Could PFO Thrive with No Unsanctioned PvP?


Pathfinder Online

151 to 200 of 2,166 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

No, because unsanctioned PvP supplies a type of risk that sanctioned PvP does not supply, and it is risk that I believe any sandbox MMO requires.

When you agree to sanctioned PvP it is either because there is little to no risk or because you believe the potential reward is worth the risk. Unsanctioned PvP supplies the risk of randomness. It means that PvP can come to you, not just you to PvP.

Obviously, unsanctioned PvP shouldn't be shoved at you by default, but you should be aware that it is a possibility. You ought to be aware that if you take your caravan through this forest you may get robbed and murdered. You ought to be aware that if another settlement doesn't stand to gain anything from you, and they have the capacity, they might suddenly declare war and attack you without your consent.

If sanctioned PvP were the only form of PvP then the world would become static and feel shallow. If there is little risk then the PvP is relatively meaningless. If there is high risk then nobody but fools or those who believe the odds are heavily in their favor will partake in it. Player interaction would be significantly limited in comparison.

------------

The real question I have is: what is wrong with unsanctioned PvP? Here's a better way to put this: what is wrong with unsanctioned PvE? If you're playing a sandbox then the idea of unsanctioned PvE is NECESSARY. PvE is the player versus the environment; if the environment doesn't affect you by its own accord then it isn't much of a virtual world.

What's the difference between this and unsanctioned PvP? The only difference I can see on a fundamental level is that it is even more dynamic and is generated by players. That is it.

Griefing or the like is unsanctioned PvP, but unsanctioned PvP is not griefing. There isn't anything malicious about unsanctioned PvP. I really don't understand why such a discussion is needed in the first place (not to take anything away from the thread topic or the posters).

Goblin Squad Member

Alarox wrote:


The real question I have is: what is wrong with unsanctioned PvP? Here's a better way to put this: what is wrong with unsanctioned PvE?

I have a similar question...whats wrong with "sanctioned" gameplay?


KitNyx wrote:
Alarox wrote:


The real question I have is: what is wrong with unsanctioned PvP? Here's a better way to put this: what is wrong with unsanctioned PvE?
I have a similar question...whats wrong with "sanctioned" gameplay?

There isn't anything wrong with it unless you're trying to accomplish something that requires more than what it supplies. A dynamic and "living" sandbox is one of those things, whether PvE or PvP related. I don't have any problems with sanctioned gameplay, I just think you can't build the kind of sandbox PFO is trying to be unless you have unsanctioned and seemingly unpredictable elements. Because it is a PvP game I believe you therefore need unsanctioned PvP elements as well. Same with PvE. Things like monster hexes are an integral part of the game.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alarox wrote:

No, because unsanctioned PvP supplies a type of risk that sanctioned PvP does not supply, and it is risk that I believe any sandbox MMO requires.

When you agree to sanctioned PvP it is either because there is little to no risk or because you believe the potential reward is worth the risk. Unsanctioned PvP supplies the risk of randomness. It means that PvP can come to you, not just you to PvP.

There's a whole lot of sanctioned PvP in PFO that isn't consensual. When some company declares a feud against your company, that's sanctioned. You can fight, run, or log off, but it's going to happen even if you don't agree to it. Same with settlements and war. Same with raiding.

Goblin Squad Member

Yeah, "sanctioned" doesn't mean you've agreed to it. It means the game systems have determined there won't be any Reputation or Alignment hits for it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Urman wrote:
Alarox wrote:

No, because unsanctioned PvP supplies a type of risk that sanctioned PvP does not supply, and it is risk that I believe any sandbox MMO requires.

When you agree to sanctioned PvP it is either because there is little to no risk or because you believe the potential reward is worth the risk. Unsanctioned PvP supplies the risk of randomness. It means that PvP can come to you, not just you to PvP.

There's a whole lot of sanctioned PvP in PFO that isn't consensual. When some company declares a feud against your company, that's sanctioned. You can fight, run, or log off, but it's going to happen even if you don't agree to it. Same with settlements and war. Same with raiding.
Nihimon wrote:
Yeah, "sanctioned" doesn't mean you've agreed to it. It means the game systems have determined there won't be any Reputation or Alignment hits for it.

