Could PFO Thrive with No Unsanctioned PvP?


Pathfinder Online

51 to 100 of 2,166 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
... "opting out" of PVP would give unfair advantage in too many areas of the game.
But then I was given yet another reason to believe that I was woefully inadequate to the task I set myself.

What are you talking about?

A discussion is defines as: putting words and strawmen into the opposing parties mouth so their position looks as ridiculous and as toxic as possible.

If you are here to explain your position so that the other side may end up with a better understanding of it and are open minded for the other side to do the same you should go back to your themepark game you carebare!

Note for the moderator: This is a joke and not a personal attack.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If everyone chose to only do PvP combat within the bounds of what is sanctioned, could the game still be fun and successful?
-Yes.

Would the game in that case be more fun and successful than a FFA, no consequence, PvP game?
-Yes.

Would the game in that case be more fun and successful than if people sometimes do PvP combat outside the bounds of what is sanctioned?
-I don't know. For me it comes down to how balanced the system is, i.e. it's an empirical question that can't be answered until we play the game. I think a game where everything is possible holds greater potential but also runs a greater risk of being ruined by the community. If GW succeeds in creating a world where anyone can attack anyone but players don't constantly abuse that freedom (because, consequences!) that will be the optimal scenario from my point of view. The optimal amount of "unsanctioned PvP" for a fun and successful game should be very small but not zero. The possibility for it to happen should always be present.

Goblin Squad Member

Sanctioned PvP = less costly or zero cost combat
Unsanctioned = much more costly combat

Cost = reputation and/or alignment (as well as any economic costs).

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

In my opinion, the ability to commit acts of "Unsanctioned PvP" are essential in creating the atmosphere that a sandbox, Open World PvP MMO needs in order to thrive.

What I hope for is that when everyone logs into the game their heart rate picks up a few beats. No where in the game world should you feel completely safe.

I want the world to be populated by really good and really evil
characters, and everyone inbetween. I think the game will need those characters that will do anything, anywhere, to meet whatever their goals are. Just as the world will need those who will follow a code and help others, even at their own expense.

So to answer the question. If it were left up to players whether or not they use Unsanctioned PvP to meet their goals, I hope that they will. It is up to the players and perhaps GW to have meaningful reasons to PvP (sanctioned or Unsanctioned) rather than spend this much time and energy on worrying about what the consequences are it should be.

The more sandboxy, and open world PvP game PFO turns out to be, the more if a chance it will have to thrive. If it turns out to be closer to a theme park, it will have more if a chance to become another "Ho Hum" been there, done that MMO.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
No where in the game world should you feel completely safe.

I disagree. There should be at least one way to opt out of it like docking in EvE.

Goblin Squad Member

Papaver wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
No where in the game world should you feel completely safe.
I disagree. There should be at least one way to opt out of it like docking in EvE.

Actually, I agree with that. Where you can be logged in, be free from anything, but free to do nothing.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
In my opinion, the ability to commit acts of "Unsanctioned PvP" are essential in creating the atmosphere that a sandbox, Open World PvP MMO needs in order to thrive.

Agreed. The way I'm seeing it in summary: Sanctioned PvP = an ultimate pay-off which is determined by the immediate cost of Unsanctioned PvP and players are left to choose as they decide. No doubt the devs can tweak those values and those categories to encourage and discourage pvp atst.

The main thing is viable choice to pvp or not depending on time, place and person(s).

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

In my opinion, the ability to commit acts of "Unsanctioned PvP" are essential in creating the atmosphere that a sandbox, Open World PvP MMO needs in order to thrive.

What I hope for is that when everyone logs into the game their heart rate picks up a few beats.

If in our world no one performed any unsanctioned kind of conflict--if everyone limited their conflict to formal things like debates, if everyone was polite in ordinary conversation, if we settled every disagreement through formal, institutional and non-confrontational means, it would be safer, but devoid of dramatic tension.

A world without conflict--all the way from shouting matches (unsanctioned) to fist fights (unsanctioned) to violent crime (unsanctioned)--is a wonderful goal socially in the real world, but would be the crappiest model for a compelling game ever.

The possibility that someone will rip your sh*t from your hands and leave you gnashing your teeth is what gives this game juice. It's the compelling reason we need to organize and get strong, because the game has stakes.


Mbando wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

In my opinion, the ability to commit acts of "Unsanctioned PvP" are essential in creating the atmosphere that a sandbox, Open World PvP MMO needs in order to thrive.

What I hope for is that when everyone logs into the game their heart rate picks up a few beats.

