Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Alignment is neither a means to an end (unless your ends are tied strongly to aligned behavior) nor a restriction on character persona.
Alignment in PFO is a primarily a summary of your past actions. It describes what you have done. The mechanical benefits are secondary, and people who seek only those mechanical benefits have to make the meaningful choice to engage in the behavior which allows them.
Goblin Squad Member
|
Alignment is neither a means to an end (unless your ends are tied strongly to aligned behavior) nor a restriction on character persona.
Alignment in PFO is a primarily a summary of your past actions. It describes what you have done.
If there are no mechanical benefits to alignment other than it just being a representation of actions, like reputation in EVE, then alignment doesn't matter to me.
I could care less what people's in character personas are. I could care less what their alignmetns are, either. A mechanical based alignment has no bearing on the individual on the other side of the keyboard. I have friends that want to play good, I have friends who want to play evil, and I have friends who, like me, don't give a crap.
In a mechanical based system, the way it keeps being described, it sounds like it's EVE's reputation system, with some extras. Something may have gotten lost in the translation over the months between the blogs, podcasts, forum posts, and convention interviews and Q&A's for me, which is understandable, because the game is an ever evolving WIP, but if that's all the alignment system ends up being, then it becomes much like EVE's rep system is to me, which is "whatev's".
If that means I get auto-flagged when crossing into another settlement or kingdoms lands, oh well, let's hope they bring a bigger sword or group of friends than I do, or I'll just walk around, if they do.
If that means I can't go to NPC cities or lands, again, oh well, I'll just go around.
The mechanical benefits are secondary, and people who seek only those mechanical benefits have to make the meaningful choice to engage in the behavior which allows them.
That sounds a lot like a means to an end, to me.
Basically, what I'm saying is, at the end of the day, folks are going to game the game, like they do every other MMO. Will there be RP? God, I hope so, because despite my last two posts, I like some good RP and RPers bring life to MMO worlds. However, to think that this will be a roleplaying game before anything else is just silly, in my opinion. The days of MMO's being RPG's before Massively Multiplayer went away a long, long time ago.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Andius
I did not characterize the suggestion as ignorant, just not believable to me. Now if you are offering real money + all of the needed resources + an equal or better settlement location + a sizable amount of in-game coin.... Then we might be able to strike a deal.
My bandits and I will certainly go into the real estate business of sacking and then flipping settlement properties.
@ Onishi
Faction conflict in Pathfinder RPG is meaningful based on supporting the lore of the setting. Faction conflict is usually based on conflict between two or more Deities. To suggest that such conflicts that trickle down to mere mortals is meaningless is to suggest that the Dieties and their respective Alignment differences are likewise meaningless.
GW has said that to participate fully in faction warfare, a character must show a certain amount of dedication to it. It is not until they reach level 3 in a faction will they be able to engage other opposing factions without out consequences to their alignment / reputation. That level of dedication is only achieved through focused and meaningful PvP.
Consequences for PvP do not give PvP meaning. The purpose / motivation for PvP is what gives it meaning. You can have meaningful PvP without negative consequences, for the winner, and it still be meaningful PvP. It is only if you remove the reasons for PvP or the consequences of losing PvP, that you end up with meaningless PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think you'll be surprised how many people in the EE play the game first and RP second.
If you listen to Ryan, we'll be RP'ing because we're playing the game and accomplishing our own goals.
RP means different things to different people. I think a lot of people assume that all RP is "Performance RP". There's a lot more to it than that, and I think most players will do it naturally without even thinking about it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wasn't NPC Faction standing purely a way for the mob AI to respond to you?
Or is it also NPC Faction spilling over to Players of different factions also responding to you to gain "favor" (kill that player of deity x)?!
Stephen Cheney made the second point, to be what they are working on. He was even specific about it requiring dedication and mentioned level 3 as being a threshold between engaging in consequence free PvP and still having consequences for PvP regardless of faction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think you'll be surprised how many people in the EE play the game first and RP second.If you listen to Ryan, we'll be RP'ing because we're playing the game and accomplishing our own goals.
