Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose that if you have 10 or 12 people who all want to play together and only three villages open to capture within your available area, it makes sense to roll together.
With 12 players who wanted prowess and stuff, I'd grab two trawlers, two scrapers, and a load of fishing rods and head out to a few spots I know about.
I think what is Being missed is that by banding together and enjoying the exhilaration of victory Bludd and Xeen are really playing the game in their estimation of what the game is about, whereas to them grinding prowess is just grinding. To you (perhaps) the game, as a game, is a matter of progression and acquisition. For them (perhaps) the game is a matter of interaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Thats pretty accurate Being. I do not care to grind up skills (prowess). It makes the game boring and pointless.
Oh yeah, I get to gather 200 wood for a big prowess boost, next up 3000 wood.
bah, boring as can be...
I certainly hope that is not part of the feat requirements for PFO, but it very well may be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ok, so here is the deal. Real life military training is based on the fact the stakes are always high. Lives are on the line, which are incredibly high value. If PFO/Darkfall they are only as valuable as the gear on them and time it takes them to respawn / regear.
So let's say we're taking objectives and we have 12 men. It takes 1 minute to regear (because our forces are trained in the use of ready bags) and an average of 15 to reach an objective and 5 to take it. Each objective is worth 10k in resources and we are all wearing 1k resources of gear.
So if you keep your force of 12 zerged and assume it will never meet comparable opposition (another roaming zerg or 1 Zanuul ;) ) you will make 10k gold every 20 minutes and lose nothing.
If you break it into three smaller forces of 4, and have a 33% rate of failure (which is obscenely high) then you'll generate roughly 20k gold every 20 minutes (roughly because I dropped the 1 minute for one of the three teams to regear.) and lose about 4k gold in gear.
So the small teams are coming out ahead of the zerg in terms of accomplishing objectives and gaining resources. Beyond that, since they are being pressed harder they are gaining more valuable experience, and if they are true PVPers, they're having more fun. Running in that zerg honestly sounds boring to me because you won't get any good fights.
Of course if your bottom line is not wanting your character to die or to have an inflated image of being unbeatable, then I guess that's what you'll do. I just figured with all UNCs talk of greed being the bottom line, and being hardcore PVPers, that the RP aspect of never dying was not their primary objective.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Winning fights where you are at a disadvantage is a much more general skill, but it is a much harder skill to have.You train from the position of disadvantage. You fight from the position of advantage, unless your fight is defensive and you have little choice. It is only when the unexpected occurs, that you are forced to be disadvantaged.
If you often find yourself disadvantaged on an offensive operation, that is the result of poor intelligence, planning and or leadership. It is always better to have too much strength, than not enough. If you are going after multiple, sequential objectives, bring enough force to complete all of them, simultaneously. But when you actually run the operation you hit them one at a time. This is known as the alpha strike method. It not only thins their numbers, it breaks their resolve to continue fighting.
You can't effectively alpha strike when you are at a numerical disadvantage. This is why gank squads and zerges are so effective and feared. They roll in ridiculously strong and most try to flee, rather than get steamrolled.
I showed my work earlier demonstrating that the expected results per unit effort drop after putting too many people on a task. The cost of putting all of your forces on one task is that they cannot do anything anywhere else during that time.
If an exploration/exploitation corp divides into six groups that each attempt a dungeon, and two of them wipe, then they have higher total returns than if they had split into three groups of twice the size and steamrolled three dungeons.
Risk/reward analysis does not mean minimizing risk; it means maximizing the ratio.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is Darkfall we are discussing...
The skill grind is boring
The Conquer system is childish
The combat system is not much better then a FPS
The game is just to take up time till PFO
So, Who Cares?
If PFO's conquer system is as bad as Darkfalls then you would be correct... But if there is some meaning to sacking a settlement, then you would not be correct.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
If there is meaning to sacking a settlement, settlements are roughly equal, and a group could stick together and sack one settlement with 100-epsilon% certainty, or split up and sack two settlements with an independent 75% certainty, they get higher expected results by splitting up.
Likewise for defenders.
Milton Friedman famously said "If you've never missed a flight, you're probably spending too much time in airports." Likewise if you don't lose at least some fights, you aren't getting into enough fights.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Of course if your bottom line is not wanting your character to die or to have an inflated image of being unbeatable, then I guess that's what you'll do. I just figured with all UNCs talk of greed being the bottom line, and being hardcore PVPers, that the RP aspect of never dying was not their primary objective.