If in our world no one performed any unsanctioned kind of conflict--if everyone limited their conflict to formal things like debates, if everyone was polite in ordinary conversation, if we settled every disagreement through formal, institutional and non-confrontational means, it would be safer, but devoid of dramatic tension.

A world without conflict--all the way from shouting matches (unsanctioned) to fist fights (unsanctioned) to violent crime--is a wonderful goal socially in the real world, but would be the crappiest model for a compelling game ever.

The possibility that someone will rip your sh*t from your hands and leave you gnashing your teeth is what gives this game juice. It's the compelling reason we need to organize and get strong, because the game has stakes.

Well put, Mbando. I saw this as obvious, and felt it didn't need to be said, making this entire thread an obvious joke. But, if someone's going to say it, I'm glad it was you... very well put.

Goblin Squad Member

Papaver wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
No where in the game world should you feel completely safe.
I disagree. There should be at least one way to opt out of it like docking in EvE.

You've fundamentally misunderstood the game design as laid out. The game hinges on the fact that ultimately there's no way to opt out of conflict. Ryan's has said that when you're a newb, one of their design concerns is to scaffold your entry, and give you a chance to get meaningfully involved. But eventually you're going to be in a world where you are never truly safe.

You could hate PvP with all your heart, and have made an top-tier artisan who never, ever leaves the crafting district of your settlement. And all that being said, you could be in your workshop, and from behind you, a masked figure steps out from the dark and cuts you down, precisely because you're a top artisan, and cutting you down makes your city vulnerable. Or sends a message. Or maters to someone's politics.

You could log in and find your city in ruins, because the POI next to it that was held by That Good-Guy Company, was actually a deep infiltration, and when the Goon Swarm came in, Those Good Guys turned and stabbed your city in the back.

You think you'd like a game design where there are no real stakes, but that's because you don't understand the implications of of what you're asking for. Luckily the designers understand that the Trammel option is a kind of design suicide.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:

I will ask a question that I think is identical: Could a thriving PFO sanction all of the PvP required?

I think the answer is "almost". It would be excessively difficult to predict every instance of emergent gameplay that required PvP for the game to thrive and offer a mechanic for it; if such a system were even to exist, it would be labyrinthine enough to be inaccessible to players.

However, I think that somewhere on the order of 95% of the PvP could be within the space of sanctioned gameplay without being excessively complicates to write or understand.

I had to think a while about this one because it's an interesting question Nihimon came up with. I don't think PFO wants to be the game where all PvP is hard coded, but if it is successful I could see someone else taking that next step and crediting PFO with changing the culture of PvP.

Goblin Squad Member

@Mbando, I think you read too much into Papaver's statement. He isn't asking that he can actually accomplish a lot while 'docking', but he'd like a way to stay logged in (my guess is access to communications and not much else) without having to watch the screen for ganks. At least, that's how I read into it.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
In my opinion, the ability to commit acts of "Unsanctioned PvP" are essential in creating the atmosphere that a sandbox, Open World PvP MMO needs in order to thrive.

I completely agree, and have since roughly my 6th post on these forums back in January of 2012. I regret that I wasn't able to sufficiently qualify my question such that it could not be misconstrued as a question of what the game should allow.

Goblin Squad Member

Shane,

it's irrelevant whether it's locations (safe zones) or times (when I log out). Risk is fundamental to the game. It's mitigated of course--there's going to be some sort of scaffolding for new players; there are windows of vulnerability scaled to the DI of your holdings; security varies from high (in your settlement) to low (way out there). But you will not be completely safe in this game, because the whole point of the game is meaningful player conflict and competition.

This is how dangerous PFO is going to be.

Digital Products Assistant

Removed some posts. Please remember that while you are discussing an in-game community, the rules of these messageboards do apply. Please try to keep personal insults/sniping out of the conversation.


Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed some posts. Please remember that while you are discussing an in-game community, the rules of these messageboards do apply. Please try to keep personal insults/sniping out of the conversation.

Even that post where I complimented Mbando's post apparently... not sure how that was breaking community "rules". I think my posts are just getting eradicated "scorched earth" style.

Goblin Squad Member

We know at least once a post was taken out erroneously, and was returned when we pointed it out. Make your case, perhaps with Chris in PM.


Jazzlvraz wrote:
We know at least once a post was taken out erroneously, and was returned when we pointed it out. Make your case, perhaps with Chris in PM.

The post wasn't that important, just saying... they should be read b4 they're deleted.

