Red vs. Blue


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

The idea of Red vs. Blue (RvB) is two groups of about equal size and power permanently with the hostile flag to each other. Winning fights is preferred but neither is trying to permanently destroy the other. Characters will actually switch sides to maintain the power balance.

The purpose is for players to teach other players good ways to successfully live and operate in a game where you might be attacked at any time. There is education, but you're also subject to regular and very intentional attacks from your RvB counterpart so it's a rather mortal hands-on learning experience.

The size factors and expense of declaring wars/feuds makes settlements or companys bad vehicles to operate a permanent RvB arrangement. Factions seem perfect for it.

Two factions could remain permanently hostile (for educational reasons, perhaps with help from the Guide Program) at no expense to the players. Levels 1-3 the hostility flag is at-will so players can wade in at their own pace.

It's not optimal for GW to take the time to author two factions that players usurp to run a RvB campaign. Maybe GW clears a path for RvB with world-appropriatly named factions like Red Rivers and Blue Starlings (example only) that are hostile only with each other and no other faction cares about them - some long forgotten slight between two local River Kingdoms groups (lore opportunity!) that has taken on a life of its own.

Also, for the people who want nothing more than to log in and stab faces until they log out instead of loitering just outside starter towns this is a constructive outlet that rewards them for doing their favorite thing.

If players want it the RvB factions will thrive and leadership will communicate enough to remain balanced and educationally in conflict, or they will wither if players decide to gank newbs at starter towns and raid outposts for their pvp education, but I think the first one would be nice.

Goblin Squad Member

You could avoid the faction shenanigans and just have two CCs declare a feud.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Red and Blue are going to happen one way or another. I think that it works better if it's an emergent behavior of systems intended for something similar but slightly different, rather than specifically coded for.

A feud system that is general and robust enough to support RvB is probably also good enough to support a dynamic that I haven't thought of yet, so when that dynamic is desired, it does not require a new system to support.


Red vs blue in Eve is done mainly in hi sec

The PfO equivalent of hisec is the NPC starter towns where I believe PVP is heavily discouraged if not outright difficult. I cannot see many settlements being too happy with red v blue battles spilling over into their territory.

It also I would suggest fails the meaningful PVP check as this is purely PVP for the sake of PVP even if it is consensual. As Phyllain said if players want to do this form two CC's. Certainly shouldn't be any game mechanics put in place to promote it.

I am sure there will be many people happy to sit and watch these epic battles of red vs blue before performing the coup de grace on the victor and then having a happy time looting the battlefield

Goblin Squad Member

Phyllain wrote:
You could avoid the faction shenanigans and just have two CCs declare a feud.

Then only about 100 people, 50ish on each side, could do it and they'd have to pay to maintain the feud which would eventually have to end anyway. Faction removes both of those roadblocks.

RvB is a permanent conflict where the individual participants may change over time but it never ever ever ever ever ends.

ZenPagan wrote:
Red vs blue in Eve is done mainly in hi sec...The PfO equivalent of hisec is the NPC starter towns

I'm not trying to reproduce EVE. If I was I'd go play EVE.

ZenPagan wrote:
I would suggest fails the meaningful PVP check

I've never heard anyone argue before against the value RvB brings to players new to that kind of environment.

Quote:
Coding and mechanics!

The faction system is already coded and in the game, no extra guts required.

There are already people discussing an organized effort to welcome new players to PFO and help them acclimate to the new environment from their themepark pasts. The PFO combat system and open world pvp is a huge part of that. Two factions for an organized introduction to those things -a section of the Guide Program?- seems a very small thing to me to help achieve that big goal.


Proxima Sin wrote:

.

ZenPagan wrote:
Red vs blue in Eve is done mainly in hi sec...The PfO equivalent of hisec is the NPC starter towns
I'm not trying to reproduce EVE. If I was I'd go play EVE.

You missed the point I was making Red versus blue thrives in Eve hisec. It would not thrive in null sec. Eve has huge amounts of high sec PfO doesnt and what there is from what we have been told is going to be PVP disabled. This will leave Red versus Blue operating in an area where anyone else is free to involve themselves. My point is that unless you can limit the conflict to only red vs blue and exclude third parties it will face huge difficulties.

Proxima Sin wrote:

.

ZenPagan wrote:
I would suggest fails the meaningful PVP check
I've never heard anyone argue before against the value RvB brings to players new to that kind of environment.

