don't think anything has yet been shared with us about a bank or vault. I would be very surprised to learn there were none, but given the spirit of the game so far I would fully expect that if you have a bank vault in tinytown you will not be able to reach it from toontown. You would have to travel back to the tinytown bank to retrieve your items. Just my guess.
It is my understanding there will not be a universal 'auction house' where everyone buys and sells: we shall just have to meet the seller to purchase his offerings. I suspect there will therefore be a lively marketplace where everyone goes to buy and sell whatever we have or want.
I would not be surprised to learn there were 'black' markets as well.
I've been playing MMOs for many years. CoH, WoW, FF11, and many others. Most players DONT LIKE PvP. I do when the mood hits me right, but I dont always feel like dealing with the hassel. If you force all players to be potential PvP targets then you will alienate most of the MMO player base. If paizo only wants to cater to 5% of MMO players, that is there choice, but its that kind of choice that lead D&D4th addition to be the RPG powerhouse that it is today.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've been playing MMOs for many years. CoH, WoW, FF11, and many others. Most players DONT LIKE PvP. I do when the mood hits me right, but I dont always feel like dealing with the hassel. If you force all players to be potential PvP targets then you will alienate most of the MMO player base. If paizo only wants to cater to 5% of MMO players, that is there choice, but its that kind of choice that lead D&D4th addition to be the RPG powerhouse that it is today.
Do you have stats to back this claim up?
I've played MUD's for over 15 years, UO, CoH/Cov, EVE, GW1&2 and I've found 'a lot' of people that like PvP. I guess it comes down to what crowd you're running with and what your style of play is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Carlos Cabrera and OneBoot that destroying unlooted items is very concerning. It also encourages griefing, which needs no encouragement. I am also very concerned about the lack of spliting up PvP and PvE servers. Sure, killing players will give people an evil alignment, a bad reputation, and make the guards from some cities mad at them, but that isn't going to stop them. They will just spend time outside cities jumping players who venture out. Many PvPers would do this even if they didn't get anything for it, let alone being able to loot corpses. You could post a reward to kill a PvPer, but they are good at killing players, so you are really just sending more loot their way. The drain on the economy is unnecessary; resources will be consumed crafting, selling, building settlements, using consumables, etc., just like in other MMOs.
If being killed by another player means you are going to lose all your non-threaded stuff (unless they leave your husk alone)(and threads are very limited), then players are going to frequently lose most of what they own, except for the stuff they left in a bank because it wasn't worth bringing. This will result in most PvE players (the vast majority of players) becoming frustrated. The PvE players will either cower in town, be forced to only play with large enough groups that they can be protected most of the time, or leave for an MMO that divides PvP and PvE.
I really love Pathfinder, but I think that aggressiveness promoting griefing, and PvP, while discouraging solo play is the worst thing this MMO could possible do.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I've been playing MMOs for many years. CoH, WoW, FF11, and many others. Most players DONT LIKE PvP. I do when the mood hits me right, but I dont always feel like dealing with the hassel. If you force all players to be potential PvP targets then you will alienate most of the MMO player base. If paizo only wants to cater to 5% of MMO players, that is there choice, but its that kind of choice that lead D&D4th addition to be the RPG powerhouse that it is today.
There are some that are of the opinion that no PvP will alienate 95% of the people looking for something different from the themeparks.
But opinions unbacked by any real data aside, you can't really build an actual sandbox world without meaningful PvP. Conflict that can't have serious effects on the game world isn't meaningful enough to take a game from themepark to sandbox. So what you're discussing is as much about the shape the whole game will take as it is just about PvP.
But there is a balance: PvP doesn't have to be brutal, but it does have to have the potential to get serious enough. That's what will make it meaningful for players to step in and control it as a whole.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Relativemass Destroying unlooted items keeps the game from becoming a grind for super equipment. What you loose won't be a big deal.
Setting up a PvE server will completely undo most of the game they have proposed. Without at least some players engaging in PvP, you take away a lot of what a sandbox game is all about. Granted the game will still run great if most players stay away from it, but the whole purpose vanishes altogether if you form a PvE server.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Relativemass Destroying unlooted items keeps the game from becoming a grind for super equipment. What you loose won't be a big deal.