RP means different things to different people. I think a lot of people assume that all RP is "Performance RP". There's a lot more to it than that, and I think most players will do it naturally without even thinking about it.
Eh, whatever man. You're getting into semantics, now and that's just silly (and a *huge* problem on these boards, in my opinion).
Of course, by playing the game and attempting to reach our self set goals we'll be playing a role in the world.
But *role playing* in MMO's is playing the game *in character*. That's how it's been in MMO's since the 90's, nothing has magically changed today.
Everyone plays a role, but not everyone role plays. Big difference between the two. I'm talking about role playing, not playing roles.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thanks Bludd, that doesn't sound bad at all if it's another social tag as with alignment, reputation, CC/Settlement membership and so on.
Yeah I take the RP to be much more your actions form the story as maybe Bludd linked before EVE's history. If plenty of layers of social even more interaction can be used for RP performance and sync to what player does to what character says?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think you'll be surprised how many people in the EE play the game first and RP second.If you listen to Ryan, we'll be RP'ing because we're playing the game and accomplishing our own goals.
RP means different things to different people. I think a lot of people assume that all RP is "Performance RP". There's a lot more to it than that, and I think most players will do it naturally without even thinking about it.
Eh, whatever man. You're getting into semantics, now and that's just silly (and a *huge* problem on these boards, in my opinion).
Of course, by playing the game and attempting to reach our self set goals we'll be playing a role in the world.
But *role playing* in MMO's is playing the game *in character*. That's how it's been in MMO's since the 90's, nothing has magically changed today.
Everyone plays a role, but not everyone role plays. Big difference between the two. I'm talking about role playing, not playing roles.
Despite being heavily focused on RP myself, I do concur with the point that most characters will not be roleplaying or even considering roleplaying. They will be playing this game just like they play Battlefield or Team Fortress or Tetris. Success for them is victory in PvP, PvE, Crafting, whatever and they will not care (and in some cases try to actively disrupt) story that others attempt to form with their actions. The Roleplaying community will either ignore their distractions or weave them into the fabric of the stories anyways, projecting personas upon them that they do not take on themselves. The Roleplaying community is likely to be significant in EE, but expect us to be in the minority if this game sees success in OE.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Sennajin:
Obviously you have a different understanding of what playing a character means than I do.
You don't have to create an independently-willed tulpa in order to roleplay; most people don't. I'm not going to police your character, and I don't think anyone else is unless they violate the TOS. That means that everything you do logged in is "in-character"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Sennajin:
Obviously you have a different understanding of what playing a character means than I do.You don't have to create an independently-willed tulpa in order to roleplay; most people don't. I'm not going to police your character, and I don't think anyone else is unless they violate the TOS. That means that everything you do logged in is "in-character"
I think you may have a different definition from me. Someone talking about his car breaking down is not "in character". I would probably ignore him, but if we need to discuss his actions in the game, I might refer to him as "that crazy guy".
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Ah, you have trouble making the distinction between the character chatting and the player chatting. Nothing wrong with that, lots of people don't take any effort to disbiguate their own statements.
A significant fraction of my posts here have been in-character, and since that particular character is defined to share my opinions and positions, it isn't worth the effort to disambiguate the two.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Andius
I did not characterize the suggestion as ignorant, just not believable to me. Now if you are offering real money + all of the needed resources + an equal or better settlement location + a sizable amount of in-game coin.... Then we might be able to strike a deal.
My bandits and I will certainly go into the real estate business of sacking and then flipping settlement properties.
We won't be pursuing a policy of not aggressively taking settlements from neutrals simply to pay someone else to do it for us.