Digital Products Assistant

Oops, my mistake. Post is back now :)


Chris Lambertz wrote:
Oops, my mistake. Post is back now :)

It's cool. No sweat.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mbando wrote:
You think you'd like a game design where there are no real stakes, but that's because you don't understand the implications of what you're asking for.

See, that statement is why no one will ever have a meaningful discussion on thees forums.

When someone asks for something that would tip the scales towards more risk they are branded a griefer and are horrible for the game.

When someone asks for something that would tip the scales towards more safety they are branded a carebear and are horrible for the game.

There is no middle ground and no one is even attempting to actually try to understand what is written by other parties. The only thing people excel at is projecting.

Goblin Squad Member

I know your game Papaver...

/jk x-)

In all seriousness I've taken the spirit of inquiry to be very general in this thread from the OP. We just have to see the numbers and categories from the devs to progress the topic more specifically.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Papaver wrote:
Mbando wrote:
You think you'd like a game design where there are no real stakes, but that's because you don't understand the implications of what you're asking for.

See, that statement is why no one will ever have a meaningful discussion on thees forums.

When someone asks for something that would tip the scales towards more risk they are branded a griefer and are horrible for the game.

When someone asks for something that would tip the scales towards more safety they are branded a carebear and are horrible for the game.

There is no middle ground and no one is even attempting to actually try to understand what is written by other parties. The only thing people excel at is projecting.

You're confusing requests outside of the scope of discussion for "the middle ground." Unless GW scraps everything and starts fresh, this is going to be a sandbox game driven by involuntary, but mediated, conflict. There will be blood, so to speak, but there will be structures to help mediate how/where/when that blood gets spilled.

So arguing for things outside of that core scope isn't a meaningful contribution--it's just noise. Every time someone is like "There should be safe areas," or "PvP should never be non-consensual" or whatever, they're talking about a completely different game. There will be systems to mediate your risk, but you will have risk.

Same for everytime Bluud floats a new "Bandits should be able to attack anyone, and not only avoid risk, actually get like extra powers and stuff," scheme, again, that's missing the point. You'll be able to attack people and rob them and whatnot buddy (bluudy?), but you're going to have your efforts mediated.

What is meaningful and productive would be discussion within the parameters of the game design. What kinds of mediation, balance issues in risk and mediation, creative ideas for new ways to model player conflict, etc. can be, and are, really useful.

Goblin Squad Member

I never asked for safe areas. That is purely projected.

Edit: Xeen picked up on it while you didn't.

Goblin Squad Member

@Mbando, I'm not sure why you are opposed to a mechanic like docking in EVE. Basically, the way it's described, your character is effectively logged out of the game as far as actions you can take go (so basically your character can't do much of anything, maybe some area you could stand around in so you can admire your model's animations and play dress-up), but you still have the game open so you can chat and access the UI. It's things you could do with forums, teamspeak, websites, and so on anyways, so I don't see why there can't be some really tiny and minimally functional place that characters can be literally free from ganks.

If there is no place that's safe for someone to stand around in, all that means is people will log off if all they're doing is communicating.

Goblin Squad Member

Personally, I wouldn't have a problem if it were possible to get to a logged off character for an Assassination...

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Shane:

1) I'm not opposing/advocating here--just being descriptive and analytical.

2) Nihimon can maybe help here, but I'm pretty sure Ryan has already gone on record saying there will be ways to interface with the game when you are not logged on. By all means chat, whatever. The point is that you won't, in a fundamental sense, be safe. That's what I was trying to help Pap with--you can't "opt out" in PFO.

Ryan has made a really good point that if you tried to tell people that football was only, solely, and wholly about tackling, they're wrong. But anyone who's arguing/planning for opting out of tackling, doesn't understand football.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mbando wrote:
Nihimon can maybe help here, but I'm pretty sure Ryan has already gone on record saying there will be ways to interface with the game when you are not logged on.

*shuffles off the the library stacks with a contented smile*

What I want to have is a Facebook-style social network tool that features characters instead of people. That tool will replace things like forums. It will be accessible everywhere you can make a web browser run, and have calendars, reminders, notifications, chat, etc.

__________________________________________________________________

Mbando wrote:
But anyone who's arguing/planning for opting out of tackling, doesn't understand football.

A good Offensive Lineman can go his whole career without ever having a realistic opportunity to tackle anyone. Of course, if that opportunity does present itself, he'll be expected to at least try...

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mbando wrote:

@Shane:

Ryan has made a really good point that if you tried to tell people that football was only, solely, and wholly about tackling, they're wrong. But anyone who's arguing/planning for opting out of tackling, doesn't understand football.

Tell that to to the coaches and staff. There are there in the game, contributing to the success of the team, but they sure as hell aren't going to be valid targets to be tackled.