Setting up a PvE server will completely undo most of the game they have proposed. Without at least some players engaging in PvP, you take away a lot of what a sandbox game is all about. Granted the game will still run great if most players stay away from it, but the whole purpose vanishes altogether if you form a PvE server.
It may be right that if items are frequently destroyed then people won't usually be suffering big losses, but that will mostly be because people won't be able to accumulate valuable stuff.
The ultimate sandbox MMO is Minecraft, and many players have fun just in their own world, requiring no PvP to run. And the open Minecraft servers have their own rules for PvP and griefing, which often include temporary or permanent bans. Therefore, PvP is not required for a sandbox game to be successful.
If Blaeringr is right that setting up a PvP server would completely undo most of the game, then I really see no reason for me to support a game that is going to be so intensely PvP focused.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From what I hear your gear in early levels is supposedly pretty common and inexpensive. It isn't something you would be killed over. Odds are decent that anyone who would gank you will only take something if it is better than what he or she has because to be nimble and effective your encumbrance is going to always be a concern.
True, there will be people who kill for the thrills, but they can only carry so much.
Generally speaking it is what you can do with your gear that is important, and that can't be taken away from you by a bandit. Your knowledge and experience will still be there. Plus it is by resisting and fighting that bandit that you will likely earn the greatest lessons in how to handle your weapons so you can in future protect yourself and eventually others all the better.
If you are equipped with something you really do value then you have the option of threading it, so when you respawn you will still have it with you.
The point about PvE players shying away from PvP centric games was pretty true in some MMOs, judging from what posters said in my recollection of the respective forums of SWTOR, LotRO, and several others.
SWTOR pretty much failed on its PvP however and because of it (plus the truncated ending of ME3) lost many paying customers before it went FTP.
Other hand PvP didn't seem to hurt WoW much. Didn't seem to hurt GW/GW2. Didn't hurt DAoC.
So to sum it seems to me that 95% figure should have been no higher than 50% instead. Still a healthy chunk of potential customer base, but factoring the nature of sandbox games Blaeringr makes the telling point.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@Relativemass Destroying unlooted items keeps the game from becoming a grind for super equipment. What you loose won't be a big deal.
Setting up a PvE server will completely undo most of the game they have proposed. Without at least some players engaging in PvP, you take away a lot of what a sandbox game is all about. Granted the game will still run great if most players stay away from it, but the whole purpose vanishes altogether if you form a PvE server.
It may be right that if items are frequently destroyed then people won't usually be suffering big losses, but that will mostly be because people won't be able to accumulate valuable stuff.
The ultimate sandbox MMO is Minecraft, and many players have fun just in their own world, requiring no PvP to run. And the open Minecraft servers have their own rules for PvP and griefing, which often include temporary or permanent bans. Therefore, PvP is not required for a sandbox game to be successful.
If Blaeringr is right that setting up a PvP server would completely undo most of the game, then I really see no reason for me to support a game that is going to be so intensely PvP focused.
So, how do you handle MMO Minecraft when one player wants to expand their rollercoaster into someone's diamond sphere? What about the person who builds a small dirt hut in the unfinished half of a castle? Multiplayer Minecraft works because it is cooperative or independent, not competitive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That exact issue is something I find very concerning, unless there is some system in place where I can rent storage space in town. Does anyone recall such a system being mentioned?
There will probably be a 100% secure bank in the starter towns, though they probably won't be extradimensionally-linked like the Kundarak banks from Eberron (not that they invented the concept, but they gave the UO-style banks an in-game reason to function as they do). Why do I assume something like that will exist? because players would create it even if GW didn't. They could make a newbie character, hand it stuff, and log it off. It's a bit more annoying to access later, but just as safe.
If not, I'm seriously considering withdrawing my pledge (and I've been incredibly excited about and supportive of this project since the beginning), since it would not be enjoyable to me at all if I will have to spend all of my time huddled in the safe confines of town so my non-threaded stuff won't keep getting destroyed.