The groups that put the blood sweat and tears into building settlements will likely not be the ones holding them a year or two after release. That makes them into pieces of property for those holding them, and property can be bought and sold. That's how it happened in Darkfall and it's how I expect to see it go here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We won't be pursuing a policy of not aggressively taking settlements from neutrals simply to pay someone else to do it for us.I will be the first to admit, I struggle getting the true meaning from a statement based on double negatives.
We won't pay you to take settlements that we wouldn't be willing to take ourselves. If we support your aggression against neutral factions by buying the cities you conquer, we are still responsible for their fall.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
We won't pay you to take settlements that we wouldn't be willing to take ourselves. If we support your aggression against neutral factions by buying the cities you conquer, we are still responsible for their fall.We won't be pursuing a policy of not aggressively taking settlements from neutrals simply to pay someone else to do it for us.I will be the first to admit, I struggle getting the true meaning from a statement based on double negatives.
Would you purchase a captured settlement, of which you took no part in its overthrow?
Otherwise I don't see how you will be able to expand, without conquest or purchasing settlements that were conquered. I also don't see actions, your's or anyone else's, exclusively directed at Evil Aligned settlements. There will be too few of those to be targeted on that basis.
This leads me to a conclusion that the conflict of settlements will be largely political, with little or no concern for alignment sameness or differences. The politics will be played out mostly at the company vs. company and the locations that are the settlements will be drawn into the fray.
Going back quite a ways, it was said that only settlements can declare wars. Perhaps this issue could be crowd forged and we can get that ability granted down to a company level?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf, I do have plans that would allow us to expand and those plans include a policy of non-aggression against peaceful groups and groups with similar ideologies, as well as a policy of not purchasing settlements from groups who's policies we do not wish to promotes.
I will not give you specifics because every time I give you specifics you twist the words around and try to assign them intentions and motivations they don't have. This question reminds of your first interaction with me ever, when you asked how we would do with the Goons. And we all know how you reacted to that answer when it was given.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf, I do have plans that would allow us to expand and those plans include a policy of non-aggression against peaceful groups and groups with similar ideologies, as well as a policy of not purchasing settlements from groups who's policies we do not wish to promotes.
I will not give you specifics because every time I give you specifics you twist the words around and try to assign them intentions and motivations they don't have. This question reminds of your first interaction with me ever, when you asked how we would do with the Goons. And we all know how you reacted to that answer when it was given.
You link does not support the suggestion that I met your answer with any negativity.
However I will add, it is a good thing that Goonswarm or any of their affiliates (TEST) have not shown any signs that they are coming to PFO. Well, it is good for organizations that don;t have a plan for facing massive zerg companies.
The UnNamed Company has three plans for dealing with just such an entity:
1. Fight them. Show them that we can be Wolves and will do whatever it takes to inflict pain and grief on our attackers.
2. We can join them, and help them conquer the world.
3. If wE lose our fight, and our settlement, we can recede back into the wilderness as an unaffiliated group, and pick at their empire wherever they show a sign of weakness.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Interesting and revealing that you finally admit you would join Goonswarm if it would benefit you.
Was it your intention to admit your group is willing to ally with full fledged griefers for personal gain?
The answer was not given at that time. The answer was the Treaty of Rovagug.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Interesting and revealing that you finally admit you would join Goonswarm if it would benefit you.
Was it your intention to admit your group is willing to ally with full fledged griefers for personal gain?
The answer was not given at that time. The answer was the Treaty of Rovagug.
Of my three options, only one was to join them. "If you can't beat them, join them". The other two was to fight them and even to seek them out to assault them.
The UNC would ally with any group, including your's, if it would benefit the UNC. The only good foreign policy is a self serving foreign policy. That does not mean that others won't benefit or that our policy must be at the expense of others, it just means what it says, "It must serve us well."
I do not consider Goonswarm or any other large organization as a whole as being "full fledged griefers". Knowing your very broad definition of griefing or toxic behavior, I'm sure we are not of the same opinion.