We won't be busting out the calculators like a bunch of time management accountants. Nor will we be min / maxing our operations and wondering the potential opportunity gains of running in bands, so small, as to invite resistance.
We are not looking for a fight, we are looking to take other people's gold. Intimidation is th fastest route to doing that. For all of Decious' calculations he is forgetting the most important tool of bandits: Stand-and-Deliver!
Which is faster, a trade window or a fight?
What is the most likely attribute of a force to achieve the desired negotiation? Numbers!
In Darfall, and mst other MMOs, numbers plays a significant roll. Now we can debate over ratios, we won't know what is appropriate until we actually play PFO. I've never said anything like, we will shoot for 30 : 1. I'm leaning more towards 2.5 : 1 as a minimum troupe of bandits.
Assuming average party size in PFO is roughly 5, I think 12 - 14 is a suitable group size. Not surprisingly that is roughly a squad size in the military (US Army).
I think I know a little bit more about military tactics, having served in the military for over 8 years.
What I'm starting to think is that you and Decious are a bit nervous that UNC is talking about traveling in bands of this size. I'll make you a bit more nervous, we can support several troupes of this size, and that is not even counting the unknown resource that our alliance with Pax Aeternum will provide. I'm sure with their population of close to 1000, will have a few free spirited, greedy types within their ranks.
We also have connections in Mechwarrior Online, EvE Online and Darkfall UW that we haven't even begun to talley up, and they are still un - named as of yet (To think that nam came about by accident).
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
The reason that I'm worried about your strategic posturing is that it makes me expect that you and Pax will be incompetent in other major fields where you attempt to specialize.
A bandit company that interdicts a fraction of the value that it could because it doesn't want to have to fight is ineffective. I don't want the pet bandits of the economic juggernaut to be half as effective as they could be, because they run around in gangs twice as large as the point of negligible marginal returns.
Don't get me wrong, I want to make you run around in large groups, but I want you to do that because only the largest groups you can assemble have any chance of winning against a high-value target. Frankly, if you can assemble a group strong enough to wipe the floor with the defenders of a high-value target, you have already won the field. If, however, you field groups of a known strength, your opposition will simply protect their HVTs with defenders stronger than that.
Bloddwolf, clearly you are either not interested in maximizing the loot you get, or don't understand how to maximize expected returns. If you understand how to maximize, and simply want something different, why haven't you stated what you actually want in your recruitment attempts? If you want to get as much stuff through banditry as possible, but don't have the skills required to determine what the expected total returns of your available tactics and strategies are, why are you not only actively resisting learning that, but also reinforcing to your friends that they should not be learning how to be effective?
I would prefer that the major players be as effective as possible, and I also predict that the group of major players in the game and metagame will rapidly evolve to exclude people who are ineffective. It's nice to have a scenery-chewing insane bandit as an opponent, but if you're inefficient at it, you will be supplanted by someone who is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A bandit company that interdicts a fraction of the value that it could because it doesn't want to have to fight is ineffective. I don't want the pet bandits of the economic juggernaut to be half as effective as they could be, because they run around in gangs twice as large as the point of negligible marginal returns.
You are still not fully appreciating the efficiency of the SAD as it is compared to even a relatively short combat engagement.
You are also not considering Pre-arraigned SADs, or "Protection Rackets". What could be better than to sit back, on the roadside, drinking a beer and shooting the s..t with my buddies, and just racking in the gold while doing it.
Now, don't get me wrong, that will be on top of our raiding, outside of Pax territory, against the rivals of our benefactor.
You should be more concerned about the effectiveness of your own operations, and less so with ours. You will have to consider a few ways to avoid our predation:
1. Trade with Pax, and you will be safe from UNC.
2. Accept our SAD offers, and you will be safe from UNC.
3. Have enough guards to no longer appear to be a soft target, and you may be passed up by UNC (If we are not bored, and decide to ambush anyway).
4. Pre arrange your safe passage, with a weekly tribute (toll).
5. Run faster than we can!
As you can see, not all of these options require bloodshed. I have never claimed that UNC desired to engage in rampant bloodshed, the evidence to that is all over these forums and on our own forums.
You can simply hand us some of your gold and be on your way, not a bad deal considering the benefits of having accepted a SAD.
However, if you wish to fight. We bring the numbers and we don't waste time with training advanced basket weaving, or making green hats.
Survival, Weapon Mastery and most of all Tactics will be our focus. Remember, unlike Darkfall, we won't need to grind harvesting or crafting to get those points to spend on skills. We don't have to be logged in to get those points either ( vacation! ).
