Goblin Squad Member
|
Nihimon,
You had criticized me for having made an arguement using the expression "some people". Now you use the expression "a large number of people".
Why don't you be "Brave" and list the people that represent this supposed "large" number of irritated people?
By my count "large" = between 5 - 10 posters, all affiliated with you in some way.
Ryan has already answered this question. He had expressed the idea that there may be a zone type where the consequences of (winning) in PvP as it relates to Alignment and Reputation would be turned off. He has stated that in war, those consequences will be turned off. There has been a statements that Faction Warfare may also be alignment / reputation consequence free once a player has dedicated a certain amount of effort in faction warfare.
You still have all of the consequences in the NPC settlement zones. You still have the ability of PC settlements to set their own laws and restrict access based on alignment and or reputation. You still have the consequences attached to attacking unflagged players.
You are aware that there is a PvP Flag Revamp in progress. This revamp could alter everything that we had thought we had known about PvP in PFO.
So I have to wonder about the motivation of this thread. I could see it argued that it is a flame bait / troll thread. Even more so because the "debate" you are referring to has not been in discussion for nearly a week.
Perhaps it is the stated nature of the Feud system, with its short notice, short term and lessened consequences ( or same as warfare) that has you nervous or "irritated"?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I started this thread in response to this post by Ryan.
When I said the back-and-forth has clearly irritated a large number of people, I did so with the clear knowledge that my actions clearly irritated a large number of people.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I started this thread in response to this post by Ryan.
When I said the back-and-forth has clearly irritated a large number of people, I did so with the clear knowledge that my actions clearly irritated a large number of people.
I applaud you, in that you admitted that you had irritated a large number of people. That being said, the thread in question has nothing to do with the issue you brought up here.
The whole discussion of PVP Consequences should be on hold, until we have updated plans for:
PVP Flagging Revamp
Feuds
Faction War
Zone Types
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I applaud you, in that you admitted that you had irritated a large number of people. That being said, the thread in question has nothing to do with the issue you brought up here.I started this thread in response to this post by Ryan.
When I said the back-and-forth has clearly irritated a large number of people, I did so with the clear knowledge that my actions clearly irritated a large number of people.
Wow.
The whole discussion of PVP Consequences should be on hold, until we have updated plans for:
PVP Flagging Revamp
Feuds
Faction War
Zone Types
Why do you feel this is true? I actually think the opposite. I would like to know the plan for general PvP as it specifically refers to these "consequence-free zones". As I mentioned in another thread, I do not see how promoting/allowing this would fit into the overall design...at the most fundamental level.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@KitNyx, yeah, I'd think the philosophical foundation about pvp consequences (and conditions that would allow consequence-free pvp) would need to be pretty well thought out before they start planning everything that will be built on top of it. Yes, it's an iterative process, but consequence free zones would likely change the scope of flags, feuds, wars...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It depends on how you interpret GW's overall design.
This is how I break it down:
The most significant accomplishment and loss in the game is based on settlement development, control, conflict and the potential for settlement loss.
This is the "Core", the "Heart" of the game. All of the meaningful Human Interactions that the Devs have spoken about revolve around the player settlement.
Settlements are the hub of socialization, trade, crafting, politics, economy, and conflict. However, this should not foster the impression that these are all equal. All but one of these feed into and support the one. Conflict is the one. Conflict is at the very core of an Open World PVP Sandbox MMO.
If the greatest loss in an MMO is the result of PVP, then the greatest component of the game is PVP. Everything else supports it. Since the greatest loss in the game is the loss of a settlement, via PVP. Then the greatest reward is to take through PVP a settlement from your rival.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It depends on how you interpret GW's overall design.
This is how I break it down:
The most significant accomplishment and loss in the game is based on settlement development, control, conflict and the potential for settlement loss.
This is the "Core", the "Heart" of the game. All of the meaningful Human Interactions that the Devs have spoken about revolve around the player settlement.
Settlements are the hub of socialization, trade, crafting, politics, economy, and conflict. However, this should not foster the impression that these are all equal. All but one of these feed into and support the one. Conflict is the one. Conflict is at the very core of an Open World PVP Sandbox MMO.
Then it is a good thing this is an Open World Sandbox MMO with PvP (not that I understand the relevance of the "open world" token).
If the greatest loss in an MMO is the result of PVP, then the greatest component of the game is PVP. Everything else supports it. Since the greatest loss in the game is the loss of a settlement, via PVP. Then the greatest reward is to take through PVP a settlement from your rival.
