Goblin Squad Member
|
First:
second
But, there will be only one server, and as the economy of the game will be based on what the players do it wouldn`t make much sense.
I'm willing to give it a shot and willing to listen reasons. My main problems are abusive pvp'ers and sorry to say it I have yet to play an MMO that supported PVP that did not have a large amount of abusive PVP'ersthird
Has anyone else but me told him, that he will suffer at some point in time PVP that he does not consent to?
i said he should read the blogs, as did others.
you keep painting black and white where a lot of grey shade can be found.and no amound of repetition will make that any better.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know Bluddwolf, and i mean no disrespect, you being an inportant member of this community and all, but i get the feeling this has more to do with who you want in the game or not.
otherwise i can`t see why you keep arguing the way you do in this case.
on the other hand, maybe i`m just being paranoid and should catch some sleep.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You know Bluddwolf, and i mean no disrespect, you being an inportant member of this community and all, but i get the feeling this has more to do with who you want in the game or not.
otherwise i can`t see why you keep arguing the way you do in this case.
on the other hand, maybe i`m just being paranoid and should catch some sleep.
So let me get this straight, someone expresses that they don't want to PvP at all. They would at the very least want have a PvE Only server, or it is a deal breaker for him. I explain to them that what he is looking for can not be found in PFO, and that is me driving them away?
I am perfectly fine with as many players who dislike PvP to come to this game, and for them to wander into the wilderness hexes and become targets for my bandit company and I. I would love for them to be under the belief that if they are not PvP flagged, they won't need guards, because they are safe. I would love for them to have with them, so much wealth and so little protection, that I would forgo the SAD and just ambush and kill him. Stealing as much as the mechanics allows, taking the Chaotic Evil alignment hit and the Reputation hit in exchange for that high reward. This would be great for my character!
As a player and a forum community member, I feel a conscientious need to tell him the truth about the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's going to be a PvP game and that is fact. A pretty brutal one at that; also fact.
There are going to be strong mechanics in play so you at least know why you are getting killed and to prevent roaming gank squads from being a way of life. There are mechanics to extract all kinds of revenge on gankers and there are penalties for those who kill indiscriminately.
If you are a player who likes the "idea" of PvP but have never enjoyed it in an MMo so far, PFO is very much the game for you. If you abhor the very concept of PvP, this game is not for you and yes you should probably move on.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on if the person is objecting to anti-social behaviour via pvp or adversarial behaviour and to what extent they can find a role in PFO that minimises the the latter and there is as good as zero of the former. Deriving enough enjoyment from other aspects of the game may or may not change attitudes. If there is a quality bunch of people in this game it's conceivable that perceived value is strong enough to provide possible u-turns in our attitudes: The reverse is true a game full of db's is not just a waste of time but a negative experience.
It depends, one person might *really* want to experience the pathfinder lore and question if there is a niche for them; possibly not or possibly the way te game grows and is shaped by players that make it so? Let the person listen to feedback and the friendliness of the response is as much a part of the answer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If Ryan or another GW rep says "hey, this isn't the game for you, move along," I figure that's their business. I'm not sure the rest of us need to be to be telling people that they should just go away long before the game launches.
That's not directed just at you, avari3, but more of a general comment. I've been reading the thread this morning and wincing everytime someone decides to be the gatekeeper of who is pure enough to play PFO.
In the games I've played with PvP it's been a huge gank fest and trash talk extravaganza. I'm not a fan. But from everything I've read, I think I can make a place for myself in PFO's River Kingdom and live with the PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If Ryan or another GW rep says "hey, this isn't the game for you, move along," I figure that's their business. I'm not sure the rest of us need to be to be telling people that they should just go away long before the game launches.
That's not directed just at you, avari3, but more of a general comment. I've been reading the thread this morning and wincing everytime someone decides to be the gatekeeper of who is pure enough to play PFO.
In the games I've played with PvP it's been a huge gank fest and trash talk extravaganza. I'm not a fan. But from everything I've read, I think I can make a place for myself in PFO's River Kingdom and live with the PvP.
Dare I say "Indeed!" again?
@All - lets not tell people to leave, encourage them to do so, or thank them for leaving.