With a group as large as having 9000+ members, I'm sure there are a number of full fledged griefers, but I'm unwilling to bust out the broad brush. I may be a bit nostalgic of the Goons when they first arrived to EVE, the tactics that they used (without griefing) and the service that they did for the community in taking down BOB and exposing some instances of CCP Devs collaboration with BOB.
Ahh.. The First Treaty of Rovagug... My claim to fame.. The problem with that was two fold: First, it was not limited to being just anti griefing. Second, it did not get any support from anyone outside of your group, and even some people within your group distanced themselves from it.
All I did was point out its flaws and its overreaching hypocrisy (potentially unintentional, I'll grant the benefit of the doubt).
But the same holds true for the newer version of the TOR, the other attempts like the "Community of Good" or the "Confederation of Communities", The "Battle for the Soul of the Community" or the "Player Council".
You have everyone on board if it is simply Anti Griefing (Noob killing in noob area, and no corpse or respawn camping, no killing the same character over and over again).
But, once ideas are thrown in that are: "anti playstyle", "this is not meaningful, because I say it isn't" or "this is not good for the community" declarative statements, that is where all of these initiatives have lost support from almost everyone, but those that proposed them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Oh dear... I hope this doesn't devolve into another hundred post discussion on griefing vs. not griefing.
I hope not either, but the OP does bring up the topic and this is a PVP based thread.
But as for the intended purpose, we are to be coming up with or presenting hints and tips for PVP.
Perhaps we should begin with how to develop the proper mind set for PVP?
1. I believe part of the problem for some players, to get into PVP, is that they come into the possibility of non consensual PVP with dread.
This dread is the result of the Theme Park MMO acculturation of the over dependence on equipment, particularly the top of the line equipment. Because in many MMOs, particularly WOW, the only way to get these "purple" items was to mindlessly grind the same dungeons, over an over, for weeks. The possibility of losing such an item in mere moments of one PVP combat is justifiably unbearable to think of.
So the first step in preparing to venture into PVP is to divorce yourself of the "Loot Monkey" mentality.
In EVE Online we call this "Only fly what you are willing to lose."
In many Open World PVP MMOs, what people do is the PVP "naked". Which is not technically true, what it means is that they use very low level and cheap gear.
2. The next step is to divorce yourself of the dread that comes with losing. Players in MMOs won't think twice about throwing themselves off a cliff in order to fast travel (Age of Conan). But, when it comes to getting killed by another character, where they have little or no chance of survival, and then it's a big deal.
One time in Age of Conan, I was in the Underhalls (or whatever they called) and I turned a corner and there were three high level characters standing there.
The one in the front demanded I turn over money, more than I had. I said "No". He then said "I'll give you 10 seconds head start to run away. I responded "F-U". He then said, "You know that we can kill you?" I responded, "Just you, or like a p***y you'll need your friends?"
I attacked him, and I was dead in seconds. He had beat me 1 on 1, easily.
I quickly whispered, what is a good build for PVP for a 2-handed Barb, and he gave me a few tips.
Having a positive Win to Loss ratio is not always a sign of being a "good" PVPer. A good PVPer wins the even matches and loses the impossible matches, but still in loss gains something.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the interests of easing concerns over PvP and making it more palatable to the hesitant, I would like to correct some statements made and explain my particular concerns as I am sure others spare them.
1. I believe part of the problem for some players, to get into PVP, is that they come into the possibility of non consensual PVP with dread.This dread is the result of the Theme Park MMO acculturation of the over dependence on equipment, particularly the top of the line equipment. Because in many MMOs, particularly WOW, the only way to get these "purple" items was to mindlessly grind the same dungeons, over an over, for weeks. The possibility of losing such an item in mere moments of one PVP combat is justifiably unbearable to think of.
Coming from a background of playing UO well before WoW was launched, my fear is not losing a few items now and then. It is losing most items most of the time. Historically in UO I would fall into crafting. I could be wearing nothing but an apron and an axe out cutting lumber and more often than not... Corp Por would herald a dozen naked mages on horseback riding through and slaying everyone in their path for no reason other than to kill.
