Goblin Squad Member
|
I’m in the same boat as you GoodFellow. I knew EVE was a game for wolves designed by wolves. I knew the risk of throwing a few hundred bucks at PFO was a risk. I guess I was hoping PFO would consider me as part of the demographic they were designing this project for.
After watching these boards and topics for the last few months, this thread one has finally sealed the deal, PFO is not going to be a place of enjoyment for me at all. Sure I can make a couple crafting characters which may have some relevance to the game but really I’m so far from the target demographic this post has alluded too, I probably won’t even download PFO.
It seems they are looking for 13-25 year olds that don’t have any other responsibilities or obligations other than to the game. This will never be me. My only interest in PFO now is that they don’t provide any negative press for the table top version of the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I’m in the same boat as you GoodFellow. I knew EVE was a game for wolves designed by wolves. I knew the risk of throwing a few hundred bucks at PFO was a risk. I guess I was hoping PFO would consider me as part of the demographic they were designing this project for.
I agree with you, Tuffon, but instead of completely giving up on the game, I'm doing two things:
1) revising my expectations from being a member of a small "boutique" settlement, to being a member of a venture company attached to a large, organized settlement. My personal goal was an all-dwarf group of 5-10 gatherers, going out into the dangerous wilderness to bring back rare materials to sell to crafters. It seems clear now that instead of imagining being a mid-level member of a dwarven settlement with 50-100 members, I should instead anticipate being part of a dwarven venture company working under the auspices of a large settlement with 500-1000 members, and having little to no say in the running of said settlement.
2) hoping that in the 12+ months before we can actually play the game, our opinions can shape the game mechanics enough that I can play the game in my limited, non-life consuming way and that the wolves won't completely ruin my enjoyment of the game.
I fully expect that my little group of gatherers will get jumped in the wilderness and slaughtered for their goods on occasion. I also expect that we'll be called upon to support our settlement in larger scale conflicts.
What I hope to avoid is the situation where I take a week or two away from the game, and then come back and discover that my sandcastle has been kicked to bits by a bully.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems odd that the people most disheartened by the suggestion that being a big player is going to be a lot more work than most anticipated are those who didn't have any intention of being one of the big players.
The big nations are going to have hundreds of players in EE, and thousands in OE; their population is going to be larger than the list of everyone who has yet posted in this forum. Dozens, and then hundreds, of those people will be those that can be summarized as not having a meatspace life. (40+ hours per week on the game) That absolutely large number is still a low percentage, they just have an effect proportional to the time they spend.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems odd that the people most disheartened by the suggestion that being a big player is going to be a lot more work than most anticipated are those who didn't have any intention of being one of the big players.
I'm primarily disheartened by the suggestion that being a small settlement will be impossible without being destroyed or absorbed by one of the big settlements.
I was hoping to be a casual, roleplay oriented player and still be able to make significant contributions to running a small settlement. It now sounds like I'll need to be contributing on the venture company level, not the settlement level, which is too bad, because the "building player-owned structures" part of the game sounded like a lot of fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan, if Goblinworks and the community can separate competitive large group play from toxic behavior, that will be a success all in itself.
Getting organized in EVE as practice for PFO is probably a great idea. You don't really have to like flying a spaceship to be a corp director. I doubt most large corporation leaders spend much time in game, and I'll bet they hardly ever un-dock. I suspect they spend their time on forums, on very private voice chat channels, and poring over the famous spreadsheets of EVE. Keeping hundreds or thousands of people organized is a challenge.
I've actually been taking the opposite approach.
1. Being part of the game from day 1 and knowing every knook and cranny of it is a bigger advantage than having played EVE on day 1 of OE. We will already be experienced in middle scale warfare of the actual game being played. We are all underestimating here the experience of EE. EE will not be a Care bear paradise either, some very intelligent gamers will be pushing the envelopes and clawing to the top.
2. Sorry but I'm not going to bite on the "mad skillz" it takes to run large scale guilds. You have to be a keen diplomat among a group of geeks and E-peens. Apart from that you just need some experience and lots of dedication.
3. Whatever skills/experience we'd be lacking, the charter companies who already have infrastructure will recruit with ease.