Please educate yourself on the options available and look for possible solutions before demanding that everyone play your way and threatening to take your ball and go home if they don't. This is a community, and most of us would rather build and find solutions with you than to tear you or the game down.
Thread as much of your best stuff as you can. If you run out of threads, store some stuff until you get more threads and can also protect yourself better, using other more common gear in the meantime. There won't be massive disparities in gear which make you supposedly 'useless' unless you have the best equipment (like in WoW), and wearing more common gear makes you less likely to be targeted anyway. You don't have to out-swim the shark, you only have to be a little faster and less tasty that the other fish in the tank. Better yet, gang up with others so the shark that tries to kill one of you is prevented from eating by the rest that are still beating him down while he's trying (GW has mentioned it takes 6 seconds tor someone besides the owner to open a loot screen on a husk, and combat stops it).
Another idea is to not have un-looted items destroyed, but make it such that only one player can open the "looting" screen once; after that, only the player whose husk it is can access the screen. Meaning, Bob kills someone or finds a husk. Bob can only open the looting screen once, and once it's closed, neither he nor anyone but the husk's owner can get back into the looting screen. This means that un-threaded items are still very much at risk for disappearing, but it doesn't mean that everything is lost every time.
Bob then kills Sam and takes his boots, but can't touch the rest. Sam comes back and recovers the remainder of his gear. Bob comes out of hiding and kills Sam again, generating a new husk, from which he takes a hat. Repeat that until Sam gets wise and either writes off the rest as less valuable than the time it takes to run back or manages to gather the other players he needs to run off (or defeat) Bob.
Many player groups are planning to form Good societies specifically to target random player-killer types. The Empyrean Order is one such group, and it's probably the biggest player group thus far. You don't have to be in its military to be a member, you just have to agree not to be a random player-killer (or other evil type) yourself. We have over a year to go before Early Enrollment, so you may as well 'get in on the ground floor' of one of these groups and get to know the people in it as friends, so when the game comes out you already have a community of like-minded players to adventure and build with.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If not, I'm seriously considering withdrawing my pledge (and I've been incredibly excited about and supportive of this project since the beginning), since it would not be enjoyable to me at all if I will have to spend all of my time huddled in the safe confines of town so my non-threaded stuff won't keep getting destroyed.
Please educate yourself on the options available and look for possible solutions before demanding that everyone play your way and threatening to take your ball and go home if they don't. This is a community, and most of us would rather build and find solutions with you than to tear you or the game down.
Aren't you then demanding this person to find a way in their head to play it the way pvp people want?
|
|
If not, I'm seriously considering withdrawing my pledge (and I've been incredibly excited about and supportive of this project since the beginning), since it would not be enjoyable to me at all if I will have to spend all of my time huddled in the safe confines of town so my non-threaded stuff won't keep getting destroyed.Please educate yourself on the options available and look for possible solutions before demanding that everyone play your way and threatening to take your ball and go home if they don't. This is a community, and most of us would rather build and find solutions with you than to tear you or the game down.
Aren't you then demanding this person to find a way in their head to play it the way pvp people want?
That's what's bothering me—no way to opt out of the pvp. I feel the same as Draelin, the way the posts are sounding, this PVP and husk mechanics are the endgame and crucial to the "fun". I don't think any of us against the husks/pvp mechanic care if pvp DOES happen, I think that there seems to be no way to opt-out.
Another answer I find bothersome is "just go get some friends and take care of the problem." Not everyone who plays this sort of game surrounds themselves with friends who want to run around and counter-gank, etc.
And if it's meant to have heavily-discouraged pvp (branding people as bandits, etc) why bother with the clunky weird mechanics and just allow folks to flag themselves as PVE.
I personally don't want to run to mommy/guild/friends every time I get ganked and ask for help with revenge or pay a bounty. And if this pvp-with-penalties is SO much a part of the game, as so many people are saying:
Setting up a PvE server will completely undo most of the game they have proposed.
Then it doesn't sound like there's much of a game there.
This is going to be a VERY small MMO compared to post-wow expectation, and appealing to a broad base is going to be crucial in keeping it alive. I don't see how forced pvp and risking your hard-earned unthreaded goodies is going to appeal to a wide base. I am/was an MMO JUNKIE and this sounds horrific to me.
