Goblin Squad Member
|
At some point there will be PC settlements that are strong enough to have reasonably secure nearby territory, and within that territory people who want to avoid PvP will probably be able to work in relative peace. If things develop as I expect, the PvE people will be 2nd class citizens (much as they are in EVE, for the same reasons they are in EVE) who will be told what to make and where to work and expected to forgo most profits to keep feeding the military forces of the host Settlement.
@ Ryan
This little bolded part concerns me and I have been waiting for more comments on it. I can see the possibility of such a society, but can see little enjoyment in it for anyone that chooses to pursue those play styles. Maybe that is just me. :)
I sincerely hope that you are mistaken.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bringslight I think it's the nature of the games. (1) If the game is at a macro-level about companies and settlements fighting for resources, then it's about those groups. Individual miners, smiths, and traders are only as useful as they further the groups goals. (2) Those who are most committed will matter most to the settlements - and that's almost always the combatants. (3) but who knows - maybe emergent gameplay will develop that surprises Ryan.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And so what is all of this talk of gathering, crafting, and traveling for profit?
I have no problem aiding my settlement in any and every way that I can. I also want to have a personal play style agenda of my own. Much like anyone, I want to accumulate whatever my "currency" happens to be. Whether it is recognition, gold, fame or whatever it may be.
I am going to have a hard time relegating an Alt to a life of servitude and 2nd class citizenry. It just seemed that this game was going to be different than other, previous games of similar nature. I had hoped that crafters might matter more than that.
That is why I do hope that Ryan is wrong.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd offer these words from Ryan: I think that people are going to find that what they thought would be fun isn't fun and what they thought would not be fun is fun.
I'm avoiding getting set on a given character concept until we know much more about how things will work in the game. As things will change between now and EE, and between EE and OE, I expect my initial character concept will change as we go along.
But yeah, I hope that there's some place that crafters aren't 2d class cits. But in the end, it's up to the players to create such a place. And by players I mean the crafters need to carve out such a place.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd offer these words from Ryan: I think that people are going to find that what they thought would be fun isn't fun and what they thought would not be fun is fun.
I'm avoiding getting set on a given character concept until we know much more about how things will work in the game. As things will change between now and EE, and between EE and OE, I expect my initial character concept will change as we go along.
But yeah, I hope that there's some place that crafters aren't 2d class cits. But in the end, it's up to the players to create such a place. And by players I mean the crafters need to carve out such a place.
Hehe. Follow up removed. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Imagine being the first crafter (or guild thereof) able to mine specific quality nodes or the first to be able to make a specific quality item. Imagine being the first that has the skills to enchant armor or weapons with certain keywords that really aid in some niche area of combat.
I would think you would be actively wooed by settlements. If you manage to stay ahead of the curve, that might last a long time. Sorta like real life I guess.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd offer these words from Ryan: I think that people are going to find that what they thought would be fun isn't fun and what they thought would not be fun is fun.
I'm avoiding getting set on a given character concept until we know much more about how things will work in the game. As things will change between now and EE, and between EE and OE, I expect my initial character concept will change as we go along.
But yeah, I hope that there's some place that crafters aren't 2d class cits. But in the end, it's up to the players to create such a place. And by players I mean the crafters need to carve out such a place.
While that is a possible solution, another could be a settlement that has policies that attract a large enough base of crafters that they aren't all needed to work only on Gubermint support all of their play time.
Edit: Thinking a little more on it, I suppose it is possible for a settlement to have enough dedicated Alts to do just that.
@Bringslite
The situation will differ from one alliance to another. As long as crafters etc stick up for themselves and refuse to bend to the demands of overbearing settlements then a reasonable compromise will be reachable.
As someone who plans to be a crafter and merchant I fully expect to be patriotic and help feed the war effort during war time. At other times however I will certainly not be giving in to settlement demands for "a thousand long swords by tomorrow and you didn't want paying for that did you".
I should also point out that I for one do not believe for a moment that the Empire will be operating that way in the least.
Looking at Eve alliances that I was a member of there was quite a broad range of the views they took. Some were free and easy with crafters and pve'rs, some treated them more like servants. I anticipate there being a range in PfO as well. My advice is vote with your feet if you do not like the way your settlement is treating you.
