Goblin Squad Member
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
First place to start is that PFO is an "Open World PvP" mmorpg.
Second place to start is to contextualize PvP within the game: How Pathfinder Online Is Put Together
The third consideration is to look at why PvP is put forward by GW's:
Some positives:
- Player vs Player combat is more complex than what AI can achieve
- Variety of contexts of combat gameplay can interact with PvP: From solo combat to groups of variable sizes, to mixes of pvp with pve to massive combat eg armies. Namely it can be more variable and scales better than AI (PvE) content does.
- Refining FFA pvp towards Open World gradated pvp means that different areas of the game can change depending on the players controlling those areas from highly safe (NPC controlled) towards highly dangerous (uncontrolled areas) and many gradations inbetween.
- This allows players to have real consequence on the areas in the game world as well as provide the different levels of excitement.
- Core to the above is the result of risk vs reward on the economy with pvp acting as a sink and pve acting as a faucet on the economy, hence the integration of open world pvp with pve atst integrate with the virtual economy of the game, as well as players choosing their preferred level of comfort or danger.
- PvP does not preclude other gameplay types and may drive demand for other styles of gameplay
- PvP can produce higher forms of both competition and cooperation with player groups again central to PFO's design.
Some Negatives:
- PvP can act as a major griefing tool.
- The largest group (zerg) can end up winning all the time by numbers and not strategy leading to a dull gameplay.
- PvP can become overly-dominant form of gameplay leaving other systems less viable.
- PvP can lead to a hyper-competitive environment and toxic mindset more easily than PvE.
- Players can really lose value: progress/economic/time.
- It can result in new players or some groups being dominated and always on the losing side of the game which is not fun.
- If PvP is dominant system, then "build-wars" can lead to a stale progression system.
Goblin Works has identified all these positives and negatives and intends to use the former and solve the latter. Some egs:
A couple of threads by Ryan Dancey:
Kickstarter Community Thread: Player vs. Player Conflict
A couple of comments about PvP / Griefing
I can tell you that in Pathfinder Online you will be involved in non-consensual interaction with other players on a regular basis.
That is not to say that unlimited poor behavior will be tolerated. There are three ways that behavior can be limited:
1: Game Mechanics - the game itself can establish limits on what can and cannot be done. It can also establish punishments for doing things that are considered poor behavior even if it does not outright restrict them.
2: Community Management - the humans who watch over the game can act to force certain kinds of behavior to cease when they are petitioned for help. Those same humans can escalate the matter to the point where a repeat or particularly egregious offender's accounts are closed.(*)
3: Social Engineering - the humans who play within the game can act to enforce certain norms of behavior by providing and withholding access to shared community resources in response to character behavior.
[...]
I'm especially concerned with ensuring that new players are able to learn how to play the game, gain some mastery of basic gameplay features, have some fun, and have a great experience without having to worry about someone intentionally ruining it for them by scamming them, killing them, taunting them, or otherwise disrupting their attention which should be focused on dealing with the sensory overload of going into a new virtual world.
I'm secondarily concerned with ensuring that people who choose a low risk / low reward course of play are able to do so without regular interruption by those seeking to gain enjoyment from interfering with them as they go about their business.
And:
2. Zones of variable PvP danger: NPC (safe) -> Uncontrolled (dangerous)
3. PvP Settlement Windows
4. Reputation System to assort players as well as regulate pvp between groups as well within groups.
5. Other non-pvp roles of skill-progression to play the game with minimum combat.
6. GM appeals for players to appeal to as a last resort.
=
So generally I think if players have questions about PvP, then informing them is arming them with the ability to choose the right decision for themselves.
It's a pvp game, but it's also more than just a pvp game! (hopefully a great game)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks Decius: If anyone spots any omissions, errors or mistakes etc please mention!
The schema is very important to show that pvp is important gameplay as it's combat, but it fits within a BIGGER picture of PFO. There's intended to be a lot more range of interactions than just combat or just pvp combat: Though it's an important gameplay system.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
good summary indeed!
A few more points i'd like to be explicitly mentioned:
-settlement warfare (large scale organized pvp) will likely be the largest driver for the economy, creating huge demands for gear, buildings and supplies.
-banditry and the accompanying risk of transporting goods allows price differences between local markets, making the trading game much more interesting for economically minded players.
ie the pvp is there to support the economy more than the other way around...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Randomwalker
You are correct, PVP is tied to the economic system. PVP in PFO serves two functions:
1. PVP is an item / coin sink to counter PVE item a coin faucet. The way that it is balanced out is that PVE is at least twice as likely to keep the faucet open, than PVP is to close it.
2. PVP is a means of gaining or losing control of a settlement hex.
This second point is, I believe, not really being addressed or even understood by many of the posters on these forums. I have actually spoken to one, prominent individual, who believes that a settlement transfer can be peacefully negotiated for. Or that adjacent settlements would gladly become part of a kingdom / nation, as long as they agree to follow all of those rules!!!!!!