Of course that doesn't mean a player can't go crazy and rush the poor waterboy on the sidelines, but if he does there are going to be very real consequences.

Goblin Squad Member

Ok, I understand your perspective better now. I'm not sure how comfortable I'd be with events that have personal consequences occurring when I'm logged out, though. Of course I'm not talking about wars on settlements and such, that will happen whether or not you're around, but I personally think it would suck to log in and find out something terrible happened to your character while you were gone (Nihimon's idea for assassinating logged out characters is what I'm specifically talking about here; "Welcome back, you lost 75% of your stuff you had on person, and you're respawning out in the boonies. Also your settlement got really crippled because you aren't constantly online watching for assassins."). There should be something incorporated in the "assassins can disrupt a settlement by targeting a few key citizens" thing that accounts for players logging out, but I'm not sold on that something being the ability to kill logged off people.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:


Mbando wrote:
But anyone who's arguing/planning for opting out of tackling, doesn't understand football.
A good Offensive Lineman can go his whole career without ever having a realistic opportunity to tackle anyone. Of course, if that opportunity does present itself, he'll be expected to at least try...

Nihimon, Imbicatus, did you ever play football? :)

Everything I did as an lineman was intimately tied to tackling. Every block I made on offense was was oriented towards preventing the ball-carrier from being tackled. Every block I shed as a defensive lineman, every stunt, twist, or dropback was aimed at tackling a ball-carier, or preventing there from being a ball-carrier to be tackled.

There will be a ton of things to do in PFO that won't directly involve player conflict and risk, but because every harvesting effort, every crafting operation, every caravan, negotiation, contract, alliance and exploration has implications for power, they are all interrelated with PvP.

The design they've laid out here doesn't have space for opting out of conflict and risk.

Goblin Squad Member

Shane Gifford wrote:
I'm not sure how comfortable I'd be with events that have personal consequences occurring when I'm logged out, though.

You're not alone; it's a very unpopular position :)

While I personall really like the idea of all characters being in the game world doing things regardless of whether the player who owns them is logged in controlling them, I understand it's not practical for PFO and even if it were, it's not what the devs are interested in working on.

Goblin Squad Member

Shane Gifford wrote:
Ok, I understand your perspective better now. I'm not sure how comfortable I'd be with events that have personal consequences occurring when I'm logged out, though. Of course I'm not talking about wars on settlements and such, that will happen whether or not you're around, but I personally think it would suck to log in and find out something terrible happened to your character while you were gone

Totes agree

Goblin Squad Member

Mbando wrote:
Nihimon, Imbicatus, did you ever play football?

Oddly enough, I played both Offensive Tackle and Defensive Tackle. There was one particular game that stands out in my memory where I started at both positions.

Goblin Squad Member

Than you understand implicitly that while there is more to football than tackling, tackling is fundamental to football :)

Goblin Squad Member

Mbando wrote:
Than you understand implicitly that while there is more to football than tackling, tackling is fundamental to football :)

Indeed. Just as I understand that there are very important players who are only expected to actually try to tackle someone else in extreme circumstances, and that some players are so important that it's much better for them to stay healthy and safe than it is for them to tackle, even if that missed tackle leads to a touchdown for the other team.

Goblin Squad Member

Mbando wrote:
Than you understand implicitly that while there is more to football than tackling, tackling is fundamental to football :)

As is running, blocking, throwing, catching, acting/faking, handing, etc....and as is play design, practice, communication, strategy, manufacturing/acquisition of the ball (of some form), etc.

All of these things are required to play football. Some are interdependent such as your previous example of blocking with tackling in mind...on the otherside someone was blocking with passing in mind, instead of tackling.

EDIT: To clarify, I am not saying tackling is not a major component of football. A game could be played in which no one successfully tackled. It would be...curious...but it could happen. I think the game is better for having it. Similarly, I think PFO will be better for having open world PvP...Football with no rules would not be a game I would enjoy - nor would PFO.

I am not of the opinion that rules are designed to be broken. Rules, when poorly designed or irrelevant should be broken, but only as a first step toward removing/revising them.

Goblin Squad Member

Rather off topic now, but I'm glad MMO's and games in general are finally starting to acknowledge the unique position they have in the ability to integrate so well with the web compared to other forms of media. It's nice to see something more ambitious in the integration field than a simple leader board.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Urman wrote:


A world filled with unkillable jerks is just as bad as a world populated (or depopulated) by nothing but killers. Not a recipe for "thriving".

The problem there isn't the rules but the jerks.