PvP rises strong emotions because its the original sin of Ultima Online, and no MMO has really spent the time and effort to figure out a good resolution. I think we have the history and the experience to be the game that does so. But it's a legit issue to say "why should I trust you". A lot of hearts have been broken.
So, tread lightly, and do no more harm to the cause.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Realwalker
It seems there are a few here that are comfortable to try to convince you that your experience in PFO will be secure from the griefing, unwanted PVP that you may have experienced in other MMOs.
If you read the provided links, I'm sure you will be convinced that your fears will be assuaged and you will be able to play in PFO with virtually no unwanted PVP.
Oh, and don't worry about needing a PVE Only server, the few here can guarantee you will never be forced into unwanted PVP.
As a matter of fact, when the next Kickstater is offered, you should kick in as much as you can, because PFo will offer you everything you were never able to get from those other MMOs.
Wow, you guys were right, that feels so much better....
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Back to PVP and Settlement Politics EE 0-3 months
* TEO will be sponsoring a meeting on their TS server this Friday, Aug 2 @ 9:00 PM EST. Several of the UnNamed Company will be in attendance to discuss SADs and Banditry in general.
I would also like to discuss here, the issue of Settlement relations with organized, non settlement chartered companies.
It is my thought that a non chartered company may not be bound by the reputation limits nor the one-step alignment restrictions.
What would the settlement reaction be if these unsettled wanderers actually represented a significant percentage of the server population?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
<unnecessary sarcastic condescension>-1
I have moved on from that topic, and refocused back to the OP topic. New question:
I would also like to discuss here, the issue of Settlement relations with organized, non settlement chartered companies.
It is my thought that a non chartered company may not be bound by the reputation limits nor the one-step alignment restrictions.
What would the settlement reaction be if these unsettled wanderers actually represented a significant percentage of the server population?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If Ryan or another GW rep says "hey, this isn't the game for you, move along," I figure that's their business. I'm not sure the rest of us need to be to be telling people that they should just go away long before the game launches.
That's not directed just at you, avari3, but more of a general comment. I've been reading the thread this morning and wincing everytime someone decides to be the gatekeeper of who is pure enough to play PFO.
In the games I've played with PvP it's been a huge gank fest and trash talk extravaganza. I'm not a fan. But from everything I've read, I think I can make a place for myself in PFO's River Kingdom and live with the PvP.
That is specifically the distinction I am making. If you are a player who just hasn't liked PvP in other games we can talk all day about why you should give it another chance in PFO. That's what we are here for.
But if you are a player who is telling me you have a DISABILITY (Realwalker's case) that prevents you from playing competitive video games or you are the type of player who breaks into a nervous sweat and an acne attack at the mere thought of PvP I don't think it's fair to tell you to play unless that payer wants to be a 100% crafter.
Honesty towards the clients you can't help goes a long ways towards the ones you can.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If anyone has a link to GW talking about letting characters belong to up to 3 companies, I probably could read that for a fresh view of what they are thinking with non-chartered companies.
In the initial design discussions, GW seemed to want to tie chartered companies to settlements specifically to keep large unaccountable gangs from dominating the game. They've repeatedly said that they want to see settlement vs. settlement pvp; I think that means instead of gang vs. gang. So I'm not sure if the organized but unsettled wanderers would be working as intended.
Ulfgang has a good point: training might be an issue for them. I'd be curious if these unchartered companies could field the military units needed to defeat a fortress.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can't see there being that many unaffiliated peeps around. For a start as I understand it they are likely to have problems in the training part. I read that training slots would be limited so I expect settlements will have a priority sort of thing going where they train settlement peeps first, then allies and just maybe if they have some spare slots they may let random peeps have them.As to rep...if that is one of the things you can gate entry on then it will affect everyone whether visitor or member
Initially, since we are talking EE 0-3 months, many will still be getting their training from the starter cities.
Question: Is a training facility required for the acquisition of new skills, or is it also required for going up in levels of a skill already known?
* I'm hoping that like EVE (skill tiers 1 - 5), once you purchase the skill book, you can then train it from levels 1 - 20 in PFO.
As far as the settlement slots, I agree that those training slots will be reserved for members first. But, they will also be sold at higher cost to visitors, and become a major source of settlement income.