I believe that GW's plans include that Settlement PVP will be the major form of content in the game. You will either be preparing for war, or waging war, in your settlement. If you are not preparing for war in your settlement, you are preparing to not have a settlement for very long.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This second point is, I believe, not really being addressed or even understood by many of the posters on these forums.
I think it would be helpful if we avoided trying to characterize what other people think, feel, or understand without letting them speak in their own voice.
_____
I have actually spoken to one, prominent individual, who believes that a settlement transfer can be peacefully negotiated for. Or that adjacent settlements would gladly become part of a kingdom / nation, as long as they agree to follow all of those rules!!!!!!
Why do these things warrant your dismay?
You won't be able to take over a Settlement (well, you could take it over through politics and diplomacy, but not through warfare; if you convince the Settlement's current owners to admit you as members and give you voting control of the Settlement Charter, you'll be able to facilitate a non-violent transfer of the Settlement).
_____
I believe that GW's plans include that Settlement PVP will be the major form of content in the game. You will either be preparing for war, or waging war, in your settlement. If you are not preparing for war in your settlement, you are preparing to not have a settlement for very long.
While I'm sure Settlement Warfare will be a major facet of the game, I think it's also important to keep in mind Ryan's own statements that it is not the focus of the game.
I think telling someone that Pathfinder Online is all about PvP is like saying football is all about tackling. It fundamentally misses the point, while being technically logically defensible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have actually spoken to one, prominent individual, who believes that a settlement transfer can be peacefully negotiated for. Or that adjacent settlements would gladly become part of a kingdom / nation, as long as they agree to follow all of those rules!!!!!!
don´t be surprised when he pulls it off :p
;)edited as an afterthought:
never forget what they say about feathers and swords
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Nihimon,
I did not write of it with dismay, more so that is would be unbelievable for someone to say, "Sure I will give you my settlement, the one I built for months. I will just relocate and build a new one, that will take me months. Just so you don't have to admit that you took my land by force or through coercion?
I really am curious to see how settlements, seeking to become nations, deal with neighboring settlements that refuse to join or move. Especially those settlements that have decided to be "Good" guys.
As for Ryan Dancey's quote, if your argument can be logically countered and that counter is technically correct, then you have to question your original argument.
No one, including myself, has argued that PFO is all about PVP.
Settlement PVP will be the major form of content in the game.
But, I will qualify that stated opinion more...
I say it is a major form of content, because there is nothing known to us at this time, that will have as much impact as capturing or losing a settlement.
Is this not true?
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@ Nihimon,
I did not write of it with dismay, more so that is would be unbelievable for someone to say, "Sure I will give you my settlement, the one I built for months. I will just relocate and build a new one, that will take me months. Just so you don't have to admit that you took my land by force or through coercion?
I really am curious to see how settlements, seeking to become nations, deal with neighboring settlements that refuse to join or move. Especially those settlements that have decided to be "Good" guys.
That isn't the only case where a settlement will change hands through diplomacy.
A settlement that wants to become a nation but doesn't have the diplomacy to convince even nearby settlements that it is in their best interest to join (either because of intrinsic advantages to being in a nation or because they will be razed if they refuse) doesn't become a nation. Nobody gets anything just because they want it or even just because they work hard to get it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Nihimon,
I did not write of it with dismay, more so that is would be unbelievable for someone to say, "Sure I will give you my settlement, the one I built for months. I will just relocate and build a new one, that will take me months. Just so you don't have to admit that you took my land by force or through coercion?
I really am curious to see how settlements, seeking to become nations, deal with neighboring settlements that refuse to join or move. Especially those settlements that have decided to be "Good" guys.
That isn't the only case where a settlement will change hands through diplomacy.
A settlement that wants to become a nation but doesn't have the diplomacy to convince even nearby settlements that it is in their best interest to join (either because of intrinsic advantages to being in a nation or because they will be razed if they refuse) doesn't become a nation. Nobody gets anything just because they want it or even just because they work hard to get it.
Your response has nothing to do with my point of curiosity. My curiosity is based on the assumption that the Good Settlement wants to become a nation, and not becoming a nation, is not one of their options.
Would the desire to become a nation, outweigh the desire to be "Good" as an alignment? Or would they decide, it is more important to be good and limited to this space, and not have a nation state?
As a basis for discussing an PvP Introductory Guide, is it not valuable to discuss the various types of PvP and the motivations for them?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
never forget what they say about feathers and swordsUmm-m-m... ahh-h-h-h... gimme a sec.... aha!
"The quill is mightier than the sword?"
wait... that doesn't fit the context. Okay I give: what do they say about feathers and swords?
