Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Ironically that is how we ended up with a policy that is discouraging PvP. I thought GW was making an "open PvP" world. That claim was clearly garbage.
I still don't understand where you are linking bounties to non-open PvP.
You can still kill people where ever you want, there are simply consequences for doing so.
CEO, Goblinworks
|
Again:
The ideas described in this blog represent our current game design ideas and directions. They're subject to change as design progresses and as we get playtest and other feedback about them.
You launched this broadside by saying we said there would not be penalties for killing characters in the wilderness. I corrected you and showed you where you were making assumptions based on statements we did not make.
Lee's comments reflect the fact that the design is constantly evolving and changing, as we said it would.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ironically that is how we ended up with a policy that is discouraging PvP. I thought GW was making an "open PvP" world. That claim was clearly garbage.I still don't understand where you are linking bounties to non-open PvP.
You can still kill people where ever you want, there are simply consequences for doing so.
It's not the consequences, it's the severity. Rather than an eye for an eye, it's ten thousand eyes for an eye.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Again:
The ideas described in this blog represent our current game design ideas and directions. They're subject to change as design progresses and as we get playtest and other feedback about them.
You launched this broadside by saying we said there would not be penalties for killing characters in the wilderness. I corrected you and showed you where you were making assumptions based on statements we did not make.
Lee's comments reflect the fact that the design is constantly evolving and changing, as we said it would.
Lee's comments contradict today's information. That's ok.
Again: I have repeatedly said that I get that you guys change things. It's you game.
I'm not telling you that you can't change your game, but contrary to your previous post in this thread, I was not just assuming. If I was "Wrong. Full Stop. Period." for believing what Lee said, then take that up with your employee.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
It's not the consequences, it's the severity. Rather than an eye for an eye, it's ten thousand eyes for an eye.Ironically that is how we ended up with a policy that is discouraging PvP. I thought GW was making an "open PvP" world. That claim was clearly garbage.I still don't understand where you are linking bounties to non-open PvP.
You can still kill people where ever you want, there are simply consequences for doing so.
I understand that specific point that there needs to be some sort of limiting factor on bounties so that reverse greifing can not occur, but that is a completely different argument then "I thought GW was making an "open PvP" world." which they still are.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's not meaningful in your opinion. The risk factor becomes meaningful when players decide to take the law into their own hands and root out bandits.
Whether or not you think killing people for their stuff is meaningful does not negate the fact that to have that happening would be an authentic part of trying to simulate a dangerous frontier setting.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would suggest dropping the argument about GW changing/breaking promises. This is a game in development, and so stuff will develop.
We can however talk profitably about this issue. I'm a little worried myself. As I try and think through this system, it looks to me like being a bandit isn't just a marginally less viable option, but a completely unviable one. If the (possible) penalties for murder are this mechanically severe, I have a hard time imagining someone committing murder. I can imagine a gang of highwaymen trying to rob a merchant who just chuckles, because she knows "Your money or you life!" is a hollow threat.
For what I would like, there are two bad outcomes at the edges:
1) Murder is so rewarding there are a LOT of murders and the Crusader Road is a pretty horrid Mad Max kind of slaughterhouse.
2) Murder is so costly that there are NO murderers. There's no need for policing, if someone sets up a camp to harvest they can cheerfully thumb there nose at anyone, there's no non-PVE risk, etc.
I'm not sure if that's your plan Ryan, or perhaps my understanding or analysis is off. I want there to be a credible risk of bad guys out there, at a lower level than warfare.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would suggest dropping the argument about GW changing/breaking promises.
I have pointed out that it changed, but never criticized them for doing so. It's their right to change. I have repeatedly said it's their game and they can change.
In any case, Ryan has cleared things up - that today's update was not a misunderstanding but where they are actually aiming to go.
That's all I needed to know.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In a frontier setting, a bounty would be on a bandit as long as they are at large. In this that's forever. You can't lock them up and you can't kill them permanently. It's a oerfectly reasonable penalty. For unlawful attacks and taking the law into your own hands.
The risks to the average adventurer are already there. You any to go hunt down groups? Cool. Join company that targets another, a good at war with an evil settlement nearby. Some bandits will be around anyway, you can kill them too even without the bounty for very little penalty.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In a frontier setting you have to know the identity of the bandit to place it. They can also disguise themselves relatively easily to sneak into towns. Or a simple mask on their face while committing the crime itself. That's not what they've discussed with this bounty system.