If not, I'm seriously considering withdrawing my pledge (and I've been incredibly excited about and supportive of this project since the beginning), since it would not be enjoyable to me at all if I will have to spend all of my time huddled in the safe confines of town so my non-threaded stuff won't keep getting destroyed.Please educate yourself on the options available and look for possible solutions before demanding that everyone play your way and threatening to take your ball and go home if they don't. This is a community, and most of us would rather build and find solutions with you than to tear you or the game down.
Aren't you then demanding this person to find a way in their head to play it the way pvp people want?
That's what's bothering me—no way to opt out of the pvp. And if it's meant to have heavily-discouraged pvp (branding people as bandits, etc) why bother with the clunky weird mechanics and just allow folks to flag themselves as PVE. I
personally don't want to run to mommy/guild/friends every time I get ganked and ask for help with revenge or pay a bounty. And if this pvp-with-penalties is SO much a part of the game, as so many people are saying:
Setting up a PvE server will completely undo most of the game they have proposed.Then it doesn't sound like there's much of a game there.
It seems to me then that they want to make the ground works for a game but leave all the content to the players. Why build a game when the players can do it like build towns, cities, and guilds. Why waste our time and money when we can charge them to do it for us! Why make conflict when the players can fight themselves!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If not, I'm seriously considering withdrawing my pledge (and I've been incredibly excited about and supportive of this project since the beginning), since it would not be enjoyable to me at all if I will have to spend all of my time huddled in the safe confines of town so my non-threaded stuff won't keep getting destroyed.Please educate yourself on the options available and look for possible solutions before demanding that everyone play your way and threatening to take your ball and go home if they don't. This is a community, and most of us would rather build and find solutions with you than to tear you or the game down.Aren't you then demanding this person to find a way in their head to play it the way pvp people want?
The difference is that I have looked into and understood the game mechanics that will make those worries less of an issue. I'm not really a PvP player myself, at least not a full-time one that was chomping at the bit the moment I heard there would be PvP in the game. I was initially very reluctant, mostly because of issues UO had. Reading more, I came to realize that GW has learned from the mistakes of others. Their willingness to outright ban people for being griefers (PKing, etc. just to laugh at others' frustration) says a lot to me. I don't mind having to defend myself from bandits - they're just smart 'monsters' in the wilderness - what I hate is when PwnUdood666 exploits bugs simply to harass me and emote lewd actions on my corpse.
|
|
It seems to me then that they want to make the ground works for a game but leave all the content to the players. Why build a game when the players can do it like build towns, cities, and guilds. Why waste our time and money when we can charge them to do it for us! Why make conflict when the players can fight themselves!
That's another unappealing thing, simply having other players in the MMO isn't creating a compelling reason to play. Where's the progression, the fun things to do, the things that make me want to log in every night. I hope this isn't just going to be PVP minecraft.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It seems to me then that they want to make the ground works for a game but leave all the content to the players. Why build a game when the players can do it like build towns, cities, and guilds. Why waste our time and money when we can charge them to do it for us! Why make conflict when the players can fight themselves!
They could set up a game where you whack an endless stream of goblins until you get tired of it and cancel, but they'd rather give you the tools to build something worth defending; not only your character, but your home, your town, and your country. The ability to invest creatively allows you to invest emotionally, and you're likely to hang around and play longer that way.
The 'Laws' of Online World Design:
http://www.raphkoster.com/gaming/laws.shtml
Rickey's Law
People don't want "A story". They want *their* story.Online identity
We spend a lot of time making people able to have a very strong personal identity in our worlds (letting them define themselves in great detail, down to eye color). But identity is portable. How many of you have been playing the same character in RPGs for 15 years, like me? You cannot count on a sense of identity, of character building, to keep someone in your game.Ownership is key
You have to give players a sense of ownership in the game. This is what will make them stay--it is a "barrier to departure." Social bonds are not enough, because good social bonds extend outside the game. Instead, it is context. If they can build their own buildings, build a character, own possessions, hold down a job, feel a sense of responsibility to something that cannot be removed from the game--then you have ownership.