We will just focus on maximizing our skills for bloodshed, should you choose to go that route.
There are very few truly smart bandits, because most truly smart people (who are not driven by emotion or religion) understand that cooperation is way better on returns then competition, those who are greedy know that they need to be deceptive, to build the image of being cooperative while secretly manipulating things in their favor.
That is this first reason bandits are usually not smart. The second reason is that most bandits are bandits out of desperation or are mentally sick and like being bullies (generally resulting from being abused or incompetant)
It would be nice if pfo maintained that dynamic, made it so cooperation has a high enough benefit that any smart person will play bandits only for rp and not because they actually expect to make a decent living.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
You should be more concerned about the effectiveness of your own operations, and less so with ours. You will have to consider a few ways to avoid our predation:...
I have no need to avoid your 'predation', if your strategy is to make shows of overwhelming force rarely and then accept the tribute offered to not be the target of one of those actions.
I'll just accept that most of the time, your gank squad won't be in the area where a given target is, and if you are near a target, the cost of defending against you would probably shift the cost-benefit ratio more than accepting the loss.
I will take measures to avoid the predation of 'lesser' bandits, who lose 4 times out of 5 but are encountered half the time before I take measures to protect against a group that wins 99 times out of 100, but is only encountered 5% of the time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
1. Trade with Pax, and you will be safe from UNC.
I can assure you that your arrangement with Pax makes us far less likely to trade with them, not more. It's not clear to me whether Pax intends to get involved as Enforcers on your behalf if others consistently fight you instead of acceding to your demands.
2. Accept our SAD offers, and you will be safe from UNC.
Millions for Defence, Not One Copper for Tribute!
3. Have enough guards to no longer appear to be a soft target, and you may be passed up by UNC (If we are not bored, and decide to ambush anyway).
This is a win-win for us, as our "cost" to hire guards is actually negative if "guard duty" is a desired activity for our members.
4. Pre arrange your safe passage, with a weekly tribute (toll).
See #2.
5. Run faster than we can!
That's okay, we won't chase you :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You should be more concerned about the effectiveness of your own operations, and less so with ours. You will have to consider a few ways to avoid our predation:...
I have no need to avoid your 'predation', if your strategy is to make shows of overwhelming force rarely and then accept the tribute offered to not be the target of one of those actions.
I'll just accept that most of the time, your gank squad won't be in the area where a given target is, and if you are near a target, the cost of defending against you would probably shift the cost-benefit ratio more than accepting the loss.
I will take measures to avoid the predation of 'lesser' bandits, who lose 4 times out of 5 but are encountered half the time before I take measures to protect against a group that wins 99 times out of 100, but is only encountered 5% of the time.
So what your saying is... "Make my SAD's 75% every time." Correct?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1. Trade with Pax, and you will be safe from UNC.I can assure you that your arrangement with Pax makes us far less likely to trade with them, not more. It's not clear to me whether Pax intends to get involved as Enforcers on your behalf if others consistently fight you instead of acceding to your demands.
What they do is their own decision to make, but please... DO NOT trade with them.
2. Accept our SAD offers, and you will be safe from UNC.Millions for Defence, Not One Copper for Tribute!
I love that quote
3. Have enough guards to no longer appear to be a soft target, and you may be passed up by UNC (If we are not bored, and decide to ambush anyway).This is a win-win for us, as our "cost" to hire guards is actually negative if "guard duty" is a desired activity for our members.
Good, groups to harass
4. Pre arrange your safe passage, with a weekly tribute (toll).See #2.
See #2
5. Run faster than we can!That's okay, we won't chase you :)
That's okay, you wont get the opportunity.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is what I'm talking about! Some pre-release smack talk. I haven't gotten to enjoy fronting like this since the pre-release of the original Darkfall. I wonder who will come out in front this time. I know who I'm putting my money on (hint: It's the organizations that have leadership with actual experience leading large scale operations).
Either way, my Dad can beat up your Dad!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is what I'm talking about! Some pre-release smack talk. I haven't gotten to enjoy fronting like this since the pre-release of the original Darkfall. I wonder who will come out in front this time. I know who I'm putting my money on (hint: It's the organizations that have leadership with actual experience leading large scale operations).Either way, my Dad can beat up your Dad!
My dad is older then your dad, so he will win!
Also, work boredom makes for great smack talk time!!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Come on lads, we can smack better than that. Use your imaginations! We have to have built up some decent ammo by now. How about someone calls someone else a cliff-jumper? That always seems to work.