;) Well if the context was if "a settlement transfer can be peacefully negotiated for. Or that adjacent settlements would gladly become part of a kingdom / nation, as long as they agree to follow all of those rules!!!!!!"
or diplomacy, i´d say that´s the work of a lot of quills, no?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really am curious to see how settlements, seeking to become nations, deal with neighboring settlements that refuse to join or move. Especially those settlements that have decided to be "Good" guys.
They will go to war with them and take them over I would assume. Killing people you are at war with doesn't change your alignment as far as I've seen. I doubt many of the kingdoms in the game will be "good" at their heart, while they may be good from a mechanic point of view.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Your response has nothing to do with my point of curiosity. My curiosity is based on the assumption that the Good Settlement wants to become a nation, and not becoming a nation, is not one of their options.
Would the desire to become a nation, outweigh the desire to be "Good" as an alignment? Or would they decide, it is more important to be good and limited to this space, and not have a nation state?
As a basis for discussing an PvP Introductory Guide, is it not valuable to discuss the various types of PvP and the motivations for them?
We also forget more options good has beyond "you are in my way of our desire to progress northward, join us or perish".
There is also
We need to progress northward, you are in our way, if you do not wish to join us, There is a lovely empty plot of land to the east (or say a hostile settlement that we are about to turn into an empty plot of land), we can pay and send support in relocating you.
and if they turn that down, I believe it is still within reason to assault the nation after giving them ample opportunity to join or move, and then assist the now homeless group in setting up a new settlement.
Being good does not mean if someone stands in the way of your goals you have to wait for them to physically harm you before you can take any action. While the game's algorythms certainly won't be able to judge it, (which leads me to believe that for the most part, assuming you follow whatever appropriate rules of war are, attacking settlements will not likely be an evil act, and if so it will be minor to the point where unless you regularly declare war on distinctly weaker settlements, you won't drift noticeably) there is nothing definitionally evil about declaring war on even a peaceful settlement, after attempting to find a peaceful agreement over land, resources etc...
What do you think happens to a good settlement when their neighbors realize "oh they are good, we can harvest their nearby resources dry and they can't do anything to stop us". Or rival groups specifically hire or create dummy super weak settlements to box them in, or as buffer zones for their own evil lands.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To build on a few comments. The context of PvP in PFO. In other mmorpgs you have scenarios/team-pvp or battle arenas where groups attack each other for victory conditions or sometimes for territory control.
In PFO, as randomwalker notes:
1. War -> drives economy for building, crafting, repairing, supplies etc
2. Robbery -> of resources and therefore pvp to claim those resources instead of killing other players.
This comes about because players take on roles in pvp:
- Soldiers in wars (mass pvp)
- bandits stealing goods and fighting guards (group vs group pvp)
- brigands (increasing the fear/risk of an area of "intruders" (group pvp)
- assassins killing VIP settlement players (solo pvp)
- patrols defending their territory from incursions (group pvp)
- militia pursuing law-breakers (territory pvp)
- scouts ambushing enemies (guerilla pvp)
- bounty-hunters contracted to kill criminals (solo pvp)
- paladins fighting evil aligned practitioners eg necromancers (specific pvp)
etc.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We also forget more options good has beyond "you are in my way of our desire to progress northward, join us or perish".
There is also
We need to progress northward, you are in our way, if you do not wish to join us, There is a lovely empty plot of land to the east (or say a hostile settlement that we are about to turn into an empty plot of land), we can pay and send support in relocating you.
and if they turn that down, I believe it is still within reason to assault the nation after giving them ample opportunity to join or move, and then assist the now homeless group in setting up a new settlement.
And the expanding good settlement can also open quiet talks with some number of their neighbor's chartered companies, recruit the ones that favor union, then ask the neighbor: "So, ready to join us now that you're weaker?"
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@ Nihimon,
I did not write of it with dismay, more so that is would be unbelievable for someone to say, "Sure I will give you my settlement, the one I built for months. I will just relocate and build a new one, that will take me months. Just so you don't have to admit that you took my land by force or through coercion?
I really am curious to see how settlements, seeking to become nations, deal with neighboring settlements that refuse to join or move. Especially those settlements that have decided to be "Good" guys.
That isn't the only case where a settlement will change hands through diplomacy.
A settlement that wants to become a nation but doesn't have the diplomacy to convince even nearby settlements that it is in their best interest to join (either because of intrinsic advantages to being in a nation or because they will be razed if they refuse) doesn't become a nation. Nobody gets anything just because they want it or even just because they work hard to get it.
Your response has nothing to do with my point of curiosity. My curiosity is based on the assumption that the Good Settlement wants to become a nation, and not becoming a nation, is not one of their options.
Would the desire to become a nation, outweigh the desire to be "Good" as an alignment? Or would they decide, it is more important to be good and limited to this space, and not have a nation state?