I not only do not see how you quantified this, I do not see how it follows. Sorry for being dense.
I can go ahead and tell you though, the greatest loss I will face in an MMO is the loss of my player community, which does not necessarily have anything to do with a settlement. My example, as true and offered as a counter, negates your absolute claim. I am sure many others here can offer other, non-PvP related greatest losses in an MMO (my wife, I am sure, would offer a crafting experience).
Have any of you played Wizardry Online? That's the kind of PVP consequences I think PF Online should have. What they have is A hard-edge(Possibly perma-death, although that is rare) and stealing people's items, but not what they have equipped.
But what I expect is something similar to EVE where you lose basically everything yo had with you, but with that the market becomes so bloated with replacement goods that death loses it meaning except on a massive scale. That isn't by design but really people playing the needs of the market which is fair.
In my mind to keep a PVP experience that is fun you need to keep some consequences that bite behind it. Making you actually want to inflict those consequences on the other guy and avoid them yourself. That's why I like the possible sting of perma-death, although others may not share my ideas.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can go ahead and tell you, the greatest loss I will face in an MMO is the loss of my player community...
VERY, VERY well put. If we had signatures I would put this quote in mine.
I would personally torch all of TEO's settlements and delete my character if it guaranteed PFO a community where all combat revolved around meaningful interaction, and people could join and play in a friendly welcoming atmosphere free of unprovoked ganking and harassment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would personally torch all of TEO's settlements and delete my character if it guaranteed PFO a community where all combat revolved around meaningful interaction, and people could join and play in a friendly welcoming atmosphere free of unprovoked ganking and harassment.
Its a pvp oriented game.
Early indications are that there will be little to no real PVE content.
Of course there is going to be ganking and harassment. That's quite likely to be the ONLY content in the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would personally torch all of TEO's settlements and delete my character if it guaranteed PFO a community where all combat revolved around meaningful interaction, and people could join and play in a friendly welcoming atmosphere free of unprovoked ganking and harassment.Its a pvp oriented game.
Early indications are that there will be little to no real PVE content.
Of course there is going to be ganking and harassment. That's quite likely to be the ONLY content in the game.
Yeah. Except monster hex spawn areas, random instance dungeons, escalations, Gathering expeditions, NPC faction grinding, Influence grinding, crafting, refining, trade, politics, exploration, etc...
Pretty much the whole thing...
Edited to emphasize what I disagree with. I doubt that we are going again.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here we go again
Going down the only road we've ever known...
(Oh Lord, I pray you give us Strength to Carry On)
The ability to duel or skirmish could be critical in training new players or just for practice. A safe zone or a safe pvp mode is not at all unreasonable. Rather, it should be an expected feature.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would personally torch all of TEO's settlements and delete my character if it guaranteed PFO a community where all combat revolved around meaningful interaction, and people could join and play in a friendly welcoming atmosphere free of unprovoked ganking and harassment.Its a pvp oriented game.
Early indications are that there will be little to no real PVE content.
Of course there is going to be ganking and harassment. That's quite likely to be the ONLY content in the game.
Welcome back Summersnow. The community has been lacking someone with your perspective on things.
Word on the street is that there is already a basic version of the escalation system in place. That is a system which allows NPCs to invade regions of the map. They'll be most easily held back by players specialed in PVE combat. There is also word that they'll grant items used to intensify escalation cycles where-ever you choose, including the territory of PVP groups that spent all their points getting skills to help them ruin your day.
I'm sure you might appreciate this chance to turn the tables. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Settlements are the hub of socialization, trade, crafting, politics, economy, and conflict. However, this should not foster the impression that these are all equal. All but one of these feed into and support the one. Conflict is the one. Conflict is at the very core of an Open World PVP Sandbox MMO.
Funnily, I see it as the other way around, that conflict is there to support the other aspects. PvP without politics and trade can work fine, but politics and trade are meaningless without risk.
The core of PFO, as has been repeated so often, is meaningful human interaction, which in the GW worldview requires some level of conflict, but includes so much more.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The players are te raw material. Probably want a power block of LG setting up day 1. Then a nice polarisation of playstyles should develop with a. Chance for safety of players who prefer that (who knows what proportions) and then the spectrum is free for all other playstyles in reference to pvp. What would be cool if a patchwork of different laws across the map emerge that reflect that. I'm not sure what FFA hexes achieve. They might be fabled areas perhaps or blocker hexes where more conflict reduces rate of expansion of nations? Either way possibly areas for players who can't slake their thirst for pvp 24/7?