For the same reason, some settlements may find the allure of training based gold to outweigh being too stringent on acceptable Reputation entry.
I'm expecting there to be a pretty decent percentage of unaffiliated characters around. I equate them to the Corp-of-One phenomenon, or the Corporations of few than 10, that you find in EVE Online.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The game is about territorial control. Settlements control territory. So we want to channel players into Settlements... [...cut...] ... you should expect that you'll be more concerned with your Settlement choice than your Company choice.
I would not expect supporting "free" companies to be a high priority. Nor would I expect GW to shy away from "incentives" pushing players to join a settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Allowing training the "skill book", and then just increasing without the facility, seems like bad "long range" planning. An influx of new characters might be enough to keep the facilities going, but that is doubtful. Everything points to GW wanting people to have somewhere that they have to go to be trained.
I think the dream of roving bands of unaffiliated groups might be very difficult to pull off and be successful. You won't be able to piss everyone off and enjoy full training. Just speculation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If anyone has a link to GW talking about letting characters belong to up to 3 companies, I probably could read that for a fresh view of what they are thinking with non-chartered companies.
In the initial design discussions, GW seemed to want to tie chartered companies to settlements specifically to keep large unaccountable gangs from dominating the game. They've repeatedly said that they want to see settlement vs. settlement pvp; I think that means instead of gang vs. gang. So I'm not sure if the organized but unsettled wanderers would be working as intended.
Ulfgang has a good point: training might be an issue for them. I'd be curious if these unchartered companies could field the military units needed to defeat a fortress.
Stephen Cheney recently wrote about charters being able to belong in up to 3 companies, but only one of which could be a settlement chartered company. He (they / Devs) were still trying to decide whether thy would be called "venture" or "chartered" companies.
I personally hope they go with three categories:
Ad Hoc - Non persistent, temporary player group
Venture Company - persistent player group
Chartered Company - persistent player group, charted by a settlement
A settlement is both a physical location and a player organization. It is made up of charter companies, and visitors, which I believe is a unique form of an alliance I have not seen in other MMOs.
We are still lacking a lot of information on how companies or settlements will function. Hopefully a Dev Blog will come soon to clear this up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't believe it to be the case that visitors are part of a settlement. They are merely something you can choose to allow. Nor are members of chartered companies necessarily part of the settlement that sponsors them.
A settlement comprises if I remember correctly only those people who are settlement members
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Allowing training the "skill book", and then just increasing without the facility, seems like bad "long range" planning. An influx of new characters might be enough to keep the facilities going, but that is doubtful. Everything points to GW wanting people to have somewhere that they have to go to be trained.
I think the dream of roving bands of unaffiliated groups might be very difficult to pull off and be successful. You won't be able to piss everyone off and enjoy full training. Just speculation.
We can always contract for training. We can provide:
1. Help against an escalation
2. Protect a caravan / harvesting site
3. Attack a rival caravan / harvesting site
4. Assassinate a rival
5. Pay higher fee for training
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
on the topic of training here are the relevant quotes
"Most importantly, you need to find a settlement with a training hall that has the feat you want to buy. The NPC settlements will have a lot of the basic feats, particularly for starting characters, but you'll need to find player-created settlements with advanced training halls to get many feats."
and
"Finally, each feat may have a cost in coin that's set by the settlement that owns the training hall. Like any other fee, such as using their markets, settlements have a lot of control over pricing for these feats and can charge a different rate for guests or members (and likely more fine-tuned control for different types of members).The fee is important, because each hall offers a limited amount of training (there are only so many instructors to go around), and the settlement probably doesn't want guests swooping in to take all the training from a building they made to support their members."
From the "Are you experienced" blog
This certainly implies that training wont be train the initial skill then you can rank up freely. It also implies training will be strictly rationed
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If anyone has a link to GW talking about letting characters belong to up to 3 companies...
Q. What's the difference between a crowdforger guild, a chartered company, a settlement, and a nation? How many guilds can you belong to at once?