[mild rant]Personally the overly aggressive smack talk between the UNC vs TEO & Nihimonicon is the main reason I don’t post as much as I used too. Seeing the same arguments derail practically every new thread has gotten to be tiresome IMHO. Seriously as soon as Nihimon makes a post or starts a thread, you can almost guarantee that Bluudwolf or Xeen will jump on within 5 posts and start things up. To be fair it often happens the other way too. *Sigh* [/mild rant]
Back to lurking in the shadows.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I will reiterate, a group of 12 - 14 in a bandit / raiding party is not a zerg. It is a relatively small (squad) sized unit, large enough to be effective in most engagements. Small enough to still be stealthy. Most importantly, large enough to delay for reinforcements if needed.
Anyone who describes 12 as a zerg, is likely not confident that they could rally their own numbers to field even this small squad sized unit.
All of your hand-wringing, numbers crunching, and cries of how inefficient or ineffective it is, can clearly be seen for what they are... fear and or a lack of confidence.
Again, the game is not even in beta yet, and it remains to be seen what the ratio will be. If the groups in PFO tend to be a lot larger than the average of 5 I predict, than the 12 number will have to be modified upwards. If the average merchant goes the cheap route,takes the gamble that he may not encounter bandits, and hires no guards.... well then the 12 number will be reduced to 8 or even 6.
Conditions on the battlefield will always dictate force strength. Force strength will never be adjusted to match, minimum force needed to win, but rather minimum force needed to likely not lose.
really it is quite simple... If I think I'll need 10, I'll bring 14. That is the former Boy Scout in me "Be Prepared".
Indeed in Eve which is likely one of the closer equivalent a group of 12 would be classed as small gang warfare. I would certainly hope taking a settlement would require 100+ players at least
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are very few truly smart bandits, because most truly smart people (who are not driven by emotion or religion) understand that cooperation is way better on returns then competition, those who are greedy know that they need to be deceptive, to build the image of being cooperative while secretly manipulating things in their favor.
That is this first reason bandits are usually not smart. The second reason is that most bandits are bandits out of desperation or are mentally sick and like being bullies (generally resulting from being abused or incompetant)
It would be nice if pfo maintained that dynamic, made it so cooperation has a high enough benefit that any smart person will play bandits only for rp and not because they actually expect to make a decent living.
When I first read this post I wondered if you were trying to be intentionally insulting and inflammatory, even your comment in brackets is irksome. However I’ll put that aside and not respond in kind, as there is no need to throw more fuel on the fire.
One point that people seem to be struggling with (myself included) is that Bluddwolf and the UNC are going to play the type of game that appeals to them, irrespective of whether it is more efficient/beneficial or note. I’m sure many of us have created characters in DnD which were not min max godlings, rather they were fun to play.
You’re not going to win an argument/discussion with Bluudwolf and the UNC because that is how they want to play. I also suspect that what the post here (which often seems intended to get a reaction) may not be true representation of what they may actually do (only time will tell). I could be wrong but they seem to like getting a reaction, which some are more than happy to oblige with.
Whether or not RL bandits are dumb, bullies, mentally sick or been subjected to abuse is irrelevant to why a person wants to play this character type. Bandits are a needed part of this game as they will provide conflict and become targets for others. All of this is good and will add depth to the game. Whether we agree with the UNC methods or philosophy is also irrelevant. It’s how they intend to play. As long as they’re not being griefers (which Goblinworks will eventually deal with) more power to them. Heck I might even join them for a spot of banditry, or another group as it will be fun to be the bad guy.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I will reiterate, a group of 12 - 14 in a bandit / raiding party is not a zerg. It is a relatively small (squad) sized unit, large enough to be effective in most engagements. Small enough to still be stealthy. Most importantly, large enough to delay for reinforcements if needed.
In other words, you either expect a very large variance in how hard your targets are or you expect your bandits to be about half as effective as your opponents.
That's not a problem if you can make it work; quantity has a quality of its own. Particularly if you manage to become annoying enough that Pax is forced to withdraw their support or be on the losing side of an embargo, or if you manage to become annoying enough that all potential targets work with Pax and become verboten.
Again, if you never lose an engagement, you are spreading your resources over too few opportunities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In other words, you either expect a very large variance in how hard your targets are or you expect your bandits to be about half as effective as your opponents.I will reiterate, a group of 12 - 14 in a bandit / raiding party is not a zerg. It is a relatively small (squad) sized unit, large enough to be effective in most engagements. Small enough to still be stealthy. Most importantly, large enough to delay for reinforcements if needed.