And that was once again not the point I was making. People keep saying that they want PVP to be meaningful, Red vs Blue is basically horde vs alliance, rebels vs empire. There is no player driven reason to fight it is PVP for the sake of PVP. If you haven't heard people decrying Red vs Blue then you also havent visited the Eve forums where it is regularly argued over as to whether it is good or bad for new players, as is the Eve university blob

Proxima Sin wrote:

.

The faction system is already coded and in the game, no extra guts required.

The faction system is proposed, whether it is coded as yet is another matter and one known only to the devs.However the faction system as currently described would not allow new players to dive straight into red versus blue. It has already been posted that you would have to grind status with factions before becoming PVP enabled to members of opposing factions

They have largely removed limits to CC size from what I remember so it is still possible to do this using player CC's

Goblin Squad Member

As described, you can flag "for the cause" 2 seconds after joining a faction and fight for them as a level 1 without spending a second in grind. And as described they're as much in the game as swords will be. There hasn't been any announcement I've seen about removing the small size concept for companys or diminishing returns of influence around 50 members or feuds that can last indefinitely.

Zen made lots of EVE references which I'm going to ignore because I'm still not trying to fly spaceships in the River Kingdoms but he has a valid point about third parties interfering in RvB battles.

1. I think you're still picturing EVE fleet battles with swords and not any other way.
2. Any attackers have to deal with rep and alignment issues and become flagged for no discernible material rewards. At that point I would forget the RvB and smash the turkeys.
3. The possibility of third party interference and how to detect and deal with it IS part of what happens in the game so it should be a part of the education.

Zen's concern about how it might devolve into non-player-driven, unmeaningful pvp.

1. There's a potential for unmeaningful pvp in every part of the game, but we're not getting rid of the game.
2. If players were going to choose to do that isn't it better for them to expend the energy in a contained game space rather than free-floating across settlements, random hexes, and starter areas? With all the contention that bubbles up over what pvp is okay or not, why not give people who only want to stab faces a place to go be happy?
3. There is a player-driven reason. Players are already planning to teach newer players anyway about the game including how combat is different, survival tactics in the open areas, the game culture of NOT ganking or blobbing thoughtlessly that most of us want to encourage etc. and this makes it easier to facilitate that benefit.

Goblin Squad Member

reminds me of the Hatfield/McCoy feud.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
reminds me of the Hatfield/McCoy feud.

There's an open-ended chance for additional River Kingdoms lore that goes along with it.

Goblin Squad Member

You dont need the faction system for RvB.

They can just feud each others companies and make it mutual if GW codes that into the system.

ZenPagan has it though, it will not pop up unless there is a large area of "highsec" in PFO... Which I dont think there will be.

Goblin Squad Member

I'm going to sit here and wait for someone to not pretend this is EVE. Multiple posters have ignored PFO game development and hypothesized for unnecessary coding from GW to cram this idea into the venue of companies because those are the equivalent of EVEs corporations. I lost track of how many times high sec has been referenced. The result is a decent list of reasons why playing EVE in PFO won't work.

Maybe someone will talk about this using the assumption we will be playing a game called Pathfinder Online.

Goblin Squad Member

Ok, wish granted. I don't play EvE.

PFO is a game where we make the plot, but instead of creating a meaningful experience, you are trying to force an experience on others. What you're asking for is Horde vs. Alliance themepark content. I feel that these arrangements will develop naturally, as it is human nature to seek out confrontation.

so my advise is:
Sit back and watch, these things will happen in time.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:
I'm going to sit here and wait for someone to not pretend this is EVE.

I thought you'd already hit upon the silver bullet for permanent, zero-cost fighting...

Proxima Sin wrote:
As described, you can flag "for the cause" 2 seconds after joining a faction and fight for them as a level 1 without spending a second in grind.

Am I misunderstanding the essence of what you're asking for?

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:

I'm going to sit here and wait for someone to not pretend this is EVE. Multiple posters have ignored PFO game development and hypothesized for unnecessary coding from GW to cram this idea into the venue of companies because those are the equivalent of EVEs corporations. I lost track of how many times high sec has been referenced. The result is a decent list of reasons why playing EVE in PFO won't work.

Maybe someone will talk about this using the assumption we will be playing a game called Pathfinder Online.

Who is pretending this is Eve?

Read the first dev blogs for PFO, Ryan based the game off of Eve's success.

I hope PFO is different from Eve which is why I am here.

RvB will work fine if they code the feud system so that it can be a mutual feud and not cost anything... So the war can continue forever.