Again, it's not so much the bounty system I see as the problem, but the power of that bounty system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Blaeringr
These discussions are all part of the crowdforging process we are in, and I imagine will continue to shift this way and that. I hope you continue to stay involved as the ideas you feel strongly about are an important element to the whole equation.
Finding that sweet spot is most likely going to take more than a couple days of discussion methinks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Open World FFA PvP" is a subjective term. I don't think anybody would argue that if PFO had a system that let's you kill somebody once, but then makes you start a new character all over again is "Open World FFA PvP"
Let me restate my point, as I know Blaeringr tends to make quick, short posts focusing on semantic differences and the overall goal can be clouded by silly arguments (c'mon dude, focus! lol)
A year ago when the bounty system was introduced, some people left the community, claiming that a system that they couldn't exploit in order t grief people was not "Open FFA PvP". I thought that was a little dramatic.
2-3 weeks ago, we got more information about PvP. I was concerned with further limiting PvP interactions. I eventually resigned myself that "Open FFA PvP" wouldn't be the focus of PvP in PFO, the focus would be PvP as War." I was ok with that; I understand why they would move in that direction.
Now, I feel there won't be significant Open FFA PvP. It will almost only be PvP as War.
I was already pretty ready to give up on my idea of what I would do in the game, and instead be a crafter/merchant. Now, I feel I won't really have much to fear (read: excitement) from meeting strangers in the wilderness.
That is one of the reasons why I originally became excited about PFO when I started reading the blogs/forums shortly before the second blogpost. Now, I think it's very possible that I will simply run from people I'm at war with, and I'll be able to safely ignore strangers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Elorebaen thank you. I've made my stance and what I'd like to see fairly clear by now.
And there's nothing to lose on my part to stick around until the kickstarter expires. I want to have a very clear concept of what's going on by then. If the day the kickstarter is set to end things aren't very clear, and I think there are still gaps from vague explanations in my understanding of this whole system (especially the bounty system) then I will be forced to make a decision.
Now I don't mean to make this issue all about my decision, but to highlight that all the players here deserve to know before that expiration whether this is the game they want to play. And calling it an open PvP game immediately puts a lot of players on both sides of that fence, and it's only fair to clarify where that fence lies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My thoughts are that there need to be groups of PC bandits roaming the wilderness either robbing you or killing you if they can. Why? Because it gives the multiple 'good' companies something meaningful and exciting to do.
To allow this, there needs to be mechanics that inhibit griefing and random PKing, but still allow PKs to happen. I'm a little concerned that everyone will now shy away from playing the bad guy bandit, as each and every time they make a hit, they get various flags on them and a bounty and a death curse on them. Will this be too oppressive for bandits to operate under? Not sure yet.
Gotta have bad guys for the good guys to shine.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have no doubt that by the time the beta is done, the system will be balanced to make bandits a role you have to consider very carefully before taking that path, but still be viable. There are hideouts, after all.
But it should be a system that doesn't attract that many people. It's not meant to be a balanced system where the bandits get a nice happy town to run an economy from and can go around killing everyone because they're all "your enemy" just to generate "risk"
There's plenty of risk already. The consequences of being an outlaw are severe. Besides, if you go around killing people professionally as a bandit, you'll get lots of bounties on you anyway. Someone putting more on wont make a difference if that's how you survive. You'll always have one on you, or you won't have the resources.
What, are you going to kill one person, just one person and never kill anyone ever again? Then you aren't playing a bandit.
Are you killing someone once a month and rep grinding the rest of the time (or alignment)?
Then you aren't playing a bandit.
Are you HUNTING bandits to make the roads safe? Then you aren't doing it for bounties.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Jameow the severity of those consequences will depend on how many bounty hunters there are and what tools they will have at their disposal to track their targets.
I can tell you that the very open recruitment policy of most companies, and the fact that some people have expressed an interest to dabble or even focus on espionage in this game will mean some bounty hunters will figure out the meta-game tools to always know where at least some of their targets are.
And the current bounty system is set up so bandits can't hide their identity, which is very inaccurate setting-wise.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Jameow the severity of those consequences will depend on how many bounty hunters there are and what tools they will have at their disposal to track their targets.