I don't expect our bandits to be half as effective as our targets, I am preparing for the possibility of unknown.
I am the kind of person that gets up an hour earlier than I have to; and I arrive at work, no later than a half-hour before I'm scheduled to start. Why? Because you never know what could happen.
If you wish to run in a group of 4 - 6, for whatever reason, that is up to you. I'd rather assume that your 4 - 6 are fairly competent and may have backup, so I would go with a force strength of 2.5 times that number.
If you feel that is overkill, you should try to run in a larger number. Or you should opt for non combat solutions if you come to encounter a UNC bandit troupe.
Nihimon can chant that "Millions for defense, not one Copper for Tribute". That is fine by us. He is welcome to reject any SAD that he is offered. We will do our best to take him and his companions out and we will loot all for the 75% and they will also lose 25% from destruction and threaded gear will take durability hit as well.
I understand his stance, and respect it if he is consistent with it. Do I believe it is viable, probably no less so thnn you believe my use of strength is efficient.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I am the kind of person that gets up an hour earlier than I have to; and I arrive at work, no later than a half-hour before I'm scheduled to start. Why? Because you never know what could happen.
And you intend to bring that flaw into PFO, unaltered and unexamined. You could get an extra 20 hours or so per year if you arrived 25 minutes early instead, and you would be late an insignificant amount more often.
Likewise, instead of three groups of 12, you could field four groups of nine and get 25-30% more profit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am the kind of person that gets up an hour earlier than I have to; and I arrive at work, no later than a half-hour before I'm scheduled to start. Why? Because you never know what could happen.
And you intend to bring that flaw into PFO, unaltered and unexamined. You could get an extra 20 hours or so per year if you arrived 25 minutes early instead, and you would be late an insignificant amount more often.
Likewise, instead of three groups of 12, you could field four groups of nine and get 25-30% more profit.
Arriving 15-30 minutes early for work is no flaw. It usually means your more then prepared for the day, and in turn leave early because the day flowed quite well. I know because I do the same... Now anyway, I used to arrive at the nick of time. The rest of the day was a joke.
Now, for the 9 or 12 argument... You can bet if we only have 9, the same thing will happen... You will give us your loot, or we will take it.
The over all profit is just icing. I guarantee I will be wearing some of your hard labor equipment.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
The over all profit is just icing.
That's fine, but your recruitment is more effective if you come out and say that you want to kill people, and taking their stuff is icing on the cake. Especially since the people who want to take people's stuff (and killing them is optional) might think that they are in competition with you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That's fine, but your recruitment is more effective if you come out and say that you want to kill people, and taking their stuff is icing on the cake. Especially since the people who want to take people's stuff (and killing them is optional) might think that they are in competition with you.
The UnNamed Company is open to both, the bloodthirsty and the non bloodthirsty. We will have bandits, assassins, bounty hunters, mercenaries, clerics, sorcerers, necromancers. We are open to all class types, professions and alignments (although I doubt Lawful Goods will stay for long). We are open to most reputation levels, with perhaps the exceptions of the two extremes. No room for genuine griefers or Care Bears.
Again, you should not concern yourself with our recruitment, our numbers are just fine. Even if they weren't, our play style attracts more to it than yours does. Few players in Open World PvP are playing to save the community from the ravages of an Open World PvP game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think it wise to assume a max reputation character is a "Care Bear". I know you're smart enough to imagine a character who commits dastardly deeds without ever decreasing his Reputation. Yes, sometimes reputation hits are the best and most efficient method for getting what you want or need, especially on a combat-focused character. But having a score like that has its own advantages too...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think it wise to assume a max reputation character is a "Care Bear". I know you're smart enough to imagine a character who commits dastardly deeds without ever decreasing his Reputation. Yes, sometimes reputation hits are the best and most efficient method for getting what you want or need, especially on a combat-focused character. But having a score like that has its own advantages too...
I specifically used the word "genuine" to cover that for both the griefer and the care bear.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ok, that makes sense. It's just, in the context of the sentence before, you seem to think a person of maximum reputation must necessarily be a genuine care bear, which I don't think is true at all. I also don't think minimum rep characters must necessarily be genuine griefers. Both types of characters merely have a much, much greater chance of being a genuine griefer or carebear.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Darkfall won't last many more months in my opinion. Active membership in clans is dropping like a rock (three months ago or so there were just under 9,000, now around 5800).
Here are a few things related to PvP I have noticed that has added to the rapid decline.