"Crowdforger Guild" is the Kickstarter reward level that gets six players into the game, all at the "Crowdforger Pioneer" level. It also provides bonus gear for members of a venture company those players might choose to form, but individual players in the package aren't required to join or remain in the same company.A "venture company" (sometimes also referred to as a chartered company; we'll get the terminology settled soon) is a social construct designed to cover the small-to-mid-sized guilds popular in other MMOs. It can be anything from a small group of friends and/or small adventuring party to a social organization several dozen strong. You can be a member of up to three venture companies, but only one of them can be a settlement-sponsored venture company (in other words, all the members belong to the same settlement). If a second venture company becomes sponsored, you'll have to choose to leave one or the other. This is a change from how they were originally pitched, and we have an upcoming blog post that will go more in depth on how venture companies work.
A "settlement" is a social construct designed to cover the large guilds popular in other MMOs. It has potentially hundreds or thousands of members, many of them members of smaller sponsored venture companies. All characters who belong to a settlement are treated as the citizens of a player-constructed city. You can only belong to one settlement at a time.
Finally, a "nation" fills the role that guild alliances do in other games. It is comprised of multiple settlements, and generally allows the members to share facilities and coordinate their actions more effectively than if they were just friendly with one another. You can only be a member of one PC nation: whichever one your settlement joins.
Looking over this again, a couple of things stand out:
1. The term of art "venture company" has nothing to do with whether or not the company is sponsored.
2. This seems to introduce a new concept that a "sponsored ventured company" means all the members of the company are also members of the sponsoring Settlement. In fact, it almost sounds like the fact that all the members are in the same Settlement may be what actually makes the company "sponsored".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It seems like the talk of sponsored companies has always been about attaching the company itself to the settlement. Anyone in the company would be (could be?) part of the settlement, but since they could not join another company sponsored by another settlement, that sponsoring limited where they could settle down at.
Curious if you could join two companies sponsored by the same settlement...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A part of me thinks I'm wrong to read that quote as saying that the act of having all Company Members also be Members of the same Settlement is what makes the Company a Sponsored Company.
I'm definitely looking forward to the blog that delves into more detail about why they decided to allow us to be members of three different Companies in the first place.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Its pretty sad that there is a large number of people that want to limit PVP to the point of being useless.
THIS IS A OPEN WORLD SANDBOX PVP GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do we really need to make a thread pointing out what all that means?
No, the Devs do not want griefing, and rightly so.
Everything else is on the table. You may get ganked, you may not like it, I may get ganked, I may not like it...
People will be killed in the wilderness, and have no reason why... There may be a reason, it may be: "Can I do it?" Guess what, thats reason enough; so get over it.
This will be an awesome game. If you do not like PVP... it has been said before and I will say it again...
PFO is not for you!!!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Xeen
Yes it is a sandbox game with open PVP. Some things about the PVP are going to be very different from previous PVP games. Instead of dismissing people who have not had positive experiences previously, it might help to talk a little back and forth with them and explain some of the ways that PfO might be different than they think. It might, in fact has, worked in several cases (at least) that I have seen.
It worked for me. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
PFO is not for you!!!
I'd rather spread Ryan's message than yours.
@All - lets not tell people to leave, encourage them to do so, or thank them for leaving.
PvP rises strong emotions because its the original sin of Ultima Online, and no MMO has really spent the time and effort to figure out a good resolution. I think we have the history and the experience to be the game that does so. But it's a legit issue to say "why should I trust you". A lot of hearts have been broken.
So, tread lightly, and do no more harm to the cause.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
PFO is not for you!!!I'd rather spread Ryan's message than yours.
@All - lets not tell people to leave, encourage them to do so, or thank them for leaving.
PvP rises strong emotions because its the original sin of Ultima Online, and no MMO has really spent the time and effort to figure out a good resolution. I think we have the history and the experience to be the game that does so. But it's a legit issue to say "why should I trust you". A lot of hearts have been broken.
So, tread lightly, and do no more harm to the cause.
Ryan and Lisa both have told several people that the game may not be for them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Xeen
Yes it is a sandbox game with open PVP. Some things about the PVP are going to be very different from previous PVP games. Instead of dismissing people who have not had positive experiences previously, it might help to talk a little back and forth with them and explain some of the ways that PfO might be different than they think. It might, in fact has, worked in several cases (at least) that I have seen.