Crafters have more power in PfO than Eve as I noted before because in Eve the best place for crafting was high sec by a long way and there were enough independent people in high sec churning out cheap goods that an alliance really didnt need its own crafters in any way.
In PfO if you want the best gear then you are going to as a settlement going to have to provide decent trading facilities, decent crafting facilities and attract people willing and able to use them. (Yes I know potentially you could buy from other settlements but all I can say is I think that is a precarious position for any settlement to take)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am thankful for this thread which has inspired Ryan Dancey to speak out about his vision.
I am somewhat energize about moving the combat from single combat. Formation is part of that, but it should not be fighter extension, but combined arms. with the "technology" present an effective army will have fighters, clerics, wizards and scouts. There will be units that are all one type (skirmishers or archers) and there will be main line units with heavy fighters, backed by wizards, clerics and those who can snatch injured to third line. There swill be a gourd that mange the fight but may not be15th level fighters. How this is managed in as important to a settlement as the fighters, clerics, wizards, and rogues (possibly crafters and engineers) on the line. Even better if those on the line are soldiers, not fighters, clerics, wizards, and rogues doing their own thing.
I am not saying micro managing as Rhand does, but a mix of skills with the proper basics and further formation training provides multipliers. and mechanisms for withdrawal with limited damage (into a valley of death for pursuers).
Settlements need to learn that they can not do every thing. Specialize so that I kingdom has ahoy city, a mother with military academies, another with high tech. wizardry, and a forth which generates masters of craft.
lam
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bringslite
The situation will differ from one alliance to another. As long as crafters etc stick up for themselves and refuse to bend to the demands of overbearing settlements then a reasonable compromise will be reachable.
As someone who plans to be a crafter and merchant I fully expect to be patriotic and help feed the war effort during war time. At other times however I will certainly not be giving in to settlement demands for "a thousand long swords by tomorrow and you didn't want paying for that did you".
I should also point out that I for one do not believe for a moment that the Empire will be operating that way in the least.
Looking at Eve alliances that I was a member of there was quite a broad range of the views they took. Some were free and easy with crafters and pve'rs, some treated them more like servants. I anticipate there being a range in PfO as well. My advice is vote with your feet if you do not like the way your settlement is treating you.
Crafters have more power in PfO than Eve as I noted before because in Eve the best place for crafting was high sec by a long way and there were enough independent people in high sec churning out cheap goods that an alliance really didnt need its own crafters in any way.
In PfO if you want the best gear then you are going to as a settlement going to have to provide decent trading facilities, decent crafting facilities and attract people willing and able to use them. (Yes I know potentially you could buy from other settlements but all I can say is I think that is a precarious position for any settlement to take)
Hmmm, whole post "lost in space". No worries, the gist was that I couldn't agree with you more.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Will 'formation' combat resemble Total War simulations I wonder, where I can hold back my reserves, mass fire my archers and at the right time turn the enemy flank? Or squad leader-centric?
What is envisioned, and how will it look to the player, whether as one holding the line or one in the role of commander?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Life is Feudal has shown off a formation system where the commander is the hub of a geometric shape displayed on the ground, this area moves and turns as the commander does. To get a formation bonus, the squad has to stay inside this area. Very simple system but I like the idea and think that it could be pretty much copied into PFO.
Different formations would mean different shapes and different formation buffs. Higher skill tiers of commander could mean larger area of the shape, new formation styles and more maximum squad members. Higher skill tiers of the squad members could mean greater effect of the buffs.
The proportion of the squad that keeps bobbing in and out of the formation could be monitored and this could affect the effect of the buffs and lead to dissolution of the formation if too many break out too often.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I will caution that the history of MMOs is littered with the idea of AI controlled mobs that do things when players are not directly interacting with them. So far, all such efforts have run into server capacity limits; as more and more mobs are added the load of running the AI scales up really fast and exceeds any reasonable server expense.
You could always "crowdforge" the NPC AI by allowing players to script their own (N)PCs using their own computers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Life is Feudal has shown off a formation system where the commander is the hub of a geometric shape displayed on the ground, this area moves and turns as the commander does. To get a formation bonus, the squad has to stay inside this area. Very simple system but I like the idea and think that it could be pretty much copied into PFO.