It wont be the same as Eve where RvB thrives atm, and as far as I am aware is the only place RvB exists in an MMO.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
RvB will work fine if they code the feud system so that it can be a mutual feud and not cost anything... So the war can continue forever.

Here's something I was talking about. There's already a system for permanent, no-cost war that doesn't require a reworking of the feud system. We don't have to cram the concept into companies because they and corps are guilds in their respective games. Looking at Pathfinder Online alone the faction system is already in place and simple. It was designed for Hatfield & McCoy style conflicts.

The impression of this resulting in Horde vs. Alliance meaningless pvp might be from not explaining my intent and execution well enough so one more try.

It is intended to be a vehicle for players more experienced in the life and times of PFOs own idiom to teach and mentor newer players about the combat-related areas of the game. About how combat is different (no attacks of opportunity in WoW etc.), what to do when assassins are near, good ways to bounty hunt, small unit tactics to stay safe when you venture outside settlements, technical information about rep and alignment in various conflict scenarios, also the culture most of us want to promote of not stabbing random faces because you're bored and higher level than that guy. Granted we need to be playing before the full scope becomes apparent.

TL;DR

JoeBob of Carthage might join Blue as a lowbie player totally new to D&D systems, open world pvp, or MMOs entirely. JB chats on teamspeak about subjects and attends the exercises. Red and Blue stay out of what settlements, companies, or other factions are doing and don't get involved in the politics; but if someone wanted a larger battle as part of the rp experience they're putting together to play out in PFO they could contact Red and Blue to assist. When JoeBob feels like he's learned what he can he either leaves faction to set out into the world or might stay and give back to RvB in the instructor role for the newer lowbies that have since joined up.

You might not think players in this community can self-regulate to that degree which is an opinion I won't try to change, but there are already players interested in assisting new PFO players and I see this method as a way to achieve part of that bigger goal and a beneficial part of the community.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I think the influence cost to maintain a mutual feud against a large group will be smaller than the influence gained as part of that feud. The influence cost is intended to make it hard for a large group to harass a smaller one that wants to be left alone.

Goblin Squad Member

i think that is basicly a good idea.

it is a cost free way to teach newbees the combat system.
And i really think this should be done in cooperation with the guide programm

question:
-once we know what the availale factions are, should 2 oposing ones be picked and used permanently?

possible problem:
-i guess you earn influence(or whatever) with a faction when you kill members of an opposing faction, if that leads to an automatic increase in rank with you choosen faction, could that cause problems later on for the newbee?

Goblin Squad Member

As a 'starter-set' to fully-fledged PvP groups it's a nice idea. It would teach new players how they might expect rival player-characters to act, and hopefully teach them effective counters to PvP behaviour.

My only major misgiving is that some players will use it as a 'fun slaughter the newbies' arena. If this sort of 'newbie-killing' behaviour could be avoided (maximum number of encounters per character?) then a small valley where the rival warriors regularly face off seems a nice training arena for the 'real world'.

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:
Xeen wrote:
RvB will work fine if they code the feud system so that it can be a mutual feud and not cost anything... So the war can continue forever.
Here's something I was talking about. There's already a system for permanent, no-cost war that doesn't require a reworking of the feud system. We don't have to cram the concept into companies because they and corps are guilds in their respective games. Looking at Pathfinder Online alone the faction system is already in place and simple. It was designed for Hatfield & McCoy style conflicts.

That also exists in Eve, but the RvB people decided to make RvB. The reason they wanted to do this is...

1 - to allow everyone who are in their Corps access to all territories without needing to worry about NPC's shooting at them for being a part of a faction.

2 - Fights are done with the terms of RvB, not on the terms of NPC factions.

3 - Certain areas are off limits to combat

4 - The people part of the corps are the people they will be fighting and know they will be fighting in the terms set by RvB

Sure you can do these things with the Faction Warfare mechanic but and its a big BUT you will have people who are not a part of this and will not follow the rules who can engage you wherever.

Also, sure, the game is an Open Sandbox PVP game, but in RvB there will be rules to follow.

That is the difference that needs to be heard.

Goblin Squad Member

Sadurian wrote:
My only major misgiving is that some players will use it as a 'fun slaughter the newbies' arena.

That I feel is a valid point to bring up; if there are factions which are known to house all the newbies, higher level people will join in on either side. It wouldn't even have to be out of malice; apparently getting to a high standing with a faction will provide certain benefits, so it would make sense to join a faction where you can reach that level of standing easily by fighting a bunch of inexperienced people, while also having less chance of losing a fight (and thus gear).