As a basis for discussing an PvP Introductory Guide, is it not valuable to discuss the various types of PvP and the motivations for them?
I think you also misunderstood me.
I didn't say that they should change their desire to form a nation; I said that if they lack the skill to create one, they should fail to create one. Most attempts will fail in some way or another.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think you also misunderstood me.
I didn't say that they should change their desire to form a nation; I said that if they lack the skill to create one, they should fail to create one. Most attempts will fail in some way or another.
I certainly may have. Your response makes it clearer, so thank you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Would the desire to become a nation, outweigh the desire to be "Good" as an alignment? Or would they decide, it is more important to be good and limited to this space, and not have a nation state?
Would the desire to have a high reputation outweigh the desire to gain wealth through banditry?
Your question is somewhat valid. But you introduce a false dichotomy that one will have to choose between being good and between being a nation. Much as the bandit has options to gain wealth from others without taking reputation hits.
In the rare instance it comes down to a true Choose A or Choose B, then it will vary from person to person and settlement to settlement. There is no 'right' answer here for everyone. I would rather stay Good than build a nation. But there are plenty of routes to being able to do both.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
By no "right" answer, I meant for the entire population. You are correct that in the event that this scenario will be presented then everyone will have a choice to make. For me individually, the right answer is to remain "Good".
I am playing a character with a purpose. That purpose is to make the River Kingdoms a more reliable and predictable neighbor for my character's homeland. Supporting efforts espousing Good will be more beneficial for my homeland. Supporting a Nation that tosses aside morality in order to make power plays could one day threaten my homeland if said organization ever set its sights there.
Much like your One-Copper Bandit story, the character is not necessarily focused on 'Victory' as defined by success within the Acquire Wealth / Nation Building victory conditions laid out by the game, but upon a personal mission in which those other aspects are tools towards accomplishing the greater goal.
But an answer right for me could just as easily be wrong for someone else who wishes to be Good and build a nation. Perhaps their character is a displaced Prince who wishes to re-establish his country. He is good-aligned and would like to see a goodly nation, however re-establishing his domain is the priority and if that requires a slide into neutrality or even evil then so be it.
That is very much the dynamic of characters I would wish to see. However, I feel that most players are going to be focused on the Meta-Game and not the roleplaying aspect. To them, Alignment may just be a category they seek to best match skill training. This is the way things have gone in most MMOs that I have played, so I am pretty much used to that and will not begrudge them their non-RP playstyles.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
However, I feel that most players are going to be focused on the Meta-Game and not the roleplaying aspect. To them, Alignment may just be a category they seek to best match skill training. This is the way things have gone in most MMOs that I have played, so I am pretty much used to that and will not begrudge them their non-RP playstyles.
This. In EE most of the players seem pretty dedicated to the PnP aspect of RPing and that is amazing. But when the game becomes successful enough to attract the attention of people who never really played pathfinder or who haven't been with the community from the start they are going to meta game the hell out of everything. Thus giving themselves a distinct advantage over people who take pains to stick to alignments in and out of character.
Now life im going to use your preferred CC as an example. Say The Empyrean is getting stomped by another player kingdom full of these meta gamers. Would you pay me and my CC to help you fight them? even though in character you would want nothing to do with a necromancer and his cabal of evil characters?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't see how making an agreement to work together with evil for a good purpose is wrong in or out of character unless we're required to sacrifice some virgins to seal the deal. There are good Golarion lore based examples of good and evil working together for a cause that is in the interest of both parties.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
After having spoken at length with some people who were at Gen Con, and met with Stephen Cheney for an extended Q&A, there are many changes to the current settlement / alignment / reputation system that will greatly impact PVP.
Briefly...
They are working on Faction PVP. We will all have a faction reputation, and it has levels. Once you reach level 3 in your faction, you can kill without consequence those in your enemy faction. At levels 1 and 2, the current rules of alignment shifts and reputation loss still apply.
A settlement has a limited number of building slots. The settlement manager can decide what type of building to build, and when to build it. Any settlement can build any building type they wish (ie. You can train Paladins and Assassins, right next door to each other if you wish).
A settlement is made up of its managers. A Venture Company(ies) (VC)can join a settlement, increasing the settlement's population (advantage). In return a VC can then control a POI of its own. The VC does not have to adopt the identity of the settlement.
A Secondary Company(ies) (SC) can be a part of a VC. These SCs can then control lesser POIs in their name.
The impression was given to those that attended GenCon was that the alignment of an SC, has no impact on the alignment of the VC. The alignment of the VC, has no impact on the alignment of the Settlement.
That was pretty much it, for now other than one more vague comment...
Our Reputation may be per settlement, not global. If you are marked with a low reputation with a settlement or a faction, you can be killed on sight. But, you may have a high reputation or no reputation, everywhere else.