Different formations would mean different shapes and different formation buffs. Higher skill tiers of commander could mean larger area of the shape, new formation styles and more maximum squad members. Higher skill tiers of the squad members could mean greater effect of the buffs.
The proportion of the squad that keeps bobbing in and out of the formation could be monitored and this could affect the effect of the buffs and lead to dissolution of the formation if too many break out too often.
Wurner,
You should speak to The Goodfellow, Talonfox, me or anyone else who played Mechwarrior Online at a very competitive level. Our group in MWO was run by military people, for military people (and gamers who could follow ORDERS) using tactics that came right out if gage Army / Marine field manuals and the US Army War College.
Even with all of our training, and drills, I would put our win / loss at about 65 / 35 in teamed 8 vs 8. In the Ad Hoc 4 x 4 teamed vs 8 (4 x 4 teamed or 8 pugs) that ratio jumped up to about 80 / 20 win loss.
The 20% loss rate in the best case scenario was almost always caused by discipline break down.
In theory formations should usually beat skirmishes, until you add the human element to it. Bottom line, whom ever is more disciplined and communicates better will most likely win the day.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf,
It sounds like you and those other persons could have a lot to add to a discussion on formation combat. When we see a preliminary scetch from GW on how such a system might be constructed I will look forward to your feedback on it.
However, I am unsure what you are trying to tell me in the above post. Are you saying that using formation combat in online games is very difficult? That formations won't be useful for combat groups in PFO? That much can be learned from the MWO system?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bluddwolf,
It sounds like you and those other persons could have a lot to add to a discussion on formation combat. When we see a preliminary scetch from GW on how such a system might be constructed I will look forward to your feedback on it.However, I am unsure what you are trying to tell me in the above post. Are you saying that using formation combat in online games is very difficult? That formations won't be useful for combat groups in PFO? That much can be learned from the MWO system?
Formations are only as strong as their weakest link. Formations are very effective until that first link fails, and then they rapid deteriorate into a more probable loss.
You should always plan for a break in your formation, is all I'm saying. Even then, after thousands of battles, 65 - 80% win rate is not all that bad.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that a formation that can't adapt to losses organically will fail more than 20% of the time. I suspect that training and practicing formation tactics leads to a non-explicit understanding about how the formation adapts to losses.
I'm trying to understand the point you are making in the second sentence. Ther are at least a handful more steps to take after the initial loss of your formation.
1. Controlled Retreat
2. Brief counter strike or continued supressive fire while retreating
3. Regroup
4. Maneuver to new direction of attack
5. Re engage target
If you do not achieve a controlled retreat, you have been routed and the battle is already a loss in most cases.
This is why in another thread I had explained that an alpha strike of greater numbers is best focused at a single target rather than all targets at once.
Formations don't break from slowly raising the temperature on the frog. When you throw the frog into boiling water, he jumps out.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
If the formation doesn't break when one member is incapacitated, the formation doesn't break if a member retreats. I've handled new paintball players and built loose formations out of them, mostly to make it non-obvious where the few experienced players are. (slow-moving marksmen down the center; fast, athletic, fearless kids down the flank; and sneaky bastards around the long way to behind the enemy). Having filled all four of those roles with both pneumatic phosphate-based paint and seminution, I can say that the formation doesn't fail only from a few losses. Things are probably different without the cannon fodder, or when there aren't many players of lower skill, or when the stakes are high.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Things are probably different without the cannon fodder, or when there aren't many players of lower skill, or when the stakes are high.
This is true, and discovering what the threshold is for when high stakes becomes too high is the key. Player skill has nothing to do with it. It depends on how tightly one holds onto his own preservation.
In PFO it's not the dying that some players will fear, it will be the partial looting. Some players would rather break a formation than risk their own gear. This is perhaps rare in more cohesive groups, but not unheard if or not seen before.
This is why many will play "naked", using only threaded gear. Now I expect that if I said that us why there should be no threading of gear, go full loot, some might say that I take that position for self serving reasons. But, I also would be taking the same risk.
