Goblin Squad Member
|
And I look forward to meeting you and your guards in the swamps, Andius. I would not SAD you, because you and your band will be a fine test for our combat skills. If you should beat us (which is likely with the benefits of formation battle)we will learn much from the experience, and if we should beat you... I will guard your body personally, to allow you to retrieve your belongings.As someone who's done extensive trading in unrestricted PVP environments I think the traveler flag is great.
Sure, it's kind of useless for the wagon driving merchant going down the road who's guards can't keep up, but it's freaking awesome for the armed merchants leading pack mules through swamps and mountain passes.
Increased carrying capacity for them and their wagons / pack animals would be more universally useful to traders though.
I'm leaving my last post as the one to Andius, because I left it on a positive note and he is one of the few that I'm confident, would never tread softly and unflagged in the wilderness.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... Ryan Dancey's post that speaks about creating an FFA zone...
I expect this will turn out to be "special" Hexes in some way - either War Zones, or Hexes with some kind of special resource or attraction.
I don't think there's a chance in hell it's going to be anything remotely close to "uncontrolled hexes".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What gets me is that I see the potential for the slow creep towards catering too much to that "care bear" mentality that has just as much chance of make PFO unplayable as if the other extreme of Greifers running wild does.
@All - lets not use the term carebear.
@All - lets not tell people to leave, encourage them to do so, or thank them for leaving.
PvP rises strong emotions because its the original sin of Ultima Online, and no MMO has really spent the time and effort to figure out a good resolution. I think we have the history and the experience to be the game that does so. But it's a legit issue to say "why should I trust you". A lot of hearts have been broken.
So, tread lightly, and do no more harm to the cause.
You're doing damage to the cause.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What gets me is that I see the potential for the slow creep towards catering too much to that "care bear" mentality that has just as much chance of make PFO unplayable as if the other extreme of Greifers running wild does.You're doing damage to the cause.@All - lets not use the term carebear.
@All - lets not tell people to leave, encourage them to do so, or thank them for leaving.
PvP rises strong emotions because its the original sin of Ultima Online, and no MMO has really spent the time and effort to figure out a good resolution. I think we have the history and the experience to be the game that does so. But it's a legit issue to say "why should I trust you". A lot of hearts have been broken.
So, tread lightly, and do no more harm to the cause.
I place Care Bear and Griefer in the same category, shall we agree not to label either?
Besides, writing "Catering too much to the "care Bear" mentality", is not name calling it is pointing to a direction of the discussion.
...and I wanted to leave my last post the positive one to Andius.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Besides, writing "Catering too much to the "care Bear" mentality", is not name calling it is pointing to a direction of the discussion.
That's a very twisted rationalization.
"I'm not saying you are a 'care bear'. I'm just saying this conversation is going in a 'care bear' direction."
Seriously?
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Looking at every map I've seen, I don't see a lot of hexes that aren't "naturals" (adjacent to a settlement hex) or "contested" (two hexes away from two or more settlements, and adjacent to none).
How much "uncontrolled" area along major transportation routes do you expect there to be for bandits to operate in?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Besides, writing "Catering too much to the "care Bear" mentality", is not name calling it is pointing to a direction of the discussion.That's a very twisted rationalization.
"I'm not saying you are a 'care bear'. I'm just saying this conversation is going in a 'care bear' direction."
Seriously?
He is good at compartmentalization. He will attempt to dodge any attempt to hold him accountable for anything he says that might go against him and refuse to man up to it and own his statements. May as well let it rest.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Bluddwolf: I don't think that threatening people who make choices such that you need to murder them in order to take the items they carry that you will additionally do everything in your power to inconvience them in retaliation for the inconvienenced they caused you the encounter is a good idea or will make you any friends.
That's a rather long and complicated sentence, so I'll summarize: Don't threaten to harass people because they aren't playing the game "right" or making things easy for you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bringing wealth and population to the FFA zone will necessitate a settlement in said FFA zone. One where the pvp window is smashed open 24-7, so there's no significant guard presence to worry about . A complete array of alignments can show up, if they're tough enough. A place where those high-value cargoes get resold at competitive prices, and where unscrupulous crafters can make the very hard to create items (or repair them) using material from those same fabulous cargoes. Imagine the sieges there, all the bandits teaming up to try and defend it ... blood everywhere !This is what I have been advocating all of this time. Give us a zone that requires PVP flagging or at least does not punish...
We'll likely declare some areas free-for-all zones where conditions are so bad that nobody gets any penalty for whacking anyone. ...Of course, you'd have to be mad to go into such an area without being able to hold your own.... no easy targets.
The sad part is, it will probably be shoved in the corner and have no real value... Unlike Eve, where the real wealth is in the FFA areas.