There were also some changes or clarifications on Banditry (SADs), Caravans and Harvesting Site raiding... and from the sounds of it, they will make me VERY, VERY HAPPY!! But I would like to speak to the attendees one more time to hear that bit of info again.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We will all have a faction reputation, and it has levels. Once you reach level 3 in your faction, you can kill without consequence those in your enemy faction.
I'm skeptical that gaining a high reputation in your own faction will suddenly make it so that you can kill players who are mostly new to their own faction without consequences.
I'm very much looking forward to hearing this explained by the devs.
Our Reputation may be per settlement, not global. If you are marked with a low reputation with a settlement or a faction, you can be killed on sight. But, you may have a high reputation or no reputation, everywhere else.
Very welcome news, if true.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
However, I feel that most players are going to be focused on the Meta-Game and not the roleplaying aspect. To them, Alignment may just be a category they seek to best match skill training. This is the way things have gone in most MMOs that I have played, so I am pretty much used to that and will not begrudge them their non-RP playstyles.This. In EE most of the players seem pretty dedicated to the PnP aspect of RPing and that is amazing. But when the game becomes successful enough to attract the attention of people who never really played pathfinder or who haven't been with the community from the start they are going to meta game the hell out of everything. Thus giving themselves a distinct advantage over people who take pains to stick to alignments in and out of character.
Now life im going to use your preferred CC as an example. Say The Empyrean is getting stomped by another player kingdom full of these meta gamers. Would you pay me and my CC to help you fight them? even though in character you would want nothing to do with a necromancer and his cabal of evil characters?
If other groups are bringing a Meta-Game fight to our doorstep, I do not have any issues using Meta-Game associations to counter that threat. I may find some RP reason to explain why your group would jump into the fight, or I may leave the battle completely in the Meta realm, but on the Meta level I would have no issues paying your cabal to assist.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We will all have a faction reputation, and it has levels. Once you reach level 3 in your faction, you can kill without consequence those in your enemy faction.I'm skeptical that gaining a high reputation in your own faction will suddenly make it so that you can kill players who are mostly new to their own faction without consequences.
I'm very much looking forward to hearing this explained by the devs.
It could be balanced by requiring that both must be faction level 3+, in other words both are dedicated to their factions.
Or, when you enter a faction, you assume the risk versus your faction's enemy. Thus us essentially declaring war against any member of the opposing faction, identical to the way Faction Wars works in EvE Online. In that game there is no distinction between a new recruit to a faction and a General in that faction. They are equally committed to Faction PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
They are working on Faction PVP. We will all have a faction reputation, and it has levels. Once you reach level 3 in your faction, you can kill without consequence those in your enemy faction. At levels 1 and 2, the current rules of alignment shifts and reputation loss still apply.
There were also some changes or clarifications on Banditry (SADs), Caravans and Harvesting Site raiding... and from the sounds of it, they will make me VERY, VERY HAPPY!! But I would like to speak to the attendees one more time to hear that bit of info again.
This is rather alarming news for myself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't see how making an agreement to work together with evil for a good purpose is wrong in or out of character unless we're required to sacrifice some virgins to seal the deal. There are good Golarion lore based examples of good and evil working together for a cause that is in the interest of both parties.
Its just always nice to see that "the other side" can be reasonable. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is rather alarming news for myself.
They are working on Faction PVP. We will all have a faction reputation, and it has levels. Once you reach level 3 in your faction, you can kill without consequence those in your enemy faction. At levels 1 and 2, the current rules of alignment shifts and reputation loss still apply.
There were also some changes or clarifications on Banditry (SADs), Caravans and Harvesting Site raiding... and from the sounds of it, they will make me VERY, VERY HAPPY!! But I would like to speak to the attendees one more time to hear that bit of info again.
The way I understood it, this is what it sounds like:
1. A Harvesting Site produces resources. Those resources remains there, until a caravan is set up to take them. While waiting for caravan, those resources can be stolen, if unguarded. If guarded (PC) they can be issued a SAD or ambushed.
2. The Caravan uses the traveler flag (PVP), to bring large quantities of resource to market. If unguarded, it can be stolen. If guarded, SAD or Ambush, same as the site.
A player looking to run a large scale gathering and transport operation, will have to decide: Guards or No Guards. Guard, site, guard caravan or guard both.
What I like about this is I have options of where and when to hit this operation. I also like that there is no part of this operation that is not flagged for PVP.
If you wish to gather and trade resources with limited risk of PVP, you have to give up the larger size operation. This would be the risk vs. reward balance that I had hoped for.
Now, I just hope that this is what the Devs are leaning towards. I will ask my contact, who spoke to Stephen Cheney at GenCon, to describe the system again to me.