Different strokes for different folks. So while I understand how many would take the advice of getting all worked up in similar games, my advice is to stay fresh. I'm not playing any time/energy consuming games until PFO because burnout is what kills in these games. Learning the ropes takes a couple months. Persistence and dedication are the resources that can't be replenished.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... lots of dedication.I really hope that particular trait is as important as you suggest it is...
Running a big guild is not more difficult than becoming a doctor. You need an average degree of intelligence, a minimum skill set in math and science and lots of dedication. In both cases you also need to be able to withstand the sight of blood ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan, if Goblinworks and the community can separate competitive large group play from toxic behavior, that will be a success all in itself.
Getting organized in EVE as practice for PFO is probably a great idea. You don't really have to like flying a spaceship to be a corp director. I doubt most large corporation leaders spend much time in game, and I'll bet they hardly ever un-dock. I suspect they spend their time on forums, on very private voice chat channels, and poring over the famous spreadsheets of EVE. Keeping hundreds or thousands of people organized is a challenge.
I've actually been taking the opposite approach.
1. Being part of the game from day 1 and knowing every knook and cranny of it is a bigger advantage than having played EVE on day 1 of OE. We will already be experienced in middle scale warfare of the actual game being played. We are all underestimating here the experience of EE. EE will not be a Care bear paradise either, some very intelligent gamers will be pushing the envelopes and clawing to the top.
2. Sorry but I'm not going to bite on the "mad skillz" it takes to run large scale guilds. You have to be a keen diplomat among a group of geeks and E-peens. Apart from that you just need some experience and lots of dedication.
3. Whatever skills/experience we'd be lacking, the charter companies who already have infrastructure will recruit with ease.
Different strokes for different folks. So while I understand how many would take the advice of getting all worked up in similar games, my advice is to stay fresh. I'm not playing any time/energy consuming games until PFO because burnout is what kills in these games. Learning the ropes takes a couple months. Persistence and dedication are the resources that can't be replenished.
Sounds like a viable alternative prep strategy to me.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that most people should be clear that they won't be "running Settlements". Let's imagine that there's 100 Settlements in the next couple of years. Maybe 6 people run each of them. So that's 600 "Settlement Runners' out of a population that will be in the tens of thousands - maybe a hundred thousand by that point.
The vast, vast, vasty majority of people are not "running Settlements". They're doing the interesting stuff like exploration, adventure, development and domination. Almost all of that takes the form of small group activities that last from a few hours to a few days.
Most of the game is built around these activities. They are expected to be conducted in an environment where large social organizations are constantly in competition for territory, and that competition drives the markets that make everything else worth doing. But most people, most of the time, won't be engaged in those territorial struggles in an active combat role. Most of the time you'll be rushing to build infrastructure and develop characters faster than the other guys. Most of the time you'll be contributing to the success of your "team" by doing all the things you want to be doing in the game, and the better you are at doing those things, the healthier your local community will be.
This thread has a lot of discussion about the kinds of issues that people "running Settlements" will have to pay attention to, but it's not a good measure of what playing the game will be like for most people, most of the time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan, That is good to hear. I hope that is what happens. I think we all have had this fear that our little groups go into the wild to harvest a rare mineral, and when our caravan returns to Little Town, it is a smoking piles of rubble and the Big Town looters are running off in the distance with our treasury.
If that is not the normal scenario, I am somewhat encouraged. We all understand there is a long way to go, but (I think) we all just want a little clearer picture of what the possibilities are.
By the way, thanks for all you responses on these threads. This seems like a pivotal moment in the future of the PFO fan base.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It seems odd that the people most disheartened by the suggestion that being a big player is going to be a lot more work than most anticipated are those who didn't have any intention of being one of the big players.I'm primarily disheartened by the suggestion that being a small settlement will be impossible without being destroyed or absorbed by one of the big settlements.
I was hoping to be a casual, roleplay oriented player and still be able to make significant contributions to running a small settlement. It now sounds like I'll need to be contributing on the venture company level, not the settlement level, which is too bad, because the "building player-owned structures" part of the game sounded like a lot of fun.
I think you are describing attributes of the core desirable player in PFO, that your needs will be a major focus of the design, and that all this other stuff, baroque filigree that it is, is a consequence of what will predictably happen when the world built for you is opened to all the other 'types' of human being that inhabit the online world.