Oh I hope you are correct. It should be the area with the most wealth waiting to be harvested. It will also be the toughest place to try and take or keep. Thats fine too... Should be fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is all what it comes down too. They want a PvP Free For All without Consequences. They do not respect that some people dislike PvP. They do not respect that some of us are cooperative by nature. And they wish to do everything they can to ruin the game for anyone who does not wish to play their way.
Who said noone wants consequences? No One wants to ruin anyones game.
Please though, rant on
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... Ryan Dancey's post that speaks about creating an FFA zone...I expect this will turn out to be "special" Hexes in some way - either War Zones, or Hexes with some kind of special resource or attraction.
I don't think there's a chance in hell it's going to be anything remotely close to "uncontrolled hexes".
What part of FFA do you not understand?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Looking at every map I've seen, I don't see a lot of hexes that aren't "naturals" (adjacent to a settlement hex) or "contested" (two hexes away from two or more settlements, and adjacent to none).
How much "uncontrolled" area along major transportation routes do you expect there to be for bandits to operate in?
Bandits do not need to operate in uncontrolled hexes.
If your referring to the FFA areas, where every they may be is fine. If your referring to everywhere else, thats what the bandit flag if for, or the consequences.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is all what it comes down too. They want a PvP Free For All without Consequences. They do not respect that some people dislike PvP. They do not respect that some of us are cooperative by nature. And they wish to do everything they can to ruin the game for anyone who does not wish to play their way.Who said noone wants consequences? No One wants to ruin anyones game.
Please though, rant on
My point has been made. I feel my argument holds weight based on past discussions. If you wish to go into the no consequences discussion, we can revisit those posts made about how unflagged merchants should experience a reputation hit for refusing a SAD because they are not flagged. Or we can discuss the push for ALL uncontrolled (and I believe at one point all Wilderness) hexes to auto-flag players who enter.
I have no issue with small zones that have higher concentrations of rare resources that are Free-For-All PvP zones. Though I do not think any resources should be unique to such zones - simply harder to find outside them.
PvP-options should be faster or otherwise more efficient ways to reach an end result. Just not the only way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Bluddwolf: I don't think that threatening people who make choices such that you need to murder them in order to take the items they carry that you will additionally do everything in your power to inconvience them in retaliation for the inconvienenced they caused you the encounter is a good idea or will make you any friends.
That's a rather long and complicated sentence, so I'll summarize: Don't threaten to harass people because they aren't playing the game "right" or making things easy for you.
I dont think he wants it easy mode.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is all what it comes down too. They want a PvP Free For All without Consequences. They do not respect that some people dislike PvP. They do not respect that some of us are cooperative by nature. And they wish to do everything they can to ruin the game for anyone who does not wish to play their way.Who said noone wants consequences? No One wants to ruin anyones game.
Please though, rant on
My point has been made. I feel my argument holds weight based on past discussions. If you wish to go into the no consequences discussion, we can revisit those posts made about how unflagged merchants should experience a reputation hit for refusing a SAD because they are not flagged. Or we can discuss the push for ALL uncontrolled (and I believe at one point all Wilderness) hexes to auto-flag players who enter.
I have no issue with small zones that have higher concentrations of rare resources that are Free-For-All PvP zones. Though I do not think any resources should be unique to such zones - simply harder to find outside them.
PvP-options should be faster or otherwise more efficient ways to reach an end result. Just not the only way.
I could care less about the reputation hit for non SAD accepting people. Whatever...
On the other hand, The best resources should be the most difficult to obtain... Everyone will want them, and fight over them. They should be in the areas that are open to all conflict... How else can two LG competing settlements fight over them with still holding to a sense of good for their people... Meaning, their crafters and merchants not risk being slaughtered with open warfare.
Anyway
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
PvP-options should be faster or otherwise more efficient ways to reach an end result. Just not the only way.
I suppose there always exceptions. One might be settlement warfare. Though being able to undertake PvE quests to initiate and advance monster escalation cycles near a settlement in hopes to eliminate would be a cool alternative to direct PvP. It just would not be fast enough or efficient enough to deal with well-organized and active settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On the other hand, The best resources should be the most difficult to obtain... Everyone will want them, and fight over them. They should be in the areas that are open to all conflict... How else can two LG competing settlements fight over them with still holding to a sense of good for their people... Meaning, their crafters and merchants not risk being slaughtered with open warfare.
Anyway
If you think two LG settlements should be able to just war it out for resources in a hex without alignment impacts, I am not sure you understand what a Good alignment is supposed to be. Conflicts between LG can and should happen. But open warfare is a last resort between such groups.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly, which is a good reason for a FFA zone where it does not matter.
It should ALWAYS matter when characters PvP. This game is not a PVP game. It is a MEANINGFUL INTERACTION game. PvP is ONE of those meaningful interactions. Having the best stuff exclusively in an FFA zone takes away the meaning behind Alignment and Reputation, which does this game a huge disservice.