@ Phyllain,
Faction Warfare might make it a very dangerous game for opposite sides to work together. At a certain level of faction dedication, blue on blue attacks would be consequence free if you group up with members of the opposite faction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It could be balanced by requiring that both must be faction level 3+, in other words both are dedicated to their factions.We will all have a faction reputation, and it has levels. Once you reach level 3 in your faction, you can kill without consequence those in your enemy faction.I'm skeptical that gaining a high reputation in your own faction will suddenly make it so that you can kill players who are mostly new to their own faction without consequences.
I'm very much looking forward to hearing this explained by the devs.
That makes a lot more sense and sounds really great to me. In effect, it gives you carrots to level up with your Faction and join the War.
"Massive amounts of PvP" = Good!
At the same time, it also maintains a relatively safe space for players to hang out if massive amounts of PvP isn't really their thing. Because doing stuff other than PvP is also good :)
After having spoken at length with some people who were at Gen Con, and met with Stephen Cheney for an extended Q&A, there are many changes to the current settlement / alignment / reputation system that will greatly impact PVP.
Briefly...
They are working on Faction PVP. We will all have a faction reputation, and it has levels. Once you reach level 3 in your faction, you can kill without consequence those in your enemy faction. At levels 1 and 2, the current rules of alignment shifts and reputation loss still apply.
This makes me very very sad...not because people can freely kill people but the whole idea of NPC factions having such an impact. This isn't some damn theme park game like WOW where we have to be separated into artificial factions (Yes I know Eve has faction warfare but that is something you voluntarily enter and is just between those that want it).
I want a game where inter settlement politics is important and a place where today's foe might be yesterdays friend or vice versa. Keep it voluntary so people can do faction warfare like in Eve fine. Make it compulsory (I get the impression that you don't really get a choice about getting faction standing) and it makes me less than happy.
A settlement is made up of its managers. A Venture Company(ies) (VC)can join a settlement, increasing the settlement's population (advantage). In return a VC can then control a POI of its own. The VC does not have to adopt the identity of the settlement.
As long as the settlement is in control of which VC's can and can't join, and which VC's are allowed to nab POI's within its territory. I am almost sure such will be the case but I would like to see clarifications to be sure
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Blue on Blue is always a threat in EVE. It does happen. But not often, since once you do it you have a hard time finding people to play with.
With something like 7000+ player corporations, you can have quite a long tear doing this, before your reputation becomes known for it. Then you just reroll a new toon, or had a back-up on a separate account.
But, I grant you, it would be much harder in such a small population, especially during EE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ ZenPagan,
There maybe no requirement to join a faction, just as it is in EVE Online. I actually would not like for it to be that way, and would argue against it.
The only time you should experience PVP is if you choose to; if your settlement is at war; if you have a bounty or assassination contract placed on you; or if you seek to engage in activities that increase your potential reward (i.e.. Large Scale Harvesting / Caravan Operations or going into zones that have the rarest of resources).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1. A Harvesting Site produces resources. Those resources remains there, until a caravan is set up to take them. While waiting for caravan, those resources can be stolen, if unguarded. If guarded (PC) they can be issued a SAD or ambushed.
I kind of imagined this. So long as the Consequences are still in place, then I am no longer alarmed. I actually like the idea of resources being produced over time and having to guard the site. Or if you get early warning that trouble is coming, being able to grab what has been produced and abandon the site to whoever comes along next.
2. The Caravan uses the traveler flag (PVP), to bring large quantities of resource to market. If unguarded, it can be stolen. If guarded, SAD or Ambush, same as the site.
I guess I still need additional information about what a Caravan is. My concept of a caravan is a lot of people transporting goods together, which does not necessarily require PvP flags. Though if Traveler PvP flag provided +25% carry capacity, then it would be significant if you had 10 people flying it to transport goods.
I am less in favor of someone being able to fly a PvP flag and get 500 encumbrance point "wagon" or the like. That would basically reduce the consequences and increase the reward for attackers, giving unfair advantage to bandit professions.
A player looking to run a large scale gathering and transport operation, will have to decide: Guards or No Guards. Guard, site, guard caravan or guard both.
What I like about this is I have options of where and when to hit this operation. I also like that there is no part of this operation that is not flagged for PVP.
If you wish to gather and trade resources with limited risk of PVP, you have to give up the larger size operation. This would be the risk vs. reward balance that I had hoped for.
I hate that large-scale operations should HAVE to be flagged for PvP. Large-Scale ops should be large due to many people participating. A solo guy should not be able to effectively manage a large-scale op.
Again, you are forcing higher Risk upon gatherers and tradesmen, but reducing Risk to 'Predatory Playstyles' such as bandits.
Faction Warfare might make it a very dangerous game for opposite sides to work together. At a certain level of faction dedication, blue on blue attacks would be consequence free if you group up with...