Making a game that doesn't appeal to jerks means a lousy game. Trying to force jerks to behave leads to gaming the system. Trying to make them into content for non-jerks sounds difficult but if GW say they know how I'm willing to try.

To Nihimon's questions: I believe yes (but I'm not a killer), as long as there are enough varied sanctioned pvp options. Wars, feuds, raids and the ever present risk of robbery would make life and economy interesting enough for most players.

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:
Mbando wrote:
Than you understand implicitly that while there is more to football than tackling, tackling is fundamental to football :)
.... A game could be played in which no one successfully tackled. It would be...curious...but it could happen.

[sarcasm] Bah, american football is not free PvP. Players hide behind protective gear and rules. Real football should allow teams of any size and attacking with any part of your body. Like in the orginial lacrosse games, with thousands of players and lots of casualties.[/sarcasm]

Try watching rugby or even soccer. Less head-butting and much more flowing game. To the rest of the world, it is american football that is the curious game.

For the analogy, I'd prefer ice hockey. Lots of legal checking. Lots of penalties. Would the game be better if tripping and cross-checking were allowed? No. Would the game overall be better if penalties were much harsher? No. But despite finding a good balance, lots of talent choose less rough sports.

Goblin Squad Member

I think it should and will depend on where you are in te map. That is my anticipation for the best outcome that seems to fit what the devs are attempting to push that result which is in the hands of the player population depending on developing settlements.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Personally, I wouldn't have a problem if it were possible to get to a logged off character for an Assassination...

I disagree whole heartedly. Its kinda like the pick pocket thing... If someone cannot do anything about it then it is not meaningful.

A logged off character should be untouchable. Except maybe a log off timer... but only that corresponds to a PVP timer. Its hard for the server to tell if someone logged off on purpose or actually lost connection.

Goblin Squad Member

What I want to have is a Facebook-style social network tool that features characters instead of people. That tool will replace things like forums. It will be accessible everywhere you can make a web browser run, and have calendars, reminders, notifications, chat, etc.

They call that Spacebook in Eve... I believe it came out when Ryan was still there.

What will we call it here? Dragonbook

Goblin Squad Member

OMG if they called it "Dragonbook" I would strongly reconsider my commitment to PFO.

Goblin Squad Member

Let's call is Nethys' Soul Archive. The abbreviation rolls right of the tongue.

Edit: or Book of Pharasma.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
"A game could be played in which no one successfully tackled. It would be...curious...but it could happen. [/QUOTE wrote:

<mental image of a Woody Allen quarterback sketch>

Goblin Squad Member

Mbando wrote:
OMG if they called it "Dragonbook" I would strongly reconsider my commitment to PFO.

Okay Okay, lets call it Fairybook

Goblin Squad Member

"Goblintome", because: makes sense.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think PFO could thrive with no unsanctioned PVP, but I'd still like for unsanctioned PVP to be possible.

There are many mechanisms for access to PVP through wars, feuds, and faction membership. So if PVP is what the player desires then there are plenty of opportunities by following the 'rules'.

Since PFO is about building settlements as much as PVP and destroying them, there is likely a fine balance between PVP being desirable to create tension/destroy resources, and excess (?unsanctioned, chaotic, apparently random?) PVP assaults on resource gatherers, builders, etc.

If it became the case that players fitted for non PVP activities felt that they had no chance of going about their business without being slaughtered, then I see a risk that the PFO concept as a whole could fail. It might not then be possible for any settlements to actually be built. Imagine if the whole of the EVE universe were nulsec and there were only say 3 NPC stations that people could dock at. It would be a mess and most players would have quit.

In EVE the PVP is great and certainly adds tension to the game (only bit I feel ccp got badly wrong is enabling high sec suicide ganking of young players - there must have been thousands of players who started as miners, saved for their first hulk, then saw it destroyed in hisec and quit). In EVE there the consequence of unsanctioned PVP (highsec suicide ganking)is so trivial it really isn't a consequence.

In PFO unsanctioned PVP ought to be unnecessary, but the risk of it will add tension as you will never be able to know 100% if the character you encounter might attempt to kill you. Unsanctioned pvp should however carry really severe penalties. Massive reputation loss, inability to enter NPC settlements, etc. Reputation recovery should take a long time and not be a matter of killing 10 goblins. Thus unsanctioned PVP becomes a conscious decision, eg for strategic purposes, rather than an inconsequential choice.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

How about Pathfinder Chronicles for the applet? Just makes sense to me.

51 to 100 of 2,166 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Could PFO Thrive with No Unsanctioned PvP? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.