The fact that LE is okay using force to get their way is the advantage over LG. If you pack all the best stuff into an FFA zone, you damage that distinction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Having the best stuff exclusively in an FFA zone takes away the meaning behind Alignment and Reputation, which does this game a huge disservice.
The fact of a FFA zone is supposed to remove the worry about alignment and reputation, which is its own meaning.
Having the best stuff in a FFA zone gives it meaning. Or else whats the point of a FFA zone? Just to have open PVP means nothing, you can have that outside of the FFA zone with consequences.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just to have open PVP means nothing, you can have that outside of the FFA zone with consequences.
You just made my point for me on why these zones are not even needed. PvP is not the ends. It is the means.
An FFA zone is trying to turn wealth into the means to reach the ends of open PvP. It is backwards to the intent of the game.
I think that is the core of the misunderstanding. PvP is supposed to be a means to an end. The game is not about finding reasons to PvP. It is about PvPing for other reasons.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
An FFA zone is trying to turn wealth into the means to reach the ends of open PvP. It is backwards to the intent of the game.
I think you have that backwards.
PVP is the means to the end of greater wealth. Which would be in the FFA area.
More Than A Gankfest- Unlike other Open World PVP MMO's currently on the market, Pathfinder Online actively discourages meaningless PVP.
Here is a quote from the kickstarter page, saying yes they want meaningful pvp which I agree with completely. They also say this game is a Open World PVP MMO. THey wouldnt have compared themselves to others if not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You have the option to hire NPC guards...What?? This is news to me... if it's true.
I also hope it is untrue. One of my character concepts is to act as a merchant/camp guard. I don't want people skimping out on paying me for being so awesome at my job (and thus charging more) and being able to hire a score of rabble NPCs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I also hope it is untrue. One of my character concepts is to act as a merchant/camp guard. I don't want people skimping out on paying me for being so awesome at my job (and thus charging more) and being able to hire a score of rabble NPCs.You have the option to hire NPC guards...What?? This is news to me... if it's true.
I do remember them saying you can hire NPC guards... I dont remember if the specified what for though..
I can tell you this, a PC guard will be worth 10 NPC guards.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To be clear, I am not saying that there should be no FFA zones. Just that I do not feel they should be the ONLY route to the rarest resources.
I do feel that if we have them, they should have rare resources in greater quantity. Harvesters are already at risk for going out into the Wilderness. But much as travelers can travel faster by flying flags, harvesters moving into FFA zones should be able to find more of those rare resources faster for taking on the extra risk.
This way it does not starve out more moderate players. But players who take the risk are well rewarded by being able to out-produce safer players. Everybody wins.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My point has been made. I feel my argument holds weight based on past discussions. If you wish to go into the no consequences discussion, we can revisit those posts made about how unflagged merchants should experience a reputation hit for refusing a SAD because they are not flagged. Or we can discuss the push for ALL uncontrolled (and I believe at one point all Wilderness) hexes to auto-flag players who enter.
I have no issue with small zones that have higher concentrations of rare resources that are Free-For-All PvP zones. Though I do not think any resources should be unique to such zones - simply harder to find outside them.
PvP-options should be faster or otherwise more efficient ways to reach an end result. Just not the only way.
Perhaps you missed this from one of my posts:
This is basically what the Devs have described:
NPC Settlement (Starter Zone) = Virtually no PVP (War, Bounty or Assassinations are exceptions).
Settlement Zones: Depends of Laws, but still leaning towards PVE due to NPC wardens.
Wilderness Hexes: PVP centered, but PVE can still travel with some consequences. My suggestion included.
Uncontrolled Hexes: FFA PVP zone, enter at own risk, no consequences
The problem that I have, and perhaps I was not clear enough, was with a merchant caravan traveling through the wilderness unflagged, and then refusing even a reasonable SAD.
What you would rightly say is, "well then you get to kill them." I get the "attacker flag" (maybe?), no reputation loss, an alignment shift (who cares?) and you lose what you would have lost (more easily though) as if I never issued the SAD in the first place.
What I feel this creates is a disincentive for traveling merchants to fly the Traveler flag. That is not in the spirit of the flagging system, in my opinion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thats just it, the resources are gathered by groups in the FFA zones and taken back to settlements to be sold. People who do not want to go there will still have it available, but at a cost. And the groups that go there to gather will make large profits for their efforts.
Its win/win
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How else can two LG competing settlements fight over them with still holding to a sense of good for their people...
The main obstacle for Lawful Good is figuring out how to get what you want WITHOUT resorting to violence. Having FFA zones where LG groups could go and get everything they need while bypassing the alignment system would be broken, and result in LG groups crushing everyone else (because they would ALSO have the best settlements).