There are many levels of PvP
-The highest end PvP, where many players on either side of a grand conflict (fighting as an army over a castle or keep, a space station, a piece of land to call your own) fight for a reason, with an objective, and victory terms, with the prize at the end of the fight. This is what real PvP is all about. Darkfall has little to no benefit for holding a keep. The crafting gains are pitifully small. The gate system is not easily managed by the leaders of the clan, causing the gates to usually remain open and keeps occupied by hostile players on a regular basis. The weak bonuses to the village system are not motivating clan members to take nearby villages as the gains are very short term and largely irrelevant. The current keep maintenance system is broken...walls and structures remain unrepaired and they are not a liability in a siege. There have been requests for this to be fixed for months to no avail.
-Battleground PvP, which is really a manufactured zone, either instanced or in the open, but very structured with victory conditions determined by the developer. These are fun in many cases if well designed. They can be totally not fun if poorly designed, the landscape imbalanced, the ability to camp graveyard or respawn sites if poorly thought out, or the victory conditions impossible to meet (remember the original Alterac Valley in WoW that would go on for days?).
-Individual PvP scenarios where opposing factions fight for resources, a town or village, an area of town, or to attack or defend a location or supply depot. At this time the Raiding blog covers this well. Hopefully this is how we will encourage group PvP in a way that provides benefits when a structured group works towards a common goal. Darkfall is not doing this well. Villages are largely irrelevant, as the only thing they contribute to a clan is gold, and gold is so easy to make otherwise there is no reason to take villages, and little is lost if yours is taken.
One on One PvP - Darkfall absolutely fails at this aspect, since there are no consequences for either side, besides a small amount of loot. Some loot might be valuable, but as noted above, gold is easy to make so the loot is not relevant. What makes Darkfall PvP such a failure is the lack of incentive to choose worthy targets. Killing and ganking an afk harvester is not PvP. Attacking a brand new character who has less than 1,000 prowess points is not PvP. It is P on P combat, but there are no negative consequences for an attacker who attacks a helpless target.
-The center nine map tiles are "Danger Level V" and are supposedly where the big PvP battles are to occur. But there is zero reason to PVP there. The only thing that happens there is players hunting for treasure map hunters and gatherers, both of which are largely lightly armed and armored. But there are not even many enemy monsters n this area that are not available elsewhere (at the level at least, the Shadow Knight keeps look cool and interesting, but the same level monsters are scattered all over the rest of the map).
This is what will differentiate Pathfinder Online. The alignment system and the remnants of the old flag system make both sides in a PvP scenario consider the consequences and choose to proceed, or to rethink their potential actions. Strong consequences should not be considered "punishment", merely the result of a choice made by that player. If PFO ever chooses to abandon the consequences for PvP as currently conceived (whatever the final system ends up as) the game will eventually fail, as all consequence-free PvP games do. If you don't think so, look at the "Free For All PvP with full loot" games on the market and see which ones will be around in another year or two.
-
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree with you Hardin, except I think that DF will drag on a bit longer. If things get too bad they will likely go to a FtP model and combine the NA and Euro servers before giving up the ghost. How they could combine the servers with the territory issues, I am not certain, though.
As for the rest, I agree completely. An MMO game, to be a real success, needs to accommodate a broad range of playstyles. That can include extensive PVP combat, but should not be the "ALL" or it becomes a fringe game.
Something between Hello Kitty Island and Total consequence free Bloodfest, so that there can be something more than boring constant safety or Epeen Killer culture.
I trust that GW will find the correct balance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The center nine map tiles are "Danger Level V" and are supposedly where the big PvP battles are supposed to occur. But there is zero reason to PVP there. The only thing that happens there is players hunting for treasure map hunters and gatherers, both of which are largely lightly armed and armored. But there are not even many enemy monsters n this area that are not available elsewhere (at the level at least, the Shadow Knight keeps look cool and interesting, but the same level monsters are scattered all over the rest of the map).
This is sort of related to my dislike/concern about having some sort of consequence-free PvP areas in PFO. Too often special PvP areas are avoided unless the payoff is really substantial.
I thought the raiding blog really showed the possibilities of setting up PvP that might have consequences, not just for the characters who are involved, but more importantly, for their settlements. Some players might really want to be crafters, but crafter militiamen might need to pull some guard shifts if the outposts are going to keep the town in supply.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Taking a page from Shadowbane might be a good idea in terms of what Open PvP means. There was a starter island that worked like a tutorial to show you the ropes and then 3 or so capital cities that were free of PvP, but the rest of the world, including player settlements, were all open to conflict.