Whatever, it'll be fascinating to see if the map can change over time diversely. You'd have FFA hexes or 99% Safe hexes as incubators for their respective playstyles maybe? Eg newbs and FFA pvp'ers respectively? Certainly if one is furthest from the other that's a decent polarisation on the map already, perhaps encourage appropriate growth in said areas? Some anomalies can be good to the main 95% of the map also. Even te death penalty could be harsher in said FFA hexes Pharasma's magical influence dimmed by some other power. I'm sure some C/E would enjoy that privilege as newbs enjoy NPC Guard safely privileges.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The ability to duel or skirmish could be critical in training new players or just for practice. A safe zone or a safe pvp mode is not at all unreasonable. Rather, it should be an expected feature.
You might want to read Ryan's answer to the question Why no "non-lethal" duels?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd think dueling would be possible, with limits. I'd expect (mostly) non-lethal sparring to be done using the lowest quality weapons against against similarly-skilled opponents. Certain feats could be avoided/prohibited, if the purpose is mostly to teach tactics, for example. I don't think there needs to be a safe-mode; don't engage in 'practice' fights with people you don't know to trust. It might not be possible when NPC guards are watching, of course.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It might not be possible when NPC guards are watching, of course.
Good point. Even if both characters are flagged, the attack might be considered a Crime, which might cause the guards (or even Player-Character Enforcers) to get involved.
But you're absolutely right. There's no reason you can't fight a duel and simply stop when the loser is near death.
The ability to duel or skirmish could be critical in training new players or just for practice. A safe zone or a safe pvp mode is not at all unreasonable. Rather, it should be an expected feature.You might want to read Ryan's answer to the question Why no "non-lethal" duels?
I did. A year and eight months ago.
I agree that getting duel requests can be annoying. That's easily solved by only allowing them in predetermined locations (ie: arenas).
I agree that a gladiatorial style arena system can and should be implemented, possibly in every settlement that chooses to build one. Arenas could offer one-on-one duels or group skirmishes.
No one here can honestly say they wouldn't appreciate the opportunity to practice. I can't tell you how much I hate duels, but I also can't say how many times over the years they have been useful when I need to try something out. What breaks immersion more--being able to test a new technique immediately with a trusted friend (or say, a target dummy?), or having to travel halfway across the River Kingdoms to the single in-game arena just to try something out?
I disagree with everything else in that post.
1: There is nothing immersion breaking about pulling your punches. Duels don't have to end in death.
2: Agree. Solution is arenas.
3: The reward for dueling is obvious--you get better at playing your character. That is a reward worth investing resources toward.
4: Real combat is not devalued. Duels carry no risk/reward, no loot, no territory. Real combat does.
5: People are constantly dueling in other games despite lack of reward for the sake of socializing and improving their game. Ie: meaningful interaction.
6: Saying that people who enjoy dueling are generally annoying is kind of a silly thing to say. One could say the exact same thing about people who enjoy PvP.
There's no reason you can't fight a duel and simply stop when the loser is near death.
There are several.
Define "near death."
How do you get someone near death if you can kill them in just a few hits? At some point, you're either fine or dead.
What if your opponent doesn't notice or acknowledge they are near death and kills you while you're standing down?
How do you attack someone without bringing the guards down on you? How silly is it to have to leave town to duel? Or travel halfway across the map?
How many people on a team have to die before the team is near death?
How do you get everyone on two skirmish teams on the same page of an arbitrary honor system of victory?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Hudax, I suggested a Yield Mechanic, and then refined it significantly. My own intuition is that this would be very simple to program, but I don't really have a firm grasp on the context in which the devs are working.
/Yield: The character is unable to attack for a short time (15 seconds? 2 minutes?). Ideally, the character would animate on his knees with his hands clasped in front of him and head bowed.
/Mercy: Toggles whether the character automatically drops target on a character who uses /Yield.
I'm not sure I understand all of Ryan's objections to non-lethal Duels, or whether this system I've proposed - which can clearly be used to support non-lethal Duels - would inspire the same objections.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that is the sum of Ryan's likely reason. Why code in what the players can do for themselves?