Goblin Squad Member

Gedichtewicht wrote:

i think that is basicly a good idea.

it is a cost free way to teach newbees the combat system.
And i really think this should be done in cooperation with the guide program

question:
-once we know what the availale factions are, should 2 oposing ones be picked and used permanently?

I'm thinking it would be lame for GW to create the lore behind two factions and players ignore that and usurp them to do this instead; plus there's the possibility of ceasing hostility later creating the need to usurp other factions to continue. But not much hassle at all to GW if the River Kingdoms had a Hatfield/McCoy situation with it's own lore to fit this player-derived purpose. If they were interested in supporting the idea off in it's own little corner.

Gedichtewicht wrote:

possible problem:

-i guess you earn influence(or whatever) with a faction when you kill members of an opposing faction, if that leads to an automatic increase in rank with you choosen faction, could that cause problems later on for the newbee?

First, I'm thinking Red has hostile flag with Blue and they're neutral to everything else (no other faction cares about some local headbutting that took on a life of it's own). Newbie players don't have to join settlements, companies, or other factions right away so they could easily limit their exposure to sanctioned pvp to only the RvB situation.

Levels 1-3 you flag at will with the "for the cause" feature. I would think most would stay flagged since that exposure is the point, but they have some time when they can turn it off for a break. Levels 4-6 you're flagged to just one faction in the whole game but by then I hope you've been learning and practicing enough to handle it. If you really want more time before perma-flag, switch sides and start over at Level 1. The coordinators of Red and Blue, as out of character players, would be working together to create the best possible learning environment.

Goblin Squad Member

Sadurian wrote:


My only major misgiving is that some players will use it as a 'fun slaughter the newbies' arena. If this sort of 'newbie-killing' behaviour could be avoided (maximum number of encounters per character?) then a small valley where the rival warriors regularly face off seems a nice training arena for the 'real world'.

That is a valid concern, in every aspect of the full game. Fighting a war or feud you also have to be careful of third party vultures taking advantage of depleted half-health forces. How to identify and avoid that risk is a necessary part of the education in my view. A planned RvB skirmish might get cancelled in light of higher level shady characters looking up to no good, but that's still a learning experience applicable to playing the game. Plus they aren't limited to any particular geographic area making noob ganking a little harder; and there's no material gain to be had from it either to further reduce motivation.

There's also a (meta?) advantage that out of character RvB is really players from both groups working together as a brotherhood (with sisters). I fully support a principle that if a third party charges in to take advantage of noobie killing 4 teh lulz that Red and Blue temporarily band together and stomp back on the bullys. It's like when someone can fight with their family member all they want but if an outsider messes with them it's a big ol' family throwdown.

Goblin Squad Member

Shane Gifford wrote:
Sadurian wrote:
My only major misgiving is that some players will use it as a 'fun slaughter the newbies' arena.
That I feel is a valid point to bring up; if there are factions which are known to house all the newbies, higher level people will join in on either side. It wouldn't even have to be out of malice; apparently getting to a high standing with a faction will provide certain benefits, so it would make sense to join a faction where you can reach that level of standing easily by fighting a bunch of inexperienced people, while also having less chance of losing a fight (and thus gear).

The benefits differ between factions so it would be easy to program little or no bonuses for high RvB faction levels (since bonuses aren't the point anyway) creating a lack of incentive for higher levels to join just for that. The flipside of that is the higher level Blue is exposed to getting interrupted in their broader game activities by a pack of Red noobs and I'm not sure how many would want to take that risk especially for little to no advantage in mechanics.

Goblin Squad Member

I read half way in and then skipped to comment. This seems more like weekend pick up sports teams. Those who want to play join in and play. Possibly characters drop in and out of factions and never get above level 1, but that is not their goal. It is in having the play. If the sides, players change sides to have good play.

With CC feuds, all the company is in not just those who opt in. Likewise if set up between settlements. Making this play between factions make it outside the "more serious CC and settlement concern.

The big cost to devs is allowing for/supporting player sponsored and managed teams. What is the interface and managing for such factions. Not sure that will be here for EE and it may not be part of minimal viable product.

I can see it being abused by those who some how are ALWAYS part of superior force, or some 'throwing the game' to give help to friends on 'other side'.