FFA zones with valuable resources would be an unwarranted and unbalancing buff to LG groups.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
How else can two LG competing settlements fight over them with still holding to a sense of good for their people...The main obstacle for Lawful Good is figuring out how to get what you want WITHOUT resorting to violence. Having FFA zones where LG groups could go and get everything they need while bypassing the alignment system would be broken, and result in LG groups crushing everyone else (because they would ALSO have the best settlements).
FFA zones with valuable resources would be an unwarranted and unbalancing buff to LG groups.
It will be a buff to any large groups. Not just LG groups. It will also be a buff to small groups who can use tactics.
Actually in the end it will be a buff to everyone who is willing to use it.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
My point has been made. I feel my argument holds weight based on past discussions. If you wish to go into the no consequences discussion, we can revisit those posts made about how unflagged merchants should experience a reputation hit for refusing a SAD because they are not flagged. Or we can discuss the push for ALL uncontrolled (and I believe at one point all Wilderness) hexes to auto-flag players who enter.
I have no issue with small zones that have higher concentrations of rare resources that are Free-For-All PvP zones. Though I do not think any resources should be unique to such zones - simply harder to find outside them.
PvP-options should be faster or otherwise more efficient ways to reach an end result. Just not the only way.
Perhaps you missed this from one of my posts:
This is basically what the Devs have described:
NPC Settlement (Starter Zone) = Virtually no PVP (War, Bounty or Assassinations are exceptions).
Settlement Zones: Depends of Laws, but still leaning towards PVE due to NPC wardens.
Wilderness Hexes: PVP centered, but PVE can still travel with some consequences. My suggestion included.
Uncontrolled Hexes: FFA PVP zone, enter at own risk, no consequences
The problem that I have, and perhaps I was not clear enough, was with a merchant caravan traveling through the wilderness unflagged, and then refusing even a reasonable SAD.
What you would rightly say is, "well then you get to kill them." I get the "attacker flag" (maybe?), no reputation loss, an alignment shift (who cares?) and you lose what you would have lost (more easily though) as if I never issued the SAD in the first place.
What I feel this creates is a disincentive for traveling merchants to fly the Traveler flag. That is not in the spirit of the flagging system, in my opinion.
I think that disincentives for every flag should exist; there should always be reasons to fly the flag, and reasons not to fly the flag, for every voluntary flag (for involuntary flags, it should instead be reasons to earn it, and reasons not to earn it).
Otherwise there would be no reason not to fly Traveler, even when it isn't thematically appropriate.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly, which is a good reason for a FFA zone where it does not matter.
Why would there be an area where murder isn't evil, and attacking people for no reason doesn't reduce your reputation when they tell others about it? What would that area look like?
You are free to attack anyone, anywhere, for any reason. You will suffer alignment and reputation shifts by default for doing so. Exceptions to this general rule will exist, but every exception has a reason. I don't think that "he was near the adamantine vein" is a good enough reason to murder somebody.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why would there be an area where murder isn't evil, and attacking people for no reason doesn't reduce your reputation when they tell others about it? What would that area look like?
Why? Because they plan to add it to the game.
We have to remember that Ryan came from CCP and is following the Eve model on most things.
The biggest part of Eve's sandbox with player driven content is 0.0 space. (He wants player driven content) Which is a FFA zone where the players get to create their own empires and fight each other for that territory. (Open World PVP Sandbox anyone)
Why does anyone expect the wilderness to be much different then that?
Granted they do plan to add PVE settlements. These settlements will have minimal growth and minimal resources. (similar to low sec empire space) Where PVP occurs but with penalties depending on how you act.
The PVP settlements will likely be similar to Eve 0.0 space. (Wars and constantly watching your back in the wilderness) Where everyone will fight over the territory and the wealth of resources that comes with it. (Incentive to be in those areas)
There have been tons of quotes to support this in the thread. All from blogs, kickstarter pages, and direct quotes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why would there be an area where murder isn't evil, and attacking people for no reason doesn't reduce your reputation when they tell others about it? What would that area look like?
Well, we could get philosophical about it. If there was an area where murder wasn't evil, then it might be an area where the gods of Golarion do not hold power. Maybe it's a little slice of a hell. But whatever it is, if Pharasma doesn't have power there... I don't want to go. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why would there be an area where murder isn't evil, and attacking people for no reason doesn't reduce your reputation when they tell others about it? What would that area look like?Well, we could get philosophical about it. If there was an area where murder wasn't evil, then it might be an area where the gods of Golarion do not hold power. Maybe it's a little slice of a hell. But whatever it is, if Pharasma doesn't have power there... I don't want to go. :)
After reading the story of the Riverkingdoms, I think it will be a large chunk as opposed to a little slice.