In player settlements you had to place an intent to siege and a window was created where the structures and such could be attacked. However, players could freely fight each other at any time without such a notice of intent, just not take the settlement.
You could also loot whatever was in a person's inventory (but not what they had equipped) off of their corpse or pickpocketing as a rogue.
This lead to meaningful 1 on 1 PvP, team PvP and siege combat.
However, it also meant that a lot of mobs were an after thought and used just to grind up levels or to loot special required tokens for classes from certain bosses.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Whether or not RL bandits are dumb, bullies, mentally sick or been subjected to abuse is irrelevant to why a person wants to play this character type. Bandits are a needed part of this game as they will provide conflict and become targets for...
Generally this character type is actually played by just that sort of person in other games. Its extremely common in EVE for example for people to say "I gank for the tears not the ISK".
I don't expect our bandits to be half as effective as our targets, I am preparing for the possibility of unknown.
That is not how it usually works among the professionals after reliable profit rather than "tears".
In Eve it is mainly the low end casual losec gate campers (the impression you get from chat convo's is they tend to be groups of high school age boys) that do the "kill everything and see what loot we get" approach.
The professionals work as efficient teams, generally in high sec. They have scouts that monitor and cargo scan everything leaving trading hubs, they select likely targets (as a rule of thumb an industrial with more than a 100 mill or a freighter with over a bill cargo will be worth taking down). In the case of freighters they will work out what pipe the freighters route takes it through and then position half a dozen pilots in Tornado's on gate along that route. They lose 800 mill worth of battle cruisers and gain a bill plus of loot.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't expect our bandits to be half as effective as our targets, I am preparing for the possibility of unknown.
That is not how it usually works among the professionals after reliable profit rather than "tears".
In Eve it is mainly the low end casual losec gate campers (the impression you get from chat convo's is they tend to be groups of high school age boys) that do the "kill everything and see what loot we get" approach.
The professionals work as efficient teams, generally in high sec.
I'm not sure if you understood my meaning. I determine the size of the group of bandits based on two things: Experience and Potential Risk.
If I find that 8 - 10 bandits in a party are enough for almost all encounters, than that is what we will do. If that needs to be adjusted up or down, well experience will dictate that.
If I am forging out into a new territory, I would first go out in a party much larger, perhaps even twice as large. If we find no more risk than usual, than the large party can split up and cover more ground.
This I believe is a very professional approach. Be prepared for the worse and hope for the best comes to mind.
As for motivations being based on "tears" or gold, I can't control that. Some players will cry over fairly small loses, while others stoically accept much larger losses as part of the game.
Once someone starts thinking, "I won't plan this or carry out this plan, because it might upset someone"... wrong kind of game for that in my opinion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If I find that 8 - 10 bandits in a party are enough for almost all encounters, than that is what we will do. If that needs to be adjusted up or down, well experience will dictate that.
If I am forging out into a new territory, I would first go out in a party much larger, perhaps even twice as large. If we find no more risk than usual, than the large party can split up and cover more ground.
This I believe is a very professional approach. Be prepared for the worse and hope for the best comes to mind.
I was actually suggesting that a few scouts further up the road to forewarn you and allow party size to be adjusted on the fly would be more effective :D
The highest end PvP, where many players on either side of a grand conflict (fighting as an army over a castle or keep, a space station, a piece of land to call your own) fight for a reason, with an objective, and victory terms, with the prize at the end of the fight. This is what real PvP is all about.
------This is what will differentiate Pathfinder Online. The alignment system and the remnants of the old flag system make both sides in a PvP scenario consider the consequences and choose to proceed, or to rethink their potential actions. Strong consequences should not be considered "punishment", merely the result of a choice made by that player. If PFO ever chooses to abandon the consequences for PvP as currently conceived (whatever the final system ends up as) the game will eventually fail, as all consequence-free PvP games do. If you don't think so, look at the "Free For All PvP with full loot" games on the market and see which ones will be around in another year or two.
While I largely agree with your statement as an analysis I disagree to a certain extent with your conclusion about PfO (and open world PVP games in general).
From observations of open world PVP games such as Eve, Age of Conan etc consequences do little or nothing to deter those inclined to indulge themselves in the meaningless side of PVP.
What does however in my opinion is making meaningful PVP both rewarding and plentiful. A large amount of the meaningless pvp we all decry is actually driven as much by boredom as a desire to grief.
Consequences for PVP just frankly aren't going to concern many and regardless of the argument that they shouldn't be seen as a punishment (one I tend to agree with) the majority will see them as precisely that. They will be regarded merely as obstacles to be got around or just an annoyance.