Human behaviors in the broad scale are quite predictable. I hope to point out that all the mechanics being built for you to provide recourse will eventually be appreciated rather than dreaded. They will surely be useful.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldnt worry too much about a lot of this. For the most part most people will not have these worries.
Most large settlements will have a core of very dedicated hardcore people that push most of the gameplay Ryan is talking about. Most of those settlements will have companies or members associated with them that wont be hardcore and will also, generally, have many casual players.
They will use the casual players for various things. They will recruite them just to have bodies avalible if they need them or to add crafting/harvesting power they otherwise would not have. While they probably wont grant very many permissions (to say the guild bank) they will offer perks for being associated with them. The first will be that as a casual player you will have the backing of a hardcore group and an advanced settlement.
If the settlement goes to war you will be able to work with a high level organized group and contribute, even if its something like "hey we are going to seige x, if any of you want to come and join us you are welcome to do so". Not because they think that those companies will be as effective as the core group, but because having an extra 200 people join in, even if they are randomly distracting the other guys will help.
There will be plenty for folks who are not hardcore to do. Heck a lot of causal people will end up in a settlement run by hardcore people, but you wont have to participate at that level (24/7 log on, on call hours...etc). You might not have a leadership position but you can play how you want to.
The only thing i am worried about is the whole "do you think you can keep your training if you leave a settlement". I dont agree with that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In EVE killing someone in null sec space has no effect on your security status. So a player could come into your system with a +10 security rating (essentially an ultra-good guy) randomly kill you, and take no penalty. There was no way to know if a neutral was hostile or not.
Because of this everyone in EVE is viewed as a potential threat unless they are flagged otherwise. It's impractical to run a NRDS organization outside of low sec, and running a group in low-sec is less safe and drastically less profitable than null sec.
In Darkfall (Pre-UW) most veteran players were red because the game simply pushed you in that direction by having so many blue griefers and making it so hard to regain lost reputation for killing them. Even in a group like ours, most veterans were reds bound by rules rather than alignment.
Mortal Online had the most meaningful alignment system of the three and sustained a sizeable population on both sides of the fence (though certainly a bit more on the NBSI side.)
The key to NRDS being viable is the alignment system. So far all indications in PFO is that it will be meaningful enough to make that approach possible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Most large settlements will have a core of very dedicated hardcore people that push most of the gameplay Ryan is talking about. Most of those settlements will have companies or members associated with them that wont be hardcore and will also, generally, have many casual players.
+1
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The key to NRDS being viable is the alignment system. So far all indications in PFO is that it will be meaningful enough to make that approach possible.
Yep. "Meaningful consequences". Ryan has been a huge fan of this for a long time. I find it basically impossible to believe he's going to abandon it now.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good stuff Leperkahn and Andius.
@ Leperkahn. I am not convinced at all about losing abilities when you switch settlements, but it's one of those details we should just let play out in crowdforging.
@ Andius. That might be the most important contribution we make in all of this. Preserving PFO as a hard core PvP game that is not default KoS.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It seems odd that the people most disheartened by the suggestion that being a big player is going to be a lot more work than most anticipated are those who didn't have any intention of being one of the big players.
The big nations are going to have hundreds of players in EE, and thousands in OE; their population is going to be larger than the list of everyone who has yet posted in this forum. Dozens, and then hundreds, of those people will be those that can be summarized as not having a meatspace life. (40+ hours per week on the game) That absolutely large number is still a low percentage, they just have an effect proportional to the time they spend
.
I gain the impression people are seriously misreading the scale of battles in this type of game.
The battle for the out of the way star system 6VDT-H which occured in EVE a few weeks back involved a peak figure of 4,070 players online and actively fighting in 6VDT-H. Note that the figure would have been even higher if the EVE servers could cope with more players in the same place at the same time.
The Pathfinder equivalent is 2000 players attacking a small settlement defended by another 2000 players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Then how about making hacking a meaningful consequence?
My statement about not downloading the game was based on reading this thread in regards to how hacking is going to be addressed. Mainly Ryan described Bigtown and how they operate which included Botman and guardsman. When asked what is going to be used to combat Botman’s tactics, the advice given Was to beat Bigtown was go make your own Bigtown.