I can tell you that the very open recruitment policy of most companies, and the fact that some people have expressed an interest to dabble or even focus on espionage in this game will mean some bounty hunters will figure out the meta-game tools to always know where at least some of their targets are.
And the current bounty system is set up so bandits can't hide their identity, which is very inaccurate setting-wise.
And how long do you think someone will keep it up? Repeating it? For how many bandits?
I do think a repeated 1gp bounty is not meaningful. There should be some limits, but I think increasing costs rather than a limit on number of times.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Exactly. Like I said, it's not being able to place bounties on people's heads that I see as an issue.
But let's say there is a limit on the cost. If you can afford two, then assuming a friend is involved there is no limit to how many times you can repeat the bounty.
Example:
-some random guy kills you.
-He was wearing a mask, but that doesn't matter because the game code doesn't care about immersion and decides to tell you the players name and gives you an option to place a bounty on him.
-The bounty window that came up has a minimum price. You have at least twice that amount, so you place a bounty for the minimum that can be collected by your company mates.
-Your company likes ganking people and getting away with it, so one of them suggests the brilliant idea that if anyone does collect on the bounty, that as long as you immediately re-issue it they will give all the money back to you.
Their system has to prevent something like this. Not to mention it's a little immersion breaking that bandits can't disguise themselves with a simple cloth over the face, but whatever.
So 1 coin, or 1 million coins for a bounty, it doesn't matter when you can specify who can collect it. But if you can't specify who can collect it, then the bandit can just get his friends to collect it and profit off his victim a second time.
So either you set up a bounty system that
-has a cap on how many times it can be issued
-a time limit within which to collect the kill on bounties issued after the first with the first having no time limit
-a larger % taken by the bounty office (an NPC office) that ensures the person issuing the bounty is not getting at least some of it back.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The area I notice the strongest change in recent times that has dropped my interest slightly, is simply how they are pretty much outright saying evil is going to be worse, weaker all around, and essentially blocked from many of the better abilities.
In older posts, there were many indications that evil would have to work harder to get things. Implications of them being different, even harder, and directly be forced to compete against other evil groups on a regular basis
Evil societies in the game should have unique and cool things they could accomplish. But accomplishing those things should require betrayal, deception, murder and pain & suffering inflicted on others.
The "others" should often be members of the evil society.
So getting ahead in an evil Settlement means that you're constantly making enemies out of your peers. Sure, you may be strong enough to keep squashing them when they seek to take you out, but you're going to be forced to keep dealing with challenges to your power. The more 'evil' you do, the more those challenges should spread.
Want to advance that Temple to Rovagug so that characters that cast divine spells granted by Rovagug can get a new spell level? Well Rovagug wants blood on his altars. A lot of blood. And it turns out that the blood of the worshipers of Asmodeus is PARTICULARLY desired by Rovagug...
But really virtually nothing before now stated evil is going to be pretty much capped at a certain point.
At least in my view we are essentially looking at evil being, gimped and guaranteed weaker (an automatic way to ensure 75-80% of the players do not wish to go that route), then on top of it of course also being weaker, possibly required to be at eachothers throats if that part still applies (Which I guess is going to be necessary anyway, the evil players will certainly want conflict... and having low numbers, limited capabilities, and slower progression, essentially guarantees they will never be a remote threat to civilizations.
With the added notes of most major points of conflict subjecting you to that matter. IMO it sounds like the dev's are putting the majority of their stakes onto PVE content, and possibly wars, PC bandits... sound like essentially they will be the basic bandit random encounters that you would roll on a random encounter table on the way to fight the big bad lich.
Now I hope I'm wrong, I'm not going anywhere, but I must say my stance has dropped from highly optimistic, to wait and see at this point.
Maybe I'm crazy, but I can't help but feel like GW is going the knee jerk reaction to the OMG PVP is in the game I wont touch it, by trying to nerf it down to nothing. (Which IMO is likely not going to accomplish much, as the ones who say they won't touch it still won't, and many of the ones who were drawn to it because of the concepts will also back away)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But again, what is the risk to the bandit? They die, so what? They'll die in some attacks too. What have they lost but other people's stuff?