I am 99.9% against Consequence Free PvP. Eliminating reputation hits is fair. But if Hellknights are attacking Chaotic Good Enemy Faction, they should still be accrueing evil Alignment. The consequences do not need to be purely negative - in that an evil character is fine gaining evil points, but there should be some indication of player actions affecting how the universe views their character. Perhaps there is even reputation gain for the faction, such that we would all know that a High Reputation with an unsavory faction would make it known that you are an unsavory character.
The Hellknight Slaver that has cut down hundreds of foes while capturing peasants from other villagers is going to be well known among friends and foes alike. People will whisper in the shadows as he passes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Lifedragn,
The last part about alignment shifts (not hits btw). If a Hellknight is attacking a CG Ranger, and the Hellknight gets an evil shift for killing the Ranger.... That is not a consequence, that is a reward.
Having alignment consequence free faction warfare, or any PVP for that matter, benefits Lawful and Good characters, not Chaotic of Evil ones. You are spared the consequence, not me (CN Bandit). I want all of the chaos I can get, and I'll accept the evil as a cost of doing business.
Besides, it would be your fault if I shift to evil, because you forced me to kill you, by turning down my SAD.... ;p
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hate that large-scale operations should HAVE to be flagged for PvP. Large-Scale...
I actually agree with this. The flagging should come from location. You can harvest all the ore you want from the newbie zone but its not going to be worth nearly as much as the unobtanium I am mining out in the lawless wilderness where I can be attacked at any time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Lifedragn,
The last part about alignment shifts (not hits btw). If a Hellknight is attacking a CG Ranger, and the Hellknight gets an evil shift for killing the Ranger.... That is not a consequence, that is a reward.
Consequence does not require it to be negative. The important part to me is that there has been some universal marking of the event - the soul has been stained with blood.
@ Lifedragn,
Having alignment consequence free faction warfare, or any PVP for that matter, benefits Lawful and Good characters, not Chaotic of Evil ones. You are spared the consequence, not me (CN Bandit). I want all of the chaos I can get, and I'll accept the evil as a cost of doing business.
Who benefits is less important to me than equity of consequences to action. If I form a posse to hunt down you and your fellow bandits, I expect a slight shift to evil for killing you. I expect to have to do enough "Good" otherwise to balance out that evil shift. If I do nothing but hunt and kill bandits all day, I should be considered neutral at best. That is why Lawful Evil is a powerful alignment. They are organized and are willing to use extreme methods and harm others to get their way. A Good alignment is about tempering your actions and doing your best to avoid harming others unless it is the only recourse, just as much as it is about aiding and assisting others. If retaining a Good alignment poses no difficulty, then there really is no meaning in having an alignment system. I want that alignment system, and I desire it to be meaningful.
If the devs decide that Lawful Good faction X can repeatedly decimate Chaotic Evil faction Y without any form of consequence outside of Loot, then I will accept it and probably avoid joining a Faction until I see it play out for a while.
Besides, it would be your fault if I shift to evil, because you forced me to kill you, by turning down my SAD.... ;p
You never get to blame the victim. With as much as it happens in society, it makes for a poor joke.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
After having spoken at length with some people who were at Gen Con, and met with Stephen Cheney for an extended Q&A, there are many changes to the current settlement / alignment / reputation system that will greatly impact PVP.
Briefly...
They are working on Faction PVP. We will all have a faction reputation, and it has levels. Once you reach level 3 in your faction, you can kill without consequence those in your enemy faction. At levels 1 and 2, the current rules of alignment shifts and reputation loss still apply.
This makes me very very sad...not because people can freely kill people but the whole idea of NPC factions having such an impact. This isn't some damn theme park game like WOW where we have to be separated into artificial factions (Yes I know Eve has faction warfare but that is something you voluntarily enter and is just between those that want it).
I want a game where inter settlement politics is important and a place where today's foe might be yesterdays friend or vice versa. Keep it voluntary so people can do faction warfare like in Eve fine. Make it compulsory (I get the impression that you don't really get a choice about getting faction standing) and it makes me less than happy.
Okay, but consider the environment is to be integrated with the world of Golarion as present in the Pathfinder RPG.
It is not a simple environment. It is not to be an unfurnished arena in which people are only fighting among themselves. There is to be story and causes underlying conflicts. NPC factions holding power and exerting enticement, to become influenced, supplementing player organizational power, and defending their settlements while the settlement players are offline will add to the richness rather than remove it.
I don't know about you but I would be very disappointed were PFO to turn out to be only an arena where all that is at stake are facile player egos. I want the content we create to be set within a rich and dynamic story-driven conflict that evolves and endures over years.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree with Being, the introduction of PFRPG's factions will produce an added, VOLUNTARY, layer of conflict and (political) intrigue.
You can choose to rise up in the ranks of a faction, and eventually become a warrior / target of faction conflict, or you can choose not to participate in it.