As others have said above, one big obstacle would be if there is an automatic criminal flag for assault (attacking). Once the duel starts, the person who attacks first would be flagged Criminal and open to legal attacks by anyone. (I guess that's why you bring your seconds to the fight.)
Of course, settlements can set/change their flags, and some could set the criminal flag for killing rather than attacking. Sparring and practice fights would be common enough in any martial culture, and within the law. I think practice grounds or arenas make sense as a place to legally do this stuff.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I will concede the benefit of including one type of consequence free zone. If GW lets settlements build arenas, upon entering an arena, while inside the arena, and after all parties involved agree on a consequence free warning pop-up. I would question whether Good characters could participate.
Rationales:
Reputation, arena combat is "positive gameplay" as intended. By adding the arena, GW is positioning the consequence freezone as working as intended.
Alignment:
I don't have one...I suppose it would be the same rationale used for the lack of alignment hits in war.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
First, sorry for digging up an old thread. After some searching, this seemed the most relevant for my question.
Second, is there a more recent or more "official" location to read up on the consequences of PvP?
Seems to me in "real life" (say the western frontier in the mid-1800s) banditry was solved by hanging. Pretty much a permanent solution to the bandit in question.
Clearly in PfO that isn't an acceptable outcome. However, it seems logical that there would be some mechanic to keep "bandits" from repeatedly returning to a location where they are unwanted (by the player community) - OTHER than forcing those same players to stop whatever it is they'd prefer to be doing and instead dealing with those same bandits. Again.
For context, the ability for me to enjoy playing any MMO is directly proportional to the amount of time I can spend pursuing my goals (including community goals I choose to participate in). I view non-consensual PvP as impinging on that time, and so would like to better understand if my concern is founded or unfounded.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
An Arena could make for an interesting PoI. I could imagine an Arena linked to a settlement could help reduce Unrest, seeing as entertainment of any kind helps the normal folk forget their day-to-day worries. An Evil group may even be able to reduce Upkeep costs through the use of Slaves. Using slaves in an Arena near an evil settlement should still have a net positive on Unrest. Using slaves in an Arena near a good settlement may cancel out the Unrest benefit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Lifedragn I am assuming you are answering to the title of this thread and not so much to Ayar who just resurrected this thread? ;)
@Ayar Unfortunately there is not much discussion going on at these forums about the consequences of (unconsented) PvP.
That was a bad joke......
There are many long-going discussions about this, Ayar, so many in fact that I would not know to which one I should point you. Needless to say that there is no easy or definitive answer.
I am waiting for Nihimon to point you in the right direction. All I would advice you, keep an open mind about it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First Ayar, welcome! We hope you'll stick around and join as many conversations as interest you; we always want to hear new voices.
You may want to check out our beloved Nihimonicon, where the local Librarian's collected many items of general interest. I'm sure you'll find answers to current questions, along with all-new questions following along.
In particular, the second entry under "High Priority Threads", A couple of comments about PvP / Griefing, will begin to answer your question, but be warned: many threads around here, regardless of the original point, end up discussing PVP in one way or another, so be prepared :-). You'll also find things of interest under "Reference Posts", including at least one addressing your interest directly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Ayer,
There are many ways you can limit your exposure to non consensual PvP, but most involve limiting your character in some way as well. The system is built on the risk vs. reward premise. Obviously, only by taking greater risks will you have access to greater rewards.
If you are comfortable with the limitations of not taking greater risks, the easiest method is to not become part of a PC company or settlement. Membership in either of these would open you up to becoming a feud or war target. They may also require you to travel more frequently than if you remained in an NPC settlement and don't join a PC company. Traveling will expose you to greater risk of being robbed or attacked (There are ways to limit these as well which I will speak to later).
You should also avoid joining an NPC faction or at least do not level in one up to or beyond level 4. At that level you will become an automatically flagged PvP target for that faction's enemies.
The trade off for not joining companies, settlements and or factions is that you will be limited in access and training of upper tier skills and possibly crafted items as well. We do not know what the limitations are yet.
Traveling More Safely:
First rule, there is safety in numbers. Try not to travel alone unless you are very stealthy or evasive.
Second, unless well guarded, don't travel with more wealth than you can afford to lose.