A bandit SHOULD think twice about attacking a wealthy merchant's caravan. Killing them once or twice doesn't mean much, since it won't cost them anything.
If they can disguise themselves, then they just always wear a disguise and we're back to no risk for the bandits they get all the gain and nothing to lose. Even with a death curse, thru dump their valuables and loot in a hideout, nothing to lose, they lost some crappy gear they can't fully use anyway, so all weapons are of equal value to them.
I think there should be a limit on how long after a crime you can put a bounty on them, refreshed if they kill you again, but I still think if you can afford it, you can put it on as many times as you want, costing more each time.
Furthermore, if you can only do it once or twice, what's to stop a bandit clearing their bounties by just removing their gear and letting someone kill them?
Then, again it's no risk at all to them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But again, what is the risk to the bandit? They die, so what? They'll die in some attacks too. What have they lost but other people's stuff?
A bandit SHOULD think twice about attacking a wealthy merchant's caravan. Killing them once or twice doesn't mean much, since it won't cost them anything.
Well on that the fact is cheap gear is pretty much universally said not to do much, the bandit is gambling his gear no matter what.
The same arguement could be said for the adventurers returning to town. What are they risking but the gear they just stole from the dragon's lair, well they are risking what they took out, they of course are risking their own gear they fought the dragon with, one could argue that the PCs killed the dragon they earned it, but really is the battle that much easier for the bandits? The bandits just killed an organized party that's capabilities together are stronger than a dragon.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But again, what is the risk to the bandit? They die, so what? They'll die in some attacks too. What have they lost but other people's stuff?
A bandit SHOULD think twice about attacking a wealthy merchant's caravan. Killing them once or twice doesn't mean much, since it won't cost them anything.
Well on that the fact is cheap gear is pretty much universally said not to do much, the bandit is gambling his gear no matter what.
The same arguement could be said for the adventurers returning to town. What are they risking but the gear they just stole from the dragon's lair, well they are risking what they took out, they of course are risking their own gear they fought the dragon with, one could argue that the PCs killed the dragon they earned it, but really is the battle that much easier for the bandits? The bandits just killed an organized party that's capabilities together are stronger than a dragon.
Or they killed one or two people that helped kill a dragon, or took all the resources that someone spent 2 hours gathering (2 hours risk and exposure vs the bandit's 5 mins running to the location)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Onishi - we're putting our eggs in the basket of exploration, development, adventure and domination.
Not meaningless PvP, or greifing PvP.
There will be massive amounts of meaningful, non griefing PvP.
I suppose where I'm in doubt, is what at least to me appears to be a shift in the definition of "griefing PVP". At least to me, before hand I thought fending ones self from bandit ambushes etc... was to be a key portion of transportation and returning from dungeons etc... Balanced out by costs of gear etc... that the bandits must risk on the line etc...
Now at least to my understanding, the path of banditry is essentially chosing to play an essentially nuetered character, making bandits virtually uncommon for anything other than throw away alts.
I'll give it a try when it reaches open, and who knows maybe this is just my brain hitting pessimist mode due to the realization my financial situation won't guarantee me into early enrollment (Certainly a possibility I have to note but I lack any solid way to test such a theory of my own psychology)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Onishi - we're putting our eggs in the basket of exploration, development, adventure and domination.
Not meaningless PvP, or greifing PvP.
There will be massive amounts of meaningful, non griefing PvP.
Why, and how? I'm not seeing how bandits can really turn a profit in this system, and War would have to either A) be freely pronounceable, leading to War-griefing or B) consensual, which makes no sense and would lead to no PvP.
Beyond that, I'm not really seeing the PvP side of things. I could be missing the vision, or part of how you intend the game to work, but right now it looks bleak.
I'm eager to see PFO on launch day, don't get me wrong, but right now I'm a hair concerned.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There will be bandits. There are always that kind of player. I don't mean griefers, I mean people qho want to live with that much risk and danger.
The real risks is not from bandits, it is from enemy factions.
Well at least we finally agree that bandits will be taking risks. I think you still underestimate the resourcefulness of bounty-hunters in finding their targets and the vindictiveness of victims though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Onishi - we're putting our eggs in the basket of exploration, development, adventure and domination.
Not meaningless PvP, or greifing PvP.
There will be massive amounts of meaningful, non griefing PvP.