Those are just a few of the relevant insights that online world designers have been collecting since the first MUDs. It's a fascinating topic if you have any interest in psychology.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's another unappealing thing, simply having other players in the MMO isn't creating a compelling reason to play. Where's the progression, the fun things to do, the things that make me want to log in every night. I hope this isn't just going to be PVP minecraft.
It seems to me then that they want to make the ground works for a game but leave all the content to the players. Why build a game when the players can do it like build towns, cities, and guilds. Why waste our time and money when we can charge them to do it for us! Why make conflict when the players can fight themselves!
In other words, you're asking: "where's the themepark MMO?"
That is exactly what you are describing, and exactly the opposite of what Goblinworks is aiming for. The core philosophy of everything they've put together so far is the exact opposite of what you are asking for, so where exactly is this conversation going?
That's not a compelling reason to play. It's a reason to stop and look around a realize you are paying to work. And having a guy who helped make UO one of there biggest PVP games on earth to try and justify this is not compelling me to see their reasoning. You can say as much psycho babble you want. They had a million things to do in Eve and I could hardly play a couple months before I got bored to death and realized I was working... And that's what GW is trying to reproduce.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's another unappealing thing, simply having other players in the MMO isn't creating a compelling reason to play. Where's the progression, the fun things to do, the things that make me want to log in every night. I hope this isn't just going to be PVP minecraft.
It seems to me then that they want to make the ground works for a game but leave all the content to the players. Why build a game when the players can do it like build towns, cities, and guilds. Why waste our time and money when we can charge them to do it for us! Why make conflict when the players can fight themselves!
You mean like those fly by night games such as chess, or games only a few people play like Monopoly, or even defunct MMO's like EVE.
You would be surprised how many people prefer to play against real opponents rather than AI.
I've been playing MMOs for many years. CoH, WoW, FF11, and many others. Most players DONT LIKE PvP. I do when the mood hits me right, but I dont always feel like dealing with the hassel. If you force all players to be potential PvP targets then you will alienate most of the MMO player base. If paizo only wants to cater to 5% of MMO players, that is there choice, but its that kind of choice that lead D&D4th addition to be the RPG powerhouse that it is today.Do you have stats to back this claim up?
I've played MUD's for over 15 years, UO, CoH/Cov, EVE, GW1&2 and I've found 'a lot' of people that like PvP. I guess it comes down to what crowd you're running with and what your style of play is.
Your right 5% is inaccurate. The census report from warcraftrealms.com places it around 31%. But my point remains, the majority of players dont want to be constant PvP targets. Hardcore PvPers will repeatedly kill you just for the fun of it. If they are getting paid for it, they'll be far more aggrssive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's not a compelling reason to play. It's a reason to stop and look around a realize you are paying to work. And having a guy who helped make UO one of there biggest PVP games on earth to try and justify this is not compelling me to see their reasoning. You can say as much psycho babble you want. They had a million things to do in Eve and I could hardly play a couple months before I got bored to death and realized I was working... And that's what GW is trying to reproduce.
There will be no carrot and stick style of play where you are compelled to get better gear, or another level, or finish a quest or complete a raid. The compeling reason is to play against other players (PvP) where they decide what to do and how (roleplaying) in a much loved fantasy setting (Pathfinder).
This will not be for everyone. Some people will prefer PvE, some will prefer 5000 NPC's with a ! above their heads giving you something to do, some will prefer farming for that +5 vorpal sword which without you cannot progress to the next dungeon with gets you a +6 vorpal sword.
Each to their own.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your right 5% is inaccurate. The census report from warcraftrealms.com places it around 31%. But my point remains, the majority of players dont want to be constant PvP targets. Hardcore PvPers will repeatedly kill you just for the fun of it. If they are getting paid for it, they'll be far more aggrssive.I've been playing MMOs for many years. CoH, WoW, FF11, and many others. Most players DONT LIKE PvP. I do when the mood hits me right, but I dont always feel like dealing with the hassel. If you force all players to be potential PvP targets then you will alienate most of the MMO player base. If paizo only wants to cater to 5% of MMO players, that is there choice, but its that kind of choice that lead D&D4th addition to be the RPG powerhouse that it is today.Do you have stats to back this claim up?