I really don't see it as a "radical departure", unless you did not understand the heavy role that PVP will play in an Open World PVP MMO.
Not every player will be a member of a company, PC settlement. They may choose to remain with an NPC settlement, and if they choose, to participate in faction based conflict.
@ Lifedragn,
You seem to be under the impression that when I write against there being mechanical consequences of PVP, I'm speaking of Alignment. For the record, I have no concern for the alignment system. I could be labeled Chaotic Evil or Lawful Good, it will make no difference in how I play my character's decision at any given moment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
PvP between players aligned with NPC factions could ensure that those interested in PvP always have a good fight available, perhaps even large scale fights.
Personally I was hoping that settlement and nation wars would fill this role, having mercenary-type players enroll on either side to get their kicks.
I would prefer the PvP to work towards changing the political landscape of settlements and kingdoms, not NPC factions.
Perhaps the existance of faction warfare will not lead to less settlement warfare, especially not if the two are interwoven so that factions provide yet another reason for settlements to fight each other.
If they exist separately from each other I fear player instigated conflicts may suffer for it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
PvP between players aligned with NPC factions could ensure that those interested in PvP always have a good fight available, perhaps even large scale fights.
Personally I was hoping that settlement and nation wars would fill this role, having mercenary-type players enroll on either side to get their kicks.
I would prefer the PvP to work towards changing the political landscape of settlements and kingdoms, not NPC factions.
Perhaps the existance of faction warfare will not lead to less settlement warfare, especially not if the two are interwoven so that factions provide yet another reason for settlements to fight each other.
If they exist separately from each other I fear player instigated conflicts may suffer for it.
Fear not, there will be no shortage of PVP conflict in PFO. Remember what the Devs have always said, the PVE content will be limited to a period during our early careers (when we first start and are mostly in the Noob towns; Escalations; and a random dungeon here and there.)
The main focus of PFO will be the competition to control a settlement hex; to have access to resources needed to build and maintain a settlement; and the natural desire to expand one's power and influence through the dominance aspect of the game.
We will also have the non settlement focused PVP groups (primarily Outlaws) to generate even more PVP, directed at the economic portion of the game. Outlaws can be hired to perform economic terrorism on a settlement's rivals.
Then we will have the "Retribution Industry" of Assassins and Bounty Hunters, who can ply their PVP trade anywhere and in the case of Assassins against anyone.
Mercenary groups should be the most interested party in encouraging any form of warfare, and for any reason... rational or not. Mercenaries will benefit the most from a constant state of warfare, to be taking place, at least in a number of regions throughout the River Kingdoms.
I hope the whole world is, not burnt to the ground, but smoldering with plenty of powder kegs just waiting to blow. I'm hoping to "bleed them slow and steady of their gold, not bleed them dry."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This second point is, I believe, not really being addressed or even understood by many of the posters on these forums. I have actually spoken to one, prominent individual, who believes that a settlement transfer can be peacefully negotiated for. Or that adjacent settlements would gladly become part of a kingdom / nation, as long as they agree to follow all of those rules!!!!!!
Correct. I have been a part of at least five city purchases/trades on Darkfall that I can specifically recall. Those cities originally took months to build as well.
The fact you feel it's an ignorant position to take only shows your own ignorance. If a city does not have to be torn down to change hands, they will do so for money often as easy or easier than military force.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have to admit I'm a bit skeptical on the idea of NPC faction warfare... I do want pvp, often and strong... but faction to me seems in the range of meaningless PVP. I consider WoW's PVP and pretty much any other faction based game as obnoxious. Is there an accomplishment to killing someone besides a raise in your side's honor kills and your own personal rep going up a few points.
Maybe it will be different, maybe factions will at least be able to vote and elect who their enemy is, whether to stay enemies etc... I preffer my wars to have the illusion of an end, a goal of peace, but rather they start as often or more often than they end. IE take the entire political structure of the world. Wars end, former friends are now enemies, former enemies are now friends, the structure changes. Compared to say WoW... In which alliance and horde have meaninglessly hated eachother, with absolutely no motivation, care or reason, for well over a decade. Do they expect any change in dispositions over the life of the game, nope.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This. In EE most of the players seem pretty dedicated to the PnP aspect of RPing and that is amazing.
Eh... maybe the more vocal posters on these boards, sure. Most of the people I know that are intending to play this game (of which there are many, and most of them don't post here, and they will all be in EE)could give two craps about alignment as it relates to an in character persona. Alignment is a means to an end and that end is to be successful in whatever it is they want to pursue in the game, be it PVE, PVP, Crafting, Trading, etc.
I think you'll be surprised how many people in the EE play the game first and RP second. A lot of folks on these boards have it the other way around, they think people are going to be RPing first and gaming the game second. I think that is a mistaken line of thought.