I think this is a fabulous idea as a learning tool; it would be outside the day to day whirlwind of meaningful PvP. This is meaningful not is what it does but in helping players learn the ropes and hazards.

lam

Goblin Squad Member

Proxima Sin wrote:
The idea of Red vs. Blue (RvB) is two groups of about equal size and power permanently with the hostile flag to each other. Winning fights is preferred but neither is trying to permanently destroy the other. Characters will actually switch sides to maintain the power balance.

This is a poor substitute for really preparing for the realities of combat in an Open World PVP setting.

Even fights very rarely occur and their consequences for losing are always destruction.

I'm not saying that war games in principle are not a good idea, but trying to create balanced matches are not as valuable as learning to fight from a numerical disadvantage, IMHO.


I understand your points Proxima, but I think the faction system is being designed for this purpose...

If you read "The Man In The Back Said Everyone Attack", you'll remember that they talked about having different factions, where there was differing amounts of PvP that you'd get in any given faction, and differing rewards.

This means that some factions will have TONS of other enemy factions, and get a ton of PvP opportunities (without losing rep/align), and will be rewarded the heaviest, whereas other factions will have relatively few enemy factions, and get far fewer sanctioned PvP opportunities (but lighter rewards as well).

This will give players more control over how much they want to PvP, and involves more of a risk/reward system than the 50/50 split seen in an RvB situation.

Goblin Squad Member

I agree that players who want to get their feet wet with PvP can just join one of the already planned factions; I don't think there is a need for independent 'newbie' factions. You can learn a lot more about the realities of PvP in PfO through fighting in a regular faction: the fact that fights are usually unfair, that you'll many times be fighting people who are higher level (but that this isn't as big a penalty as it usually is), that you can be attacked anywhere. I'm sure people could find others in their faction to group with and learn the ropes from.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have to agree with those not in favor of a separate Red vs. Blue mechanic. It is not a bad idea, by any means. It just isn't necessary.

The entire PVP (combat) system is becoming more and more complex already, IMO, and I would hate to see it become the "Major" focus of the game. There are so many other areas that I would like time time/effort spent on. Things like the economic system (contracts, crafting, caravans), the social aspects (clothing, music, taverns, etc...), heck even mounts.


Yeah it's better for games with a little more simplicity...

Goblin Squad Member

In EVE there is a well known RvB corp with two divisions who battle each other continually.

The exception is when the two sides team up to roam losec and pick fights with whoever crosses their path.


I'd rather they just ease up on PvP restrictions honestly.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That would be better than easing up on PvP restrictions dishonestly I should think.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I honestly don't see any restrictions to PVP.

Goblin Squad Member

I have it on good authority that PFO won't be a "murder simulator". If that counts as a "PvP restriction", so be it :)

Goblin Squad Member

Oh I definitely see and hope for consequences to whatever GW deems as harmful PVP. They have made it clear that you can choose to go that route if you like.


Bringslite wrote:
I honestly don't see any restrictions to PVP.

Yea, because losing all your gear to a death curse isn't really a big deal.

Goblin Squad Member

Qallz wrote:


Bringslite wrote:
I honestly don't see any restrictions to PVP.
Yea, because losing all your gear to a death curse isn't really a big deal.

That's not a restriction, that's a consequence. There's a difference.

Goblin Squad Member

Lhan wrote:
Qallz wrote:


Bringslite wrote:
I honestly don't see any restrictions to PVP.
Yea, because losing all your gear to a death curse isn't really a big deal.
That's not a restriction, that's a consequence. There's a difference.

BINGO!

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

Even fights very rarely occur and their consequences for losing are always destruction.

I'm not saying that war games in principle are not a good idea, but trying to create balanced matches are not as valuable as learning to fight from a numerical disadvantage, IMHO.

The point is that powerful-vs-weak battles with fully predictable outcomes are boring, and if the game is boring players leave. Balanced sides (power, not numbers) makes the outcome more dependent on each players effort and thus more meaningful. There's a reason why sports fans prefer to watch the best teams playing each other rather than playing against kids.

Learning to fight from a numerical disadvantage is a way -probably the best way- to create more balanced matches. But failing that, I hope players understand that a fun game is better in the long run than 'winning' by having the largest and most agressive guild.


@Randomwalker

Your assumption that balanced fights are better is based upon a premise which may well not be true

That premise is that people PVP in games such as this purely for the fun of PVP. Speaking for myself at least but I suspect many others as well PVP while enjoyable is when all is said and done merely a means to an end not the end in itself.