How about making hacking have meaningful consequences… Something along the lines of
When botman shows up we will be monitoring all settlements and testing with tech and with GMs. If it found that hackers are using tactics outside the realm of what the game intends to control their lands then we will not only ban those offending characters but will also give a weekly ban to all members of that settlement/Guild/Affiliation and lower the security of that settlement to minimum security for the duration of the ban.
Give the penalty for hacking some teeth and the people running the settlements a vested interest how things are done. Most guilds I have played in the past all state they don’t want hackers look the other way because they knew the only thing that would happen is a few alt accounts would be banned.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Tuffon,
I'm all for flat out banning accounts if the player is breaking a game's Terms of Agreement and use policies. I think some games have permitted far too much abuse for fear of losing customers, which only drives away the less abusive customers out of frustration.
However...
When botman shows up we will be monitoring all settlements and testing with tech and with GMs. If it found that hackers are using tactics outside the realm of what the game intends to control their lands then we will not only ban those offending characters but will also give a weekly ban to all members of that settlement/Guild/Affiliation and lower the security of that settlement to minimum security for the duration of the ban.
...I can see your suggestion being used as a weapon against enemy settlements. Sneak in a mole on a disposable account, use the illegal tools you have mentioned overtly enough to be spotted by GMs, the ban hammer falls, the settlement's security plummets, and the mole's settlement launch their attack. Potentially, a whole settlement's membership is put at risk of losing everything, not because of their actions or poor game ethics, but because their enemies were willing to play dirtier.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I gain the impression people are seriously misreading the scale of battles in this type of game.The battle for the out of the way star system 6VDT-H which occured in EVE a few weeks back involved a peak figure of 4,070 players online and actively fighting in 6VDT-H. Note that the figure would have been even higher if the EVE servers could cope with more players in the same place at the same time.
The Pathfinder equivalent is 2000 players attacking a small settlement defended by another 2000 players.
That doesn't happen overnight. It should be a very gradual escalation from the couple dozen skirmishes of the first weeks of EE to the 100's battling at the end of EE to the 4k battles 5 years down the road.
We get to grow with a game that will be increasing slowly in #'s. Even when the #'s multiply suddenly at the start of OE, there are is about a 6 month adjustment period while the newbies catch up in "toon power".
Not saying we won't lose it all and start over several times, but We'll be fine.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sneak in a mole on a disposable account...
But Guardsman, in Ryan's BigTown example, "has proven to be ridiculously competent at security". It'll take some sly, and thus slow, play to get by that guy.
BigTown can do a lot of hurt in a short time, while it might take a long time to hurt them back. That may, now that I think on it, be part of BigTown's modus operandi.
We'll develop multiple lines of defence, but we'll need to be prepared to lose battles while winning the war. The trick will be keeping fun existing somewhere in all of it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Considering the coordination it will take between the bot and the guild, having some one accidentally triggering the bans is low. It also means the guild will pay more attention to who they let in and what roles those people will play.
And keep in mind these actions will be mostly caught by Humans, and no where did i say it would be banned on the first offense. A warning could be issued to cease those actions where it makes sense to do so. Yet if its the same organization repeatedly doing the same thing with different alt accounts what really is the consequence to the settlement? It puts the leadership of that settlement to put more effort in policing itself and vetting the people they give important roles to.
I know for certain I expect any game I play to discourage hacking by any means it can, rather than saying well we cant stop it so you might as well make your own bots to protect yourself against it.
For me this is the larger issue, folks are right meaningful consequences for actions have been a theme in the all aspects of the design. Then i read this thread and just wonder if designers meant it or did they say what they had to say in order to gain my support, all the while knowing that actions like these are not only accepted but also expected.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Tuffon,
I'll be the first to say this sort of topic isn't my realm of expertise. My concern is that its going to be difficult, no matter how well you vet your members, to keep people out who mean your group ill. Because of this, I would hate to see a system in place that punishes people who did nothing wrong while in the process of punishing people who did.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Settlements with a chance of survival will need hundreds, perhaps thousands of players.