Full looting would be a crafter's dream!
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Things are probably different without the cannon fodder, or when there aren't many players of lower skill, or when the stakes are high.This is true, and discovering what the threshold is for when high stakes becomes too high is the key. Player skill has nothing to do with it. It depends on how tightly one holds onto his own preservation.
In PFO it's not the dying that some players will fear, it will be the partial looting. Some players would rather break a formation than risk their own gear. This is perhaps rare in more cohesive groups, but not unheard if or not seen before.
I meant to imply that I only had experience with low-stakes situations, rather than with survival decisions. If a player thinks that the potential of their character losing gear is high enough stakes to panic, then there are other problems.
Which isn't to say that cutting and running in different directions isn't the proper action to take in some cases, nor that when it is the right thing to do one shouldn't execute that tactic without hesitation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan has already explained how "no threading, full loot" just means that the most efficient way to "gear up" is to kill a well-geared player. That hardly sounds like a "crafter's dream".
Now, maybe 100% gear loss...
actually it would, because then the 25% loss would include formerly threaded gear as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
actually it would, because then the 25% loss would include formerly threaded gear as well.Ryan has already explained how "no threading, full loot" just means that the most efficient way to "gear up" is to kill a well-geared player. That hardly sounds like a "crafter's dream".
Now, maybe 100% gear loss...
That operates under the assumption that threaded gear wasn't counted at all when determining how much was lost. I do not think we ever had enough information to make that determination.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Seems to me like 100% gear loss would mean a lot of trading hands, but the same rate of decay for the gear, so it shouldn't globally affect crafters. An individual crafter might get more business if someone dies and loses all their stuff, or he might get less business if someone kills another guy and then has a full backup set of equipment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is why many will play "naked", using only threaded gear. Now I expect that if I said that us why there should be no threading of gear, go full loot, some might say that I take that position for self serving reasons. But, I also would be taking the same risk.Full looting would be a crafter's dream!
OMG, what an epic design fail it would be if that were a viable tactic.
"Hey guys, you know all the time and resources we dedicated we dedicated to making a robust economy and crafting system? J/K, equipment is just a corner case--we designed PvP so that being naked using only a few threaded items was optimal!"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is why many will play "naked", using only threaded gear. Now I expect that if I said that us why there should be no threading of gear, go full loot, some might say that I take that position for self serving reasons. But, I also would be taking the same risk.Full looting would be a crafter's dream!
OMG, what an epic design fail it would be if that were a viable tactic.
"Hey guys, you know all the time and resources we dedicated we dedicated to making a robust economy and crafting system? J/K, equipment is just a corner case--we designed PvP so that being naked using only a few threaded items was optimal!"
Mbando,
What level gear, unthreaded, do you think PVP'ers are going to use?
Or what they might do is thread their main weapon, and their main piece of armor (chest) and the rest will be disposable (junk) gear.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I suppose all gear destroyed on death would give crafters more to do...
I saw Bludd's post and was responding to it, though I used the term of "100% gear loss" instead of "100% gear loot". I was thinking along the lines of the owner losing 100% of his gear, but it was a poor choice of phrase as it was what Nihimon used after Bludd to describe all items being destroyed.
Full looting would push us even more towards naked combat and only running with crap gear on to minimize your losses. Don't see how such a situation would aid people who are high-level crafters, making high-level items (as opposed to someone who is not specializing in crafting). Those dedicated crafters will not be served by the change; it would instead make their playstyle mostly moot, as people will use gear that any shmuck with a month of crafting training can achieve (one month just being an example number to make the point).
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is why many will play "naked", using only threaded gear. Now I expect that if I said that us why there should be no threading of gear, go full loot, some might say that I take that position for self serving reasons. But, I also would be taking the same risk.Full looting would be a crafter's dream!
OMG, what an epic design fail it would be if that were a viable tactic.
"Hey guys, you know all the time and resources we dedicated we dedicated to making a robust economy and crafting system? J/K, equipment is just a corner case--we designed PvP so that being naked using only a few threaded items was optimal!"
Mbando,
What level gear, unthreaded, do you think PVP'ers are going to use?