I've played MUD's for over 15 years, UO, CoH/Cov, EVE, GW1&2 and I've found 'a lot' of people that like PvP. I guess it comes down to what crowd you're running with and what your style of play is.
Quoting statistics from a predominately PvE game is a little wonky. Even if we take those stats with a grain of salt, 31% is a big chunk of the player population and should be catered to.
That's another unappealing thing, simply having other players in the MMO isn't creating a compelling reason to play. Where's the progression, the fun things to do, the things that make me want to log in every night. I hope this isn't just going to be PVP minecraft.
It seems to me then that they want to make the ground works for a game but leave all the content to the players. Why build a game when the players can do it like build towns, cities, and guilds. Why waste our time and money when we can charge them to do it for us! Why make conflict when the players can fight themselves!In other words, you're asking: "where's the themepark MMO?"
That is exactly what you are describing, and exactly the opposite of what Goblinworks is aiming for. The core philosophy of everything they've put together so far is the exact opposite of what you are asking for, so where exactly is this conversation going?
It's mostly the realization that GW is making a game I do no want to play with a world I love playing in, and there is nothing I can do about it. I don't want them to stop making a pathfinder game. I just want them to make a game that is more appealing to me. Most of the people who disagree with me are getting the game they want to play. This kind of argument would be going around if the game were to be designed closer to a PVE kind of game with the PVP people demanding for more content geared towards them. Personally I wouldn't mind the existence of the building system they want and for the PVP in non combat terms with all the competition between guilds and corporations Capitalism whatever. And losing stuff when you die or even the idea of a Monster that loot bodies they kill and people looting bodies that were killed by monsters. I know that's not going to happen. It's sad, but oh well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's not a compelling reason to play. It's a reason to stop and look around a realize you are paying to work. And having a guy who helped make UO one of there biggest PVP games on earth to try and justify this is not compelling me to see their reasoning. You can say as much psycho babble you want. They had a million things to do in Eve and I could hardly play a couple months before I got bored to death and realized I was working... And that's what GW is trying to reproduce.
So where are you headed? What is the philosophy you want to see? Goblinworks build a bunch of PvE oriented quests and nothing more?
Again, that's the opposite of the goal based on which they've done everything so far. How are you proposing they stick to the serious sandbox philosophy without letting players build everything?
If you want a themepark MMO, that's fine. It's ok to have your own tastes. But would you go to a Star Trek convention and interrupt William Shatner to tell everyone how Star Trek isn't your thing, you'd rather this be a pokemon convention? Seriously, what are you doing?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is going to be a VERY small MMO compared to post-wow expectation, and appealing to a broad base is going to be crucial in keeping it alive. I don't see how forced pvp and risking your hard-earned unthreaded goodies is going to appeal to a wide base. I am/was an MMO JUNKIE and this sounds horrific to me.
... This is the reason why they DO NOT need to appeal to a broad base. If they only need tens of thousands of players to be profitable instead of hundreds of thousands or millions, they can make their game fit a specific niche.
Also, you won't ever lose 'hard-earned' goodies in PvP. You will carry a fraction of your wealth at the most. You will thread the most valuable portions of it.
71, I have been on these forums for a long time now, and I don't believe PFO will be like anything you've previously seen or are now imagining. From what I've seen, the things GW is trying to do haven't been done before. They are focusing a lot of their attention on making sure PvP is meaningful.
Personally, I like RPKing. I like trying to sneak up on somebody that would easily beat me (or has already) to kill them. I like avoiding open spaces where predatory gazes might fall upon me. I like looking around me while I'm fighting a mob to see if somebody else is going to try to jump me. To me, it's all just better gameplay; newer, less predictable challenges to overcome.
If I were to play PFO how I wished, I probably wouldn't have too much fun. There are a ton of deterrents to RPKing.