This is why I tend to be such a strong advocate for the Consequences of PVP. If I can go out unflagged and be assaulted 10% of the time, I can live with that. If I happen to be frequently carrying valuable items or resources, I expect that number to jump significantly. If I have a Sword of Awesome and Super Shiny Armor and there is reasonable suspicion that I don't have both of them threaded, then I am accepting of others trying to pry them out of my cold dead hands. If I'm running a load of moderately rare resource X, I expect that to be worth someone's time. I'd hope they'd go for flagged individuals first, but I accept I may be a target. If I have something of value, I understand that it is my fault for not bringing enough protection to defend it.
If I am travelling in minimal gear, with minimal value items, trying to get from Point A to Point B with no flags, I do not expect a lot of harassment.
My hope is that the consequences of non-consensual PvP will raise the bar for who is a tempting target and who is not.
My dread is that there may still exist a population that kills just for the sake of killing and does not discriminate by whether there is worthwhile gain. War enemies, or protecting hexes surrounding NBSI settlements I would also expect to attack, my statements are largely surrounding 'wilderness encounters'.
2. The next step is to divorce yourself of the dread that comes with losing. Players in MMOs won't think twice about throwing themselves off a cliff in order to fast travel (Age of Conan). But, when it comes to getting killed by another character, where they have little or no chance of survival, and then it's a big deal.
My dread is not in losing, it is in frequency of conflict. I honestly expect to lose most conflicts I engage in, largely because I do not have amazing reflexes and tend not to be a character build optimizer. I will be fine with losing. I just don't want to have to fight someone off every ten minutes. Distances from spawn points are what will really determine what I deem to be too often.
If I have to travel 10 hexes, I'll probably expect a fight somewhere in there. But if I don't have midpoints to spawn at and I lose ALL of my progress every time I try to make the trip, it will quickly grow frustrating. It is not the dread of losing, it is the fear of being unable to accomplish simple goals.
"Take my items. Run me from your settlements. Approach me as an enemy of war. But for all that is merciful, do not kill me just because you happen to see me out for a walk."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But if I don't have midpoints to spawn at and I lose ALL of my progress every time I try to make the trip, it will quickly grow frustrating. It is not the dread of losing, it is the fear of being unable to accomplish simple goals.
Someone said the other day that people leave games because of boredom.
I think they leave because of frustration - boredom being just one type of frustration.
- If the UI is clunky to the point of unusable, they might get frustrated.
- If the combat is twitch-based beyond their capability, they might get frustrated.
- If they can PvE all day long, but they're just accumulating gp with nothing to do with it, they might get frustrated.
- If they're subject to continual PvP with no relief in sight, and no time to achieve their own objectives, they might get frustrated.
- If they want to PvP, but there are no people risking the wilderness, they might get frustrated.
Frustration, from any or multiple sources, causes people to leave. In the real world, you might be able to move to change your situation. Inside a game, you have to decide if you'll merely move to another location in the game, or you'll just go to a different game world.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Someone said the other day that people leave games because of boredom.I think they leave because of frustration - boredom being just one type of frustration.
- If the UI is clunky to the point of unusable, they might get frustrated.
- If the combat is twitch-based beyond their capability, they might get frustrated.
- If they can PvE all day long, but they're just accumulating gp with nothing to do with it, they might get frustrated.
- If they're subject to continual PvP with no relief in sight, and no time to achieve their own objectives, they might get frustrated.
- If they want to PvP, but there are no people risking the wilderness, they might get frustrated.Frustration, from any or multiple sources, causes people to leave. In the real world, you might be able to move to change your situation. Inside a game, you have to decide if you'll merely move to another location in the game, or you'll just go to a different game world.