Or what they might do is thread their main weapon, and their main piece of armor (chest) and the rest will be disposable (junk) gear.
I expect that the players with the highest win rate will typically be kitted out in the best gear available, and it will be a long tome before they spend much experience on learning to thread more of it. I also expect that they will be closely associated with a settlement that provides all of their equipment for them, and that the same group will be setting server-firsts in PvE combat.
If things develop as I expect, the PvE people will be 2nd class citizens (much as they are in EVE, for the same reasons they are in EVE) who will be told what to make and where to work and expected to forgo most profits to keep feeding the military forces of the host Settlement.
Note To Self: Name first born after Mr. Dancey.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If things develop as I expect, the PvE people will be 2nd class citizens (much as they are in EVE, for the same reasons they are in EVE) who will be told what to make and where to work and expected to forgo most profits to keep feeding the military forces of the host Settlement.Note To Self: Name first born after Mr. Dancey.
I find it kind of funny, how almost every time someone says "because it was in EvE doesn't mean it will be in PFO" and then yet another thing found in EvE is said will be in PFO.
I'm not saying PFO will be EvE simply with a fantasy skin at this time. That we can only tell when we are actually playing the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If things develop as I expect, the PvE people will be 2nd class citizens (much as they are in EVE, for the same reasons they are in EVE) who will be told what to make and where to work and expected to forgo most profits to keep feeding the military forces of the host Settlement.
I would expect the same thing. PVE people usually avoid any combat to hold the systems that they use to PVE in unless they are given the choice of... Fight or get the boot.
That is why they remain 2nd class citizens. They do not risk anything to keep the territory unless forced to.
That will continue in PFO, no risk no reward.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mbando,What level gear, unthreaded, do you think PVP'ers are going to use?
Or what they might do is thread their main weapon, and their main piece of armor (chest) and the rest will be disposable (junk) gear.
I think it will likely be what Ryan has said: players--not PvPers, but players--will make choices about threading for best gear, and make choices about what "you can afford to loose" in terms of consumables and other items. So it will be about informed trade-offs, not "naked ganking." Ryan's already pointed out how naked ganking in other games is a result of bad design choices (the infamous "wouldn't it be cool" thread).
As a player advances, she can purchase more threads. However, items of higher quality and tier require more threads. A starting character with starting gear has sufficient threads to protect all the gear she is likely to carry (one weapon, a set of armor, and a half dozen or so miscellaneous items). A character that has reached level 20 in a role and has all top-quality gear, meanwhile, may only be able to protect her armor and one weapon, three weapons and a miscellaneous item, or some other combination (but she could protect a larger amount of gear if she were willing to use weaker items for some of her slots).
In EVE, since everything is disposable, you are warned to "only fly what you can afford to lose". This is a very tough rule to learn for people who are used to MMOs where dying is a time-sink, not a resource-sink. It takes some people quite a while to figure out that if they have 1,000 dollars, buying a 1,000 dollar ship is a huge mistake. They should buy ten 100 dollar ships instead, and expect to lose all of them - which is OK, as long as while losing them they make the equivalent of at least 1,000 dollars.Thus it's OK that there is a continuum of quality in very fine-grained increments for most things. Because you don't just buy "the best" thing when you can - that's foolish. Instead you have to constantly make a calculation about risk - how much can I afford to risk on this ship/ship fitting, vs. how much reward do I expect to gain while I use it?
Once you figure out how to calculate "afford to lose", EVE becomes a game that makes a lot more sense.
However in EVE you rarely if ever have to worry about monsters (NPCs) interfering with your attempts to recover what you can from a wreck. Getting blown up is bad, but you can usually salvage something from the wreckage. And the monsters (NPCs) don't gate content - they don't block your ability to travel from one place to another, or to catch up with friends at another location.
[All the above with the caveats that other players do of course do all those things, but the conditions where other players CAN do those things are well defined and not universal]
In Pathfinder Online we expect there to be a much higher danger factor from monsters, and we expect there to be many times where you'll be trying to return to your party but there will be monsters between you and them.
If we stripped you nude when you respawned, we'd be making it very hard for you to recover anything from your husk, or to fight through to reach your buddies.