I've lost track of the player-quote, but someone pointed out that settlements that size will need multiple layers of security--because you can guarantee you've got infiltrators--so the task shifts to optimising (very difficult to minimise, so you decide what to protect and what to leave "open") their intelligence-gathering and damage-dealing capabilities. Using them for counter-intelligence will be gravy :-).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Woah! I disappear from the forums for a bit and miss out on this juicy topic.
I agree 100% with what Ryan Dancey is talking about. Pretty much it sounds like those of you who have not properly played EVE and fully understand what happens in EVE will be in for a world of pain once PFO goes into Open Enrolment - especially if you want to lead settlement of any decent size. EVE is a hardcore game for the most hardcore of players, and experience in that game universe will be of immense value for PFO. I believe that Settlements in PFO will most definitely need someone experienced in the sandbox playstyle - themepark players need not apply.
EVE players who survive the game for long enough, eventually evolve (devolve?) into BitterVets (bitter veterans) who know too well how poorly CCP manages the community and how bad they are at developing the game. However, I give credit where credit is due and think they are improving of late, albeit very slowly.
About me you ask? I have already won EVE. I am an EVE BitterVet. I unsubscribed a while ago, but still keep up to date with the game's happenings. Like all EVE players, it is likely that I'll be drawn back to EVE one day. However, I'd rather get drawn into PFO instead because the game is crowdforged from Day 1 and GW has CCP's history to learn from. This will surely create a better game in the long term.
Although I am currently not part of any Settlement, I would like to offer my experience as a former leader of a ~100 players in EVE to any settlement who aligns with my views and will accept me. I like to build grand things, working the market, and although I enjoy harvesting materials I would much rather just take them from someone else (banditry or organising sieges). But most of all I enjoy the social aspect and meeting interesting new people from around the world. I live in the Australian timezone - which may be an advantage or disadvantage depending on how you look at it in terms of MMO gaming.
I'm not looking to be the leader a Settlement, but would like to offer advice for what is likely to become a relatively hardcore sandbox game from the sounds of it. If you have a position for me in your Settlement - PM me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
... Then i read this thread and just wonder if designers meant it or did they say what they had to say in order to gain my support, all the while knowing that actions like these are not only accepted but also expected.
Don't lose heart Tuffon. I have to say some of Ryan's comment make me wonder, but I said in another post, these guys aren't dumb. They are not designing a game so their dedicated Kickstarters get super frustrated and bail at the first sign of trouble. They are designing tools that allow other players, and the game designers ways of dealing with real trouble makers. (Not bandits , rogues and murderers, as those are expected and part of the Pathfinder world, but griefers, hackers, botters, flamers, and other forces that make the game experience unbearable for the real gamers.)
Let's see what the EE period has to offer. Concerned? Yes, I am. But the prospects intrigue me and I want to stick around to see what happens. Who knows? You and I, and many others might even make a difference here in the River Kingdoms!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It seems odd that the people most disheartened by the suggestion that being a big player is going to be a lot more work than most anticipated are those who didn't have any intention of being one of the big players.
The big nations are going to have hundreds of players in EE, and thousands in OE; their population is going to be larger than the list of everyone who has yet posted in this forum. Dozens, and then hundreds, of those people will be those that can be summarized as not having a meatspace life. (40+ hours per week on the game) That absolutely large number is still a low percentage, they just have an effect proportional to the time they spend
.I gain the impression people are seriously misreading the scale of battles in this type of game.
The battle for the out of the way star system 6VDT-H which occured in EVE a few weeks back involved a peak figure of 4,070 players online and actively fighting in 6VDT-H. Note that the figure would have been even higher if the EVE servers could cope with more players in the same place at the same time.
The Pathfinder equivalent is 2000 players attacking a small settlement defended by another 2000 players.
6VDT-H may be way out on the edge of the EVE galaxy, but for two of the biggest alliances in the game, that was a pretty important fight. It set a new record for most players involved in an EVE Online battle simultaneously. It took 10 years of EVE gameplay for a battle that large to be fought.
It sounds like PFO will have a higher percentage of players involved in player settlements and kingdoms than EVE had in sovereign nullsec corporations, but I still think it will be several years before a PFO battle reaches 1/2 the size of the Battle of 6VDT-H. During y the early years of PFO, I think 1,000 vs. 1,000 would set a record.
Edit: Oops.I just finished reading the thread and noticed that Avari3 beat me to the punch on this one.