I believe this is spot on. And why striking balance is so vital.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...My dread is that there may still exist a population that kills just for the sake of killing and does not discriminate by whether there is worthwhile gain. War enemies, or protecting hexes surrounding NBSI settlements I would also expect to attack, my statements are largely surrounding 'wilderness encounters'.
While we are human beings that dread population will exist. If PFO does what they have said they will in attending to it as a problem, then I do sincerely believe the incidence of that population segment will be lower than it would be in nature.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hope not to drag this subject out too long but your reference to the "first" Treaty of Rovagug really shows how dishonest and eager to mislead people you are. I hope this is not an attempt to RP your chaotic nature because I'm not taking it as such. The usage of the term "first" implies that there was a set of original terms, and those terms were changed. We both know that never happened.
There were no terms, and now, due to the fear-mongering you and others were able to pass off as a reasonable debate over terms that did not exist, there are. The currently outlined treaty, is the first draft of the Treaty of Rovagug. Once it is completed and signed, it will be the "first" Treaty of Rovagug.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...My dread is that there may still exist a population that kills just for the sake of killing and does not discriminate by whether there is worthwhile gain. War enemies, or protecting hexes surrounding NBSI settlements I would also expect to attack, my statements are largely surrounding 'wilderness encounters'.While we are human beings that dread population will exist. If PFO does what they have said they will in attending to it as a problem, then I do sincerely believe the incidence of that population segment will be lower than it would be in nature.
And it is that hope which has led me to back and continue supporting the game. But I digress, back to PvP tips and discussion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Lifedragn,
It is for the same reason that you are a strong advocate of having PVP consequences, that I am for having Meaningful Reasons to flag for PVP.
I prefer my suggestion over yours, because I would rather use positive reinforcement then the "stick" to stop or hinder both negative and positive behaviors.
If GW tied the use of Caravans to the Traveler Flag, then bandits such as my group will naturally gravitate away from looking at the solo traveler and focus our attention towards the higher chance for reward.
The way the chatter is leaning in the forums now, and with some of Ryan Dancey's posts, this is the sports analogy that comes to mind:
This is the game of (American) football. The premise of the game is for one team to defeat the other team on the field.
Each team is not only trying to win their current game, but they want to win enough games to compete for the playoffs and ultimately the championship.
There are times, due to a variety of reasons, that some teams are significantly weaker than their opponent.
When a team wins it advances, whether its opponent was tough or not, so winning is everything.
In PFO, a game with a heavy focus on PVP, the "Meaningful Consequences" crowd are saying.....
When you win, you should fall down in the standings, especially when you try to play football against someone trying to play tennis, on the football field.
The NPC Settlement is the Tennis Court. If I try to play football there, I get smacked with an "unsportsmanlike conduct" and perhaps a ban from the game.
The PC Settlement, can set its own rules.
The Wilderness is the Football Field, but the Tennis players can walk around on the sidelines. But, as soon as the Tennis player picks up the football, he better be ready for the hit.
Then there maybe a football field that runs by "Prison Rules". You set foot on that field, you can expect to get hit, whether you pick up the ball or not. Even the cheerleaders will get hit. There are no referees, no score keepers or time keepers. The only rule is that there are no rules. The only winner is the one that gets off that field with the ball.
Note: There was a delay of about 1+ hours while drafting this post.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well said, Bluudwolf. I don't buy it is all or nothing, but you presented a strong case. I suspect there will be both carrot and stick involved.
GW does not seem dedicated to eradicating PvP all together. They have clearly been spending significant time and effort trying to devise a system of regulation for it. That means they plan it to have its reward system there, but it might not be online Madden football and you should be able to deal with that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In PFO, a game with a heavy focus on PVP, the "Meaningful Consequences" crowd are saying.....
When you win, you should fall down in the standings, especially when you try to play football against someone trying to play tennis, on the football field.
That's a really twisted misrepresentation.