In a carrot or stick situation the carrot will win out everytime as a way of steering behaviour towards what is desired. Give players enough chances to indulge in meaningful PVP and they mostly won't be bored and start going on rampages. The few that do will be the sociopathic bully type which frankly are the ones that will always go camp the newbie area given a chance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I largely agree with your statement as an analysis I disagree to a certain extent with your conclusion about PfO (and open world PVP games in general).
From observations of open world PVP games such as Eve, Age of Conan etc consequences do little or nothing to deter those inclined to indulge themselves in the meaningless side of PVP.
What does however in my opinion is making meaningful PVP both rewarding and plentiful. A large amount of the meaningless pvp we all decry is actually driven as much by boredom as a desire to grief.
Consequences for PVP just frankly aren't going to concern many and regardless of the argument that they shouldn't be seen as a punishment (one I tend to agree with) the majority will see them as precisely that. They will be regarded merely as obstacles to be got around or just an annoyance.
In a carrot or stick situation the carrot will win out everytime as a way of steering behaviour towards what is desired. Give players enough chances to indulge in...
I suppose the difference in "consequences" in say, EVE Online, are there, they are negligible. The security system is pretty much only there for the players that choose to care about it, and those that don't learn quickly how to game it. What I hope to see in PFO is a system of "meaningful consequences" by the use of the alignment system. The flag system was difficult to understand and likely hard to code, and would be instantly gamed by those who spend their time doing such. But the long term implications of wanton murder should push those players into the Chaotic Evil corner. Many of them won't give a damn about that, and that's okay. But the system, as designed, will make their life much more difficult, and that's okay too. After all, they are choosing their actions while understanding what the consequences of their actions will be.
The alignment system will not eliminate players that choose to behave in utterly antisocial ways any more than laws eliminate crime, but it will slowly isolate these players, and that is their choice, made through their own actions. They may well all end up camping out in a big hideout together since no one else will have them, or each living in isolation, but they will not be welcome in "civil society" as Pathfinder Online defines it.
The consequences in Eve online are actually pretty severe. Those that are bored and choose the meaningless pvp route mostly go to high sec and suicide gank (while this can be done for profit it mostly isnt from what I have seen but done for tears).
The consequence is they lose their ship and all its gear every kill. PfO consequences are a bit of alignment shift which they can get back with a bit of PvE if they are bothered. As to not being welcome anywhere I am pretty sure they will be able to access training and marketplaces somewhere if they pay well.
Eve is exactly a case in point, it has meaningful pvp and in times when null sec is in turmoil people are happy to stay there killing each other. When it is not in turmoil however you start seeing the suicide alts in high sec become more prevalent as the boredom sets in.
The problem many open world pvp games have had frankly is making meaningful PVP available to all. Unfortunately in most games the meaningful PVP such as settlement warfare is kept to the large organisations. If PfO can make small pvp interactions meaningful and plentiful in opportunities then I think we are more likely to get the game people here want . Raiding outposts I think is a good step in that direction as long as they do not make the rewards for holding an outpost or raiding an outpost to watered down.
While I haven't played Darkfall, so I may have misunderstood, I have been told that items such as villages are often traded back and forth as the largest benefits accrue from taking a village rather than holding it. This sort of win trading mechanic is unfortunately encouraged in far too many games with open world pvp objectives
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As to not being welcome anywhere I am pretty sure they will be able to access training and marketplaces somewhere if they pay well.
This seems to be in line with what Lee Hammock has said.
If you are a low reputation character, or of an alignment that is not welcome in the towns that provide the training you need, you may not be able to advance to the higher tiers of your role. There may be bandit towns that can provide that training, but they will likely charge through the nose for it since they cost more for upkeep. So it's not a matter of going in with one character and handing off gear to another; settlements involve more than that.
However, he immediately follows that up with a restatement of their overarching goal.
You're right in that a player who does not care for the consequences will still kill people, but our goal is to make sure that players does not prosper long term so he falls behind the power curve.
I think it's a mistake to assume that the "consequences" in games like EVE or DF or any other "murder simulator" as Ryan calls them will be like the consequences in PFO.
@Marlagram
In eve really no one cares that much about security status. The consequences of hisec PVP in Eve that hurt are guaranteed ship loss. Which is a lot more severe than PfO.
The point remains that sticks in MMO's rarely deter people and carrots remain the better way.
Make Meaningful PVP accessible and frequent and people won't get bored and go rpking