If I am in an army trying to take a settlement,defend a settlement or raid an outpost or caravan I certainly hope the general isnt going to throw away tactical advantages to make it a fair fight. The main reason I am there is the end point not the PVP


Lhan wrote:
Qallz wrote:


Bringslite wrote:
I honestly don't see any restrictions to PVP.
Yea, because losing all your gear to a death curse isn't really a big deal.
That's not a restriction, that's a consequence. There's a difference.

Same thing. Not allowing people to PvP at all, and punishing people severely for doing so brings about the same result: A minimal PvP experience (and in my opinion a minimally enjoyable one).

Goblin Squad Member

@Lhan

No you did not misstate my position, but in light of some changes you may have understated it.

PFO having Open World PvP at its core should be a game where "Sanctioned PvP" opportunities are the most numerous and there are very few activities that would be considered "Unsanctioned".

The most efficient way for the Devs to limit "Unsanctioned PvP" is to limit what is defined as it.

....... Yes I know I just set some people's hair on fire with that, but that us what I believe.


Lhan wrote:
Qallz wrote:
Not allowing people to PvP at all, and punishing people severely for doing so brings about the same result: A minimal PvP experience (and in my opinion a minimally enjoyable one).

I don't know if you are wilfully misrepresenting things or just haven't really understood the system as it stands at the moment. Either way, your statement is a fallacy predicated on the idea that "punishing" people (to use your word) for engaging in unsanctioned PvP will result in a minimal PvP experience. There is absolutely no evidence at all to suggest that this will be the case. In fact, some of the most outspoken advocates for PvP on this board, such as Bluddwolf, have rejoiced in the fact that they now have (and my apologies to him if I am misstating his position) effectively FFA areas for PvP across the whole map with the addition of faction PvP. If what you want is the ability to PvP at any time, anywhere against anybody and to do so without having to face the consequences of those actions, then you are out of luck. But that's not punishment, it's a deterrent for unsanctioned PvP - with the added bonus of the lure of sanctioned PvP almost everywhere now. It's a carrot and stick approach.

My point was punishing PvP WILL essentially minimize it... except, as Bluddwolf pointed out in another thread, for the "griefers" because griefers don't really care about min-maxing. It's the people who want to enjoy the game and enjoy the PvP aspect who will be punished the most as I see it.

Also, what are these FFA PvP areas you speak of? I must've missed something, because I didn't hear about those.

Edit: For the record, I like Bluddwolf now.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

PFO having Open World PvP at its core should be a game where "Sanctioned PvP" opportunities are the most numerous and there are very few activities that would be considered "Unsanctioned".

The most efficient way for the Devs to limit "Unsanctioned PvP" is to limit what is defined as it.

I completely agree. In fact, I'm extremely confident that the devs will end up Sanctioning quite a bit more specific cases that some people currently think will be Unsanctioned.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Qallz

If you cannot see the difference between all PvP and only that which is unsanctioned then I can see why you might think that. You'll still be wrong. Punishing (I'll use your term) unsanctioned PvP is not punishing PvP; it is channelling people's PvP energies into other areas that are more conducive to good game play. In the end, only the truly recalcitrant will be punished - the rest will be fine.

To put it another way, when you house train a dog, you are not punishing him for peeing. You are punishing him for peeing in the house. There's a world of difference. You're also encouraging him to pee outside. It's the same with unsanctioned and sanctioned PvP. And from the sounds of things, the garden in PfO is going to be very big indeed.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

In a RPG Sandbox, PvP should be a mean, not the end. Otherwise, Mount & Blade is great.


Lhan wrote:

@Qallz

If you cannot see the difference between all PvP and only that which is unsanctioned then I can see why you might think that. You'll still be wrong. Punishing (I'll use your term) unsanctioned PvP is not punishing PvP; it is channelling people's PvP energies into other areas that are more conducive to good game play. In the end, only the truly recalcitrant will be punished - the rest will be fine.

To put it another way, when you house train a dog, you are not punishing him for peeing. You are punishing him for peeing in the house. There's a world of difference. You're also encouraging him to pee outside. It's the same with unsanctioned and sanctioned PvP. And from the sounds of things, the garden in PfO is going to be very big indeed.

I see what you mean, and good post... it still just feels a bit too restrictive to me. lol And you said something about FFA PvP areas?

Goblin Squad Member

Lhan wrote:
To put it another way, when you house train a dog, you are not punishing him for peeing. You are punishing him for peeing in the house.

Bad wolf!

1 to 50 of 57 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Red vs. Blue All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.