We're saying don't tackle the wide outs when they don't even have the ball. That will and should result in a 15 yard penalty for Unsportsmanlike Conduct.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In PFO, a game with a heavy focus on PVP, the "Meaningful Consequences" crowd are saying.....
When you win, you should fall down in the standings, especially when you try to play football against someone trying to play tennis, on the football field.
That's a really twisted misrepresentation.
We're saying don't tackle the wide outs when they don't even have the ball. That will and should result in a 15 yard penalty for Unsportsmanlike Conduct.
This.
I agree that there should be positive rewards for flagging for PvP. I've said before, flagging for PvP should in general allow you to do similar actions more efficiently or for greater rewards, even if those activities are PvE oriented.
But if we only have carrots, then we're going to have football players tackling cheerleaders, refs, coaches, and half-time performers. Which is not intended game design. So the stick is very much necessary, and it needs to be effective.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In PFO, a game with a heavy focus on PVP
I could equally say:
In PfO, a game with a heavy focus on crafting...
In PfO, a game with a heavy focus on settlement building...
In PfO, a game with a heavy focus on player politics...
In PfO, a game with a heavy focus on exploration...
and so on, and so on.
Please stop trying to misrepresent PfO as a PvP game to the exclusion of other play styles. Sure it is a PvP game, but it is a whole lot of other things besides. Sometimes those play styles will cause opposition (a lot of the time I hope). And sometimes the PvP to the exclusion of all else play style will have to lose out in order to make those other play styles viable.
Just because this game will have PvP does not mean that it will be all about the PvP, however much you might wish it to be the case. I've said it before and I'll (probably) say it again:
The PvP should be about the game, not the game about the PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find this amusing since crafting and trade typically ends up being a much more cutthroat, vicious, environment than any other form of combat... and one that more folk willingly subject themselves to. A broken, exploitable market is the quickest way to kill an open world game, too.
"Yah, I killed ya, but at least I'm honest 'bout it! It's them traders what'll bleed ya dry!"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Interesting and revealing that you finally admit you would join Goonswarm if it would benefit you.
Was it your intention to admit your group is willing to ally with full fledged griefers for personal gain?
Just out of curiosity, would any of you think it would be unlikely or perhaps unseemly for an EE company or settlement to usher in or welcome with open arms a zerg group from another game?
I know it was said, I believe by Andius, that this community will not be based on an Us (EE) vs. Them (OE) kind of Good Ol' Boys network.
The way I MIGHT look at it, I have over a year to join Goons or TEST in EVE ONline or some other group from Dark Fall (Sinister Tyrants comes to mind), and then lay the groundwork for their entry into PFO.
What if The UnNamed Company became a harbinger of the Chaotic Apocalypse?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just out of curiosity, would any of you think it would be unlikely or perhaps unseemly for an EE company or settlement to usher in or welcome with open arms a zerg group from another game?
...
The way I MIGHT look at it, I have over a year to join Goons or TEST in EVE ONline or some other group from Dark Fall (Sinister Tyrants comes to mind), and then lay the groundwork for their entry into PFO.
I expect they will be equally ineffective as a zerg group if they arrive on their own, or if they arrive at the behest of someone who's already here, or if they're already here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I expect they will be equally ineffective as a zerg group if they arrive on their own, or if they arrive at the behest of someone who's already here, or if they're already here.
I know you have written this before, and I recall you based this on the advantage that formation combat will have over a chaotic, unorganized horde.
But there are two very important points to be made. First, you are possibly assuming that a Zerg will be chaotic and not have access to formation combat themselves. Secondly, the Devs probably won't admit it, but no system can withstand an insurmountable Zerg, without breaking the entire system.
Realistically, would a 20 : 1 ratio not be excessive if this was needed for a chaotic horde to still remain ineffective against a formation?
I'm pretty sure we all realize, in a game, if one side throws 200 players at 10 players, the 10 players will lose every time.