When you castrate evil and put penalties on lawful good people declaring wars, I think you're leaving some big gaps for people to figure out how you think that is possible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Where did I agree bandits are taking risks?
I still don't see where these "castrating evil" things are coming from. All I've seen so far is that evil will be challenging, chaotic is the one with disadvantages, not evil.
And why do you think all the lawful good groups will get along? You think there won't be disputes over territory and resources between kingdoms?
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I think this really boils down to a question of how the bounty system will work. Maybe it needs it's own properly titled thread?
In any case, I agree there does need to be some sort of limiting factor on bounty hunting specifically to address points made by Blaeringr to prevent bounty greifing.
One thing I would love to see is the use of disguise to have actual mechanical effects. I mentioned that here Naming Messaging and NameRecycling
But if it was implemented correctly then the bounty griefing issue goes out the window.
In either case, I think the whole "PFO won't be Open World PvP" is not a valid argument because open world PvP is simply you can PvP anywhere. In PFO you aren't stopped from PvPing anywhere, simply there are consequences for doing it that can be greater or lesser depending on where it occurs.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@All - There will be bandits.
There won't be bandits on every trail, every 10 feet, comprised of newbie players and newbie characters in it for the lulz.
Bandits will be careful. They'll pick their targets well. They'll often ransom the cargos rather than kill the teamsters.
A lot of Bandits will be chaotic evil. They'll cope. They'll find ways to make that work for them. It's not an easy road - but it is a road. I doubt there will be any wilderness areas in the game where you will not constantly have to be on your guard, ready to fight or flee, should someone come at you with bad intent.
Being a highwayman is hard freakin' work. That's why there's not a lot of them. Always on the run, hunted by those who seek rewards, dealing with a crappy reputation; this is the life you choose.
There's a fractal space of "characters who attack other characters" and being a simple bandit is one very small portion of that fractal space.
When you go to war, having teams disrupt logistics and supply lines will be a critical tactic. Some characters will do that.
When someone transport very valuable items they create a juicy target, a single act of highway robbery won't destroy your alignment. Some characters will specialize in the high-reward, low-impact strike.
We'll likely declare some areas free-for-all zones where conditions are so bad that nobody gets any penalty for whacking anyone. Where, how, why, how large, etc. all to be determined, but that is the kind of thing I'd expect in a land like the River Kingdoms. Of course, you'd have to be mad to go into such an area without being able to hold your own.... no easy targets.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We'll likely declare some areas free-for-all zones where conditions are so bad that nobody gets any penalty for whacking anyone. Where, how, why, how large, etc. all to be determined, but that is the kind of thing I'd expect in a land like the River Kingdoms. Of course, you'd have to be mad to go into such an area without being able to hold your own.... no easy targets.
This makes sense.
Not all wilderness being like this, or even a lot, but some of it. And the treasure to be had there should be awesome. And the PvE there should be especially hard.
And it would be nice to see such regions spread out in a way that means sometimes caravans - the especially lucrative trade routes - will be able to save a lot of time by cutting through such regions, but still have the option to go around.
And the bounty system is still flawed ;b
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Declared open war is a fine way for two lawful good Settlements to resolve a dispute over territory if neither will yield to the other.
If that's the way the game will work, then that's the way it will work. But I call that nonsense if you call that lawful good behavior towards lawful good in a world where you also insist that good and evil are absolute.
I suggest you involve alignment shifts in such events.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No. Not in Pathfinder. ryan has been very adamant that morality will not be relative in this world.
New rule: If you're a lawful good person who supports killing innocent foreigners and torture, you have to come up with a new name for your alignment.
Two towns believe in justice for all, peace where possible, a good, lawful and prosperous society.
Both make a claim on a region.between the two towns and it's rich resources. Both believe it is theirs.
Where is the moral differentiation?
How are they not both lawful good?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Your emphasis is on lawful, but lacking in good. A good alignment is faith that they can find a non-violent resolution with other good people. It involves a deep faith in others who are also demonstrably good.
Your argument sounds more lawful evil than lawful good. At best, lawful neutral.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I did say non-violent resolution with other lawful good people. Does that answer your question?
Misunderstandings will occasionally lead to violence - to situations where one group of lawful good people will think the other group to be less than good - but that should be the exception, not the rule.