Third and most important. Never assume that you are or will be safe. A bit of precautions on your part will go a long way in making you safer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ayar,
Banditry, since you mention it, is an activity that has special mechanisms attached to it. Being a bandit in PFO will not be all about attacking everyone you come across. It is somewhat unclear exactly how it will work but bandits will be able to demand tribute from travellers much like in a wild west holdup ("your money or your life!"), they are not free to just kill anyone at whim.
No one is free to just kill anyone at whim because attacks without "just cause", such as against enemies of war, criminals etc. comes at the price of reputation loss and alignment shifts.
In addition to the points Bluddwolf offered, I would like to add that since unprovoked attacks are, in a way, punished and discouraged, it is likely that PvEers, gatherers and RPers can spend most of their time out in the wild (as long as they stay away from PvP hotspots such as warzones etc.) without being attacked by other players.
Some of the player groups active on these forums have the intention to create "safe" areas where either their members or players in general can feel reasonably safe since peace is to be enforced by patrols etc.
However, there is no guarantee that anyone will be completely safe all the time. Even if non-consensual PvP in many situations have negative consequences for the attacker, the loot and "the fun of it" may be reason enough to attack anyway. And if you join a peace loving community you always run the risk of the settlement being attacked by a stronger enemy.
My point is that, even though no one is completely safe, it seems to me very likely that players who want to be able to adventure, gather, craft and roleplay in peace will be able to do so a lot of the time (certainly more so than in other games with open world PvP).
We won't know for sure though until the time we actually get to play the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Ayar, welcome to the forums :) Most of us are pretty friendly and helpful and don't mind answering questions, even if they've already been asked before, so please don't hesitate to ask anything or to start a new thread.
I've tried to compile a lot of useful information in Guild Recruitment & Helpful Links. It's a never-ending project though, and if you ever stumble across a post that you think deserves inclusion, please feel free to PM me or post a link to it in the Community Greetings! -- Guild Recruitment & Helpful Links thread.
Here are a few posts that should help you get a feel for the designers' intentions for PvP in PFO:
... a lot of people will come to Pathfinder Online with two incorrect preconceptions about the way the game is played. Those two preconceptions are:
1: Open World PvP implies a murder simulator
2: Killing early, often, and without discrimination is the route to long-term success
These two preconceptions mutually reinforce each other. If #2 is true, #1 is inevitable. This is the trap that game after game after game fell into. (Sometimes they didn't "fall" into it as much as they embraced it as a design paradigm on purpose.)
We are going to break this pattern and we are going to redefine those preconceptions. In order to do that we must repeatedly and powerfully shock the system. One of those shocks is a negative feedback loop that links random killing to gimping character development.
More...
If you want to PvP without consequence in PFO you will have to do it in one of the following ways;
1) Catch a flagged character (criminal, heinous, etc).
2) Start a feud, literally giving you the chance to choose which enemies are meaningful to you.
3) Start a war, again giving you the chance to choose with whom to fight.
4) Join one or more factions in order to take on one or more enemy factions.
5) Stand and Deliver (within its limitations).
6) Assassination (again, within its limitations. More on that another time!)
7) Pick up some bounties.
8) Take ownership/management of one or more elements of a PoI and defend them from attackers (who have initiated an attack).Any other PvP is griefing [[ edit - too dogmatic/incendiary a term - its not 'griefing' but its PvP behaviour that only has meaning for the killer and that meaning is more often than not the maniacal joy of killing. Sometimes its for looting a player, and in such instances the benefits of potential loot should be weighed against the loss of rep/alignment. There is an appropriate trade off]]. Attacking a player without provocation or sanctions will result in reputation and alignment loss. It's basically murder. Players who engage in a lot of this behaviour will find their reputation is adversely affected, and so is the reputation of their company or settlement. Eventually their company or settlement will suck.
If you want to engage in PvP in PFO without incurring negative rep then choose one of the myriad options above. The ONLY kind of PvP that is not sanctioned is jumping players who have no quarrel with you at all and who have deliberately avoided flagging themselves for PvP. That kind of PvP is completely open to you, but it will cost you reputation and alignment. Just as it would in the Pathfinder universe, and it is afterall Golarion that we are simulating in PFO.
I would also recommend these threads:
A couple of comments about PvP / Griefing
Kickstarter Community Thread: Player vs. Player Conflict
And of course, there are a number of blogs about PvP. The best way to find those will be to look through the Goblinworks Blogs section of what some very flatteringly call the Nihimonicon (which I usually call the Guild Recruitment & Helpful Links list). I've tried to give a quick summary of what each blog is about.