Now lets combine the two points I made: Of the 200 in the Zerg, 10 are also using formation combat, versus the 10 that are in formation on the other side. That leaves an additional 190 chaotic murderers to rain death down upon the 20 combatants trying to remain in their formations.
Bottom line, there is no answer to the Zerg. At some point the numbers will always win the day.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... no system can withstand an insurmountable Zerg...
That's tautological ;)
It's like saying "no force can move an immovable object" or "no object can resist an irresistible force'.
As for getting the numbers to really overwhelm a cohesive force, that will take time. I find it unlikely that there will be more goons than people in Early Enrollment. By the time we get to Open Enrollment, I hope we have had time to develop some Formation Combat skills and that there will be enough people available that 20:1 odds would require goons to be an absolute majority of the player base.
And even then, I'm doubtful that 20:1 odds will be enough. I expect the mob just won't have enough time to wear down the Formation before the Formation has decimated the mob.
Regardless of your opinion of my opinion, Pathfinder Online isn't real, and we have control over the game mechanical advantages to fighting in formation to ensure that they overwhelm disorganized opponent forces, so it won't be theoretical, it will simply be fact: An army will beat a mob.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In PFO, a game with a heavy focus on PVPI could equally say:
In PfO, a game with a heavy focus on crafting...
In PfO, a game with a heavy focus on settlement building...
In PfO, a game with a heavy focus on player politics...
In PfO, a game with a heavy focus on exploration...and so on, and so on.
Please stop trying to misrepresent PfO as a PvP game to the exclusion of other play styles. Sure it is a PvP game, but it is a whole lot of other things besides. Sometimes those play styles will cause opposition (a lot of the time I hope). And sometimes the PvP to the exclusion of all else play style will have to lose out in order to make those other play styles viable.
Just because this game will have PvP does not mean that it will be all about the PvP, however much you might wish it to be the case. I've said it before and I'll (probably) say it again:
The PvP should be about the game, not the game about the PvP.
I really hope it captures the spirit of Game Of Thrones.
As per the 4 pillars:
Exploration, Adventure, Development, Dominion
In that book you see Exploration of unknown lands. Adventure all over the place of individual characters, even adventures at court and at the furthest edges of the kingdom (the wall). Development less so, but certainly the trade and cultural connections and so on are part of the background world. And of course The Game itself which is Dominion and Power brokering. Some stand on the edges plotting Dorne and others are uninfluenced eg East of Westeros.
So I'd really like to see the diversity, complexity and size and different scales of the game to be awesome.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a rush of 20:1 against a disciplined army takes the field while suffering more than 20% losses (4:1 casualty ratio), they lose.
Funny... I thought battle was about objectives. If they go 20 to 1, get completely wiped out to the man, but still accomplish their objective, I would argue that they won.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon,
Both you and Ryan's quote are based on the assumption that a Zerg mob is made up of entirely chaotic murderers.
You second assumption is that any Zerg group will have to be prepared to fight the entire EE population. They will likely not try to take over the entire EE settlement structure in one fell swoop. Like all others with aspirations of inquest, they will pick off one settlement at a time and as they advance their numbers will swell, partially by their recently conquered and by mercenaries and bandits that will always attach themselves to a marauding army.
I think the belief that mechanics will save someone's settlement versus overwhelming numbers is simply naive. If 20 : 1 is not enough, some groups can throw 40:1 or even 100:1 in extreme cases.
I would expect that there will be companies or alliances of companies having numbers in the hundreds and some in the thousands.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
If a rush of 20:1 against a disciplined army takes the field while suffering more than 20% losses (4:1 casualty ratio), they lose.Funny... I thought battle was about objectives. If they go 20 to 1, get completely wiped out to the man, but still accomplish their objective, I would argue that they won.
I was looking at the economic side, and I suspect my math might be off even there (that being the point of no net gain from looting equally-equipped enemies, rather than the point at which economic losses are equal, given that the losers are looted for 3/4 and all deaths lose 1/4.