EVE addresses this problem somewhat by assuming that you'll have ships and ship fittings cached near where you're operating, and even if you don't you can usually go to where your supplies are, and return to where your friends are reasonably quickly and with reasonably low risk so all you really lose is time.
Since we expect to have a higher risk factor and more active monsters, we think we need to ensure that you respawn with armor and a weapon. You could find yourself unable to get back into an adventure without a lengthy and costly series of actions, by which time your buddies may have logged out or finished doing whatever they were doing when you got killed. Not fun.
The upside of letting you keep a weapon and armor is you'll be able (likely) to have some chance to kill off whatever is near your husk so you can loot it and get some of your stuff back, and you can fight your way through to your buddies if there's not too many monsters between you and them.
The downside is that it means that weapons and armor won't be meaningful items to craft in large quantities. In EVE, ships and ship fittings are crafted in huge quantities because they're being destroyed all the time. But under our current plan that won't happen to arms and armor. With less loss there will be less demand, and with less demand there will be less value in crafting those things.
["Less loss" is not none. And "less value" is not none. People will still make and sell arms and armor, but they won't do it in high volumes like people do with ships and ship fittings in EVE.]
Instead what I anticipate we will create is a system where you need to combine a consumable resource with your weapons and armor to get maximum effect from them, and those resources won't survive the trip to the grave. So crafters will make lots of those resources instead of making lots of swords and armor sets. It's unlikely that someone will be just a guy who makes swords. It's much more likely that guy will make sword consumables, and the occasional sword on commission.
Those consumables will come in a variety of quality levels, so your decision about what to go adventuring with will be "don't adventure with resources you can't afford to lose", but normally you'll have the best weapon and the best armor you can afford.
Therefore actually losing a primary weapon and a good set of armor will be catastrophic, since replacement prices will be high and you may have to wait for someone to craft what you want on commission. I'm sure there will be all sorts of strategies for dealing with THAT issue, and it will be pretty interesting to see what develops.
Also there will be interesting choices to make about what you keep in hand. You may be loathe to swap from your awesome sword to a ranged weapon because if you die, the ranged weapon will cycle with you through death but you might lose that sword...
Now, everything else - that will be EVE territory. Rings, cloaks, belts, gloves, headgear, boots, potions, scrolls, wondrous items, etc; all that stuff will have a massive market and you'll live in an "EVE-style" economy with regard to that stuff. You'll buy it in large quantities, shrug when you lose it, and replace it continuously. And if you spend too much on it, and you lose it, you'll have to spend time re-earning the wealth you sunk into those lost goods and probably learn a good lesson along the way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
If things develop as I expect, the PvE people will be 2nd class citizens (much as they are in EVE, for the same reasons they are in EVE) who will be told what to make and where to work and expected to forgo most profits to keep feeding the military forces of the host Settlement.
If anyone ever finds themselves being part of a community, which treats them as "2nd class citizens" due to their affinity to PvP, PvE, crafting, exploring or any other legitimate in game interest, I hope that such people have the courage to leave their current community and seek one, which treats them with the respect and dignity they deserve.
If no such community can survive within PFO, Ryan and Co have (in my opinion) failed in designing a game being able to fulfill their mission statement and/or we (and by we I mean myself and anyone else who may share somewhat similar base values) have failed as players.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Mbando
The key point to Ryan's argument is that GW plans on making NPC Mobs far more of a threat than your typical MMO. That of course remains to be seen.
Then there is the issue, well you have been killed by an NPC, but you can still get your gear back because NPCs typically don't corpse camp for long.
Even in games like EvE, sometimes you have more value in your implants than you do in the ship you are flying. NPCs never pod kill, so your implants are always safe in PVE.
There are far fewer meaningful choices for threading related to PVE, as opposed to PvP.