It worked for me. :)
Honestly I have tried that. I have discussed many aspects of pvp till I was blue in the face... The problem is, everyone wants to make the rules for pvp so difficult that its a pve game.
Im just stating a fact, its a pvp game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Xeen Bluddwolf
Your frustration is towards those that want to fight against bandits and being robbed of their hard work? We are just "fluffing the colors" as you are also. If you are not angry about that, then it must be about those that want to limit who uses their settlement's facilities?
Straight up, who and how has anyone tried to change the rules, as so far proposed? Do you really think they will succeed?
How does it help, anything, to express your frustration towards brand new posters? Seems like it just chases away people that might come to see the game differently, than a quick glance, if we take the time for some back-and-forth.
Why chase away people that are curious? I doubt that they would post here if they really did not want to be convinced that PfO is the game for them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A part of me thinks I'm wrong to read that quote as saying that the act of having all Company Members also be Members of the same Settlement is what makes the Company a Sponsored Company.
I'm definitely looking forward to the blog that delves into more detail about why they decided to allow us to be members of three different Companies in the first place.
Thanks for finding that quoted section above.
Reading that quote, there seems to be a possibility that an unsponsored company might have all members from one settlement, but sponsored companies are restricted that all member *must* be from one settlement. They'll eventually tell us, unless they change it to something else :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm gonna go our on a limb here and assume that if you kill and take realmwalkers stuff ingame he would consider it abusive PvP.
My apologies Papaver. The above quote was your statement that made me feel that you were being negative about the situation. If that was not your intent, then I made a mistake. I have edited your name out of the post.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Xeen - it depends on the attitude of the questioner: Some people have made their mind up and want to sound off. Others, it's good to avoid pigeon holing as this is a pve or a pvp game, it DOES have open pvp which links a lot of game systems together, and my personal preference is it's better than AI. Etc but allow people to make their own mind up. I don't know what the nearest to pathfinder might be without pvp? I notice Realmwalker has over 700 posts at Paizo and probably deserves a bit of attention for their question as well "I'm open to trying this some day," Maybe EQ:N reveal will answer their question on Friday as another possibility. If GW succeed with pvp it will be a case of seeing is believing besides.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...
After reading a bit of your stuff it looks like the type of PVP you've experienced other places has lead you to an intense hatred of it. Changing the way Open World PVP is experienced and perceived is not only the goal of The Empyrean Order, but of Goblinworks themselves. We both are unified in a vision for meaningful player interaction. Something that is lacking in the PVP and PVE titles currently on the market. Let me explain a few ways things should be different here than in your general PVP experience.
1. PVP will be more meaningful. In other PVP titles the penalties for randomly killing people are light to non-existent. The worst that will happen is you can only live in evil cities, which still offer everything you need. In Pathfinder Online you lose reputation for senseless slaughter. Players with low reputation have to live in towns that have many disadvantages including less trainable skills. So you will have a weaker character confined to an inferior town. (This includes player owned towns that accept low rep characters.) Meanwhile non-disadvantaged factions like The Empyrean Order will be hunting you down.
2. You don't have to be good at PVP to play a meaningful part. There will be NPC infestations that threaten player cities and the skills needed to most effectively combat undead, outsiders, and other powerful creatures will not be of much assistance in PVP. The best gear for either situation doesn't come from raids or PVP but from crafters. The materials for that gear, and the grand cities powerful PVP factions will want needs to be moved by traders. So you're not a good front line soldier. Your skills are still valuable. You can still make a difference.
3. PVP should be easier to avoid. So you don't want to get killed all the time? Because meaningless slaughter will be less common you should be fine most of the time if you avoid making waves. You could live in an area with a strong defensive military, pay protection money to bandits or just comply with their stand and delivers. Play a stealthy character or one who has little in the way of valuables. Make yourself invaluable to the community so that others will leave you alone and even protect you put of respect. I'm not saying you will never die. Just that with wit and creativity you can reduce your chances.
If you decide to give this game a try come talk to me about the role you wish to play. I can help you brainstorm on how to successfully pull it off, with as few unwanted deaths as possible, while still being a meaningful community member.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So you will have a weaker character confined to an inferior town. (This includes player owned towns that accept low rep characters.)