I wish this game had FFA Open PvP. The devs have released system after system to make that unviable, and have it as a stated goal to restrict RPKing. This game has PvP as war. If you want to avoid PvP, you will be able to make your chances of getting killed very, very small, or even zero. You have the ability to make anybody that kills you get killed many, many times, and you can even make them lose their threaded 'hard-earned' gear.
I'm a PvPer, and this is not my perfect game. The 'hardcore' PvPers (those that like e.g. UO) left when the bounty system was introduced a year ago. The only people still here are here because they like PvP but don't want UO-style PvP or they hated the idea of PvP in PFO but after some digging around and several discussions have been convinced that the PvP they will find in PFO is both necessary and more importantly acceptable, even fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Many many good discussions reading here. :)
That's what's bothering me—no way to opt out of the pvp. I feel the same as Draelin, the way the posts are sounding, this PVP and husk mechanics are the endgame and crucial to the "fun". I don't think any of us against the husks/pvp mechanic care if pvp DOES happen, I think that there seems to be no way to opt-out.
It really sounds like you enjoy Themepark mmorpgs with raiding for uber-gear = Endgame = best part of the game?
There's no endgame in this sandbox, because the gear-threadmill causes all sorts of finite problems for the growth of the population. It's a design choice difference: Have you seen this presentation by Ryan Dancey already?:
PaizoCon Pathfinder Online Presentation
Another answer I find bothersome is "just go get some friends and take care of the problem." Not everyone who plays this sort of game surrounds themselves with friends who want to run around and counter-gank, etc.
One of the key things with mmorpgs is that players have several different circles of associations with other players eg self/solo - personal friends - close guild mates - guild - regular associates - habitual aquaintances - unknowns etc. There's plenty of good reasons for Pathfinder to suggest "party"/groups to explore dangerous areas or increase safety or organise enterprises is a way to obviate risk of pvp.
And if it's meant to have heavily-discouraged pvp (branding people as bandits, etc) why bother with the clunky weird mechanics and just allow folks to flag themselves as PVE.
Bandits are more reactiv than mobs, have a viable playstyle due to the economy, create content for eg bount-hunters or other players. Because if you are searching for resources the cost of banditry changes the economy/provides the hex content to challenge with etc.
This is going to be a VERY small MMO compared to post-wow expectation, and appealing to a broad base is going to be crucial in keeping it alive. I don't see how forced pvp and risking your hard-earned unthreaded goodies is going to appeal to a wide base. I am/was an MMO JUNKIE and this sounds horrific to me.
No mmorpg compares with wow so that's no issue. PfO will start small as per blogs. I think appealing to a more target niche player base (still large and under-served) will make the game more successful and playable than the themepark "broad-base" - which PfO could not compete with anyway in terms of dev budget (50-100m$).
- As said there's many differences between the sandbox and themepark mmorpgs: The presentation is a really good to watch (link above)!
I wish this game had FFA Open PvP
That would be too far and why Darkfall and others such as that (apart fom buggy performance) have been MORE niche than they could have been. The "PvP system" should be in balance with the other systems (Adventure, Exploration, Development, "Dominion") - not dominant, which makes those other gameplay styles retarded in their options for players: which is what a lot of players' expectations seem to hinge on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's another unappealing thing, simply having other players in the MMO isn't creating a compelling reason to play. Where's the progression, the fun things to do, the things that make me want to log in every night. I hope this isn't just going to be PVP minecraft.
It seems to me then that they want to make the ground works for a game but leave all the content to the players. Why build a game when the players can do it like build towns, cities, and guilds. Why waste our time and money when we can charge them to do it for us! Why make conflict when the players can fight themselves!
Do you really want to only have the same game, again, that you already played through and left ten times in the last ten years? Is that all there is to an MMO? Aren't you getting just a little bit weary of the same old themepark offering the same old rides even though it is marketed to you under a different name and making you start all over again at the beginning?
This is your opportunity to try a different game. Yes, the game developer isn't going to imagine everything for you in this one. Yes, uncomfortable though it may sound the developer isn't going to play the game for you this time. Your world will not be viewed through the window of their tour bus passing through its midst. Instead you have the opportunity to create your story and make changes to the world.