That is unless NPC mobs can block your passage or pull you out of fast travel. Then they hunt you down, kill you and either camp your corpse or loot your body, just as a player might. (No I'm not advocation corpse camping, just pointing out that it does happen). Best way to counter corpse campers is to assume that your corpse is being camped, and write off your original losses..... Don't go back!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If things develop as I expect, the PvE people will be 2nd class citizens (much as they are in EVE, for the same reasons they are in EVE) who will be told what to make and where to work and expected to forgo most profits to keep feeding the military forces of the host Settlement.If anyone ever finds themselves being part of a community, which treats them as "2nd class citizens" due to their affinity to PvP, PvE, crafting, exploring or any other legitimate in game interest, I hope that such people have the courage to leave their current community and seek one, which treats them with the respect and dignity they deserve.
If no such community can survive within PFO, Ryan and Co have (in my opinion) failed in designing a game being able to fulfill their mission statement and/or we (and by we I mean myself and anyone else who may share somewhat similar base values) have failed as players.
I would call it a failure of the players to participate in the settlement.
If you are not willing to help defend the settlement, then what respect and dignity do you deserve? I would say none.
That was the case in Eve. I saw it first hand. There were plenty of times and enemy fleet would come into our territory and camp stations, gates, and hunt lone players down. We would throw a fleet together to run them off, and the PVE players would never be seen. Of course, if it was them under attack they would call for help in the proper channels and throw hissy fits when no one came to help them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe the issue wasn't so much that your stuff would be corpse camped, but instead that in order to get back to your stuff you have to cover a large distance filled with monsters, and it'll be inevitable that you fight at least some of them on your way back to your body. You can possibly add to that corpse camping NPC's; it's something the enemies may or may not do.
I don't see how choices for threaded gear would be more meaningful in PvP than PvE. It seems to me in either case you just thread whatever's most valuable, which will probably be your weapon and chest armor. I could, however, definitely see an argument saying that recovering lost items in PvE is easier than in PvP; remember, less risk and less reward. I highly doubt every mob of NPC's cleared will give the equivalent of 75% of a player's stuff, and I would certainly expect that there's no PvE content which would give the player's settlement control of another group's territory or resources.
I don't understand what you mean by "unless NPC mobs can block your passage or pull you out of fast travel". Has fast travel even been confirmed as a feature, and if it has how would that relate to the value of threading in PvE vs PvP? I would definitely expect NPC mobs to block you when you try to return to your corpse; it's been said that the monsters will be more active and more dangerous than in other MMO's (and I have no reason to assume the devs are lying to us in this instance).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"Thralls vs. overlords" sounds like a meaningful human interaction to me.
Sounds like corporate feudalism to me. But meaningful entity relationship anyway.
I wonder if not only gear, but keywords on that gear, have to be threaded or risk loss. "'Vorpal Dagger of Quickness' was damaged", losing its quickness keyword because the character hadn't enough threads to assign.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are many ways to participate in a settlement other than via direct combat. (And I would hope, in the event of an attack on the settlement, all hands would man the barricades.)
Designating those who specialize in/prefer crafting, resource gathering, diplomacy, construction, exploration, etc. as "second class citizens" seems terribly short-sighted.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are many ways to participate in a settlement other than via direct combat. (And I would hope, in the event of an attack on the settlement, all hands would man the barricades.)
Designating those who specialize in/prefer crafting, resource gathering, diplomacy, construction, exploration, etc. as "second class citizens" seems terribly short-sighted.
Can we settle for 'realistic'?
If the player culture follows historical precedent then Ryan's expectation will surely find domain. If we, the players, can manage to evolve our culture then he may be pleasantly surprised.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Xeen
I can absolutely agree that when it comes down to it; every blade, spell, and hammer, and/or pair of tongs should be in the fight. Death is not permanent, and other than gear expense, painless.
People with combat skills (npc mob killers) may not be as skilled or practiced at PVP as the regulars, but there should be no excuse not to fight.
Dedicated crafters, gatherers, and merchants may have little or no fighting skills; but if they are needed or requested, they should be there. Even if just to soak up enemy actions as fodder.
It is clearer to me (the bias you feel), for some reason, now that you wrote it in the way that you did. Thank you.
I can say that I did not look at it that way. I fully intend that any toon that is online, whatever his training, would be there to help fight.
However, if you hold disdain for a character (who is willing to fight); that spent his/her experience on the skills to make you the best gear possible, but can't get out of a paper bag without help; then that is wrong. Let's see how the PVErs turn out before we put them in the doghouse.