That part is not correct, if a settlement is completely open to low rep players and are either part of that settlement or are given access to skill training... They will have it.
So far noone in game plans to let low rep players into their settlement, so I guess its true atm.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So you will have a weaker character confined to an inferior town. (This includes player owned towns that accept low rep characters.)That part is not correct, if a settlement is completely open to low rep players and are either part of that settlement or are given access to skill training... They will have it.
So far noone in game plans to let low rep players into their settlement, so I guess its true atm.
The Devs have said that Chaotic Evil settlements will have a harder time growing and completing buildings. It sounds like a good reason to be a virtuous bandit that doesn't sink into Evil.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So you will have a weaker character confined to an inferior town. (This includes player owned towns that accept low rep characters.)That part is not correct, if a settlement is completely open to low rep players and are either part of that settlement or are given access to skill training... They will have it.
So far noone in game plans to let low rep players into their settlement, so I guess its true atm.
That is true Xeen. Settlements with low rep (averaged from membership) will not be able to build advanced training buildings. Players with a low rep (unknown how low yet) will not even be able to train skills (at least advanced) at all, whether members or visitors. There are many statements confirming this, in blog and interview.
That is one of the reasons for the whole rep system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm gonna go our on a limb here and assume that if you kill and take realmwalkers stuff ingame he would consider it abusive PvP.
I believe this would be the case. I did not take his objections to be specific to what most would consider to be abusive, more more generally anti PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The Devs have said that Chaotic Evil settlements will have a harder time growing and completing buildings. It sounds like a good reason to be a virtuous bandit that doesn't sink into Evil.So you will have a weaker character confined to an inferior town. (This includes player owned towns that accept low rep characters.)That part is not correct, if a settlement is completely open to low rep players and are either part of that settlement or are given access to skill training... They will have it.
So far noone in game plans to let low rep players into their settlement, so I guess its true atm.
This is not what Ryan Dancy said. There us no mechanical disadvantage of being chaotic. None for being Evil either. Low Reputation may be a hindrance, but it depends on what you consider low. If you combine all three, that is what Ryan Dancy said would be difficult.
If Ryan Dancey is speaking in terms of, it would be difficult to run a Chaotic Evil settlement that is run in a CE manner, that would be correct. But there is no requirement from settlement managers to run their settlement in the meta game as CE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Its pretty sad that there is a large number of people that want to limit PVP to the point of being useless.
Well, I have to disagree that this is a PvP game, this is a politics and intrigue game (because just as you decide to play it as a PvP game, I decide to play it as a politics and intrigue game). Everything I have argued for, including open world PvP, is in the hope of making my play style interesting. My request for a "fame" system, is a request for political/intrigue content/tools.
As far as I am concerned, sure PvP is part of the game, but you PvPers are just pawns in our bigger game. Calling PFO a PvP game is like saying chess is single move forward game with the occasional diagonal attack thrown in.
As for bandits, I must admit I see them as an uninteresting nuisance since they intend to have no land holdings, hence nothing for me to take.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Its pretty sad that there is a large number of people that want to limit PVP to the point of being useless.Well, I have to disagree that this is a PvP game, this is a politics and intrigue game (because just as you decide to play it as a PvP game, I decide to play it as a politics and intrigue game). Everything I have argued for, including open world PvP, is in the hope of making my play style interesting. My request for a "fame" system, is a request for political/intrigue content/tools.
As far as I am concerned, sure PvP is part of the game, but you PvPers are just pawns in our bigger game. Calling PFO a PvP game is like saying chess is single move forward game with the occasional diagonal attack thrown in.
As for bandits, I must admit I see them as an uninteresting nuisance since they intend to have no land holdings, hence nothing for me to take.
Politics is nothing without the force of a sword behind it. Your playing style as a mover and shaker behind the scenes could very well be interesting and I wouldn't mind taking that route as well, but I am interested in playing a LG type knight too and it seems to me after reading these posts, I would have a very hard time protecting the innocent because people want already want to nerf banditry and such.
There can be no good without evil, so I say bring on the assassins, thieves, bandits and evil wizards. I am really excited about this game, but I am getting a little nervous that many people on these forums want to turn this into an online Balder's Gate or limit PVP to zones like SWOTOR which is complete garbage.