Oh, in which case nevermind. I don't follow the forums regularly enough to know the exact meaning of the lingo used. It certainly confused me while typing it up, but sometimes the only way to learn is to fail once...

IGNORE EVERYTHING IN THE PREVIOUS POSTS BY ME

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alarox wrote:
IGNORE EVERYTHING IN THE PREVIOUS POSTS BY ME

Not a chance! You shall henceforth be known as "that guy who didn't know what 'Sanctioned PvP' was all about" :) Just kidding, I actually have a soft spot in my heart for anyone who can publicly admit they didn't know something.

But since you're paying attention now, and since it's what I do, please allow me to direct your attention to:

If you want to PvP without consequence in PFO you will have to do it in one of the following ways;

1) Catch a flagged character (criminal, heinous, etc).
2) Start a feud, literally giving you the chance to choose which enemies are meaningful to you.
3) Start a war, again giving you the chance to choose with whom to fight.
4) Join one or more factions in order to take on one or more enemy factions.
5) Stand and Deliver (within its limitations).
6) Assassination (again, within its limitations. More on that another time!)
7) Pick up some bounties.
8) Take ownership/management of one or more elements of a PoI and defend them from attackers (who have initiated an attack).

...

The ONLY kind of PvP that is not sanctioned is jumping players who have no quarrel with you at all and who have deliberately avoided flagging themselves for PvP. That kind of PvP is completely open to you, but it will cost you reputation and alignment.

That list constitutes everything that is currently Sanctioned PvP. Anything not on that list is Unsanctioned PvP. I think most of us expect that new types of Sanctioned PvP will be identified and added to that list over time. At a minimum, if there's some category of Unsanctioned PvP that's causing folks to become Low Reputation when they shouldn't be, then it should definitely be Sanctioned as soon as the devs can find some way to identify and account for it.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Alarox wrote:

No, because unsanctioned PvP supplies a type of risk that sanctioned PvP does not supply, and it is risk that I believe any sandbox MMO requires.

When you agree to sanctioned PvP it is either because there is little to no risk or because you believe the potential reward is worth the risk. Unsanctioned PvP supplies the risk of randomness. It means that PvP can come to you, not just you to PvP.

Obviously, unsanctioned PvP shouldn't be shoved at you by default, but you should be aware that it is a possibility. You ought to be aware that if you take your caravan through this forest you may get robbed and murdered. You ought to be aware that if another settlement doesn't stand to gain anything from you, and they have the capacity, they might suddenly declare war and attack you without your consent.

If sanctioned PvP were the only form of PvP then the world would become static and feel shallow. If there is little risk then the PvP is relatively meaningless. If there is high risk then nobody but fools or those who believe the odds are heavily in their favor will partake in it. Player interaction would be significantly limited in comparison.

------------

The real question I have is: what is wrong with unsanctioned PvP? Here's a better way to put this: what is wrong with unsanctioned PvE? If you're playing a sandbox then the idea of unsanctioned PvE is NECESSARY. PvE is the player versus the environment; if the environment doesn't affect you by its own accord then it isn't much of a virtual world.

What's the difference between this and unsanctioned PvP? The only difference I can see on a fundamental level is that it is even more dynamic and is generated by players. That is it.

Griefing or the like is unsanctioned PvP, but unsanctioned PvP is not griefing. There isn't anything malicious about unsanctioned PvP. I really don't understand why such a discussion is needed in the first place (not to take anything away from the thread topic or the posters).

I'm okay with risk. But swallowing 5 kilograms of cyanide ain't risky, it's suicide. Even for Mithridate or Rasputin.

When unsanctioned PvP becomes hell on earth, it sucks. I totally accept your divergence of opinion on this, but the sad truth is : A large population of the community, probably a majority I think, doesn't want to play in a world of meaningless psychopath killers.

Goblin Squad Member

Alarox wrote:
A dynamic and "living" sandbox ...

...is our shared objective. A living, rather than empty and dead, sandbox.

Goblin Squad Member

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

I definitely hope this is not the case. This was the "horror show" feeling that I disliked about DarkFall and other murder simulators.

Bluddwolf wrote:
No where in the game world should you feel completely safe.
I completely agree. But that doesn't mean the only alternative is to constantly feel like you're trying to sneak through a zombie infested research facility.
I tend to agree. Being in a constant state of stress would be a game-killer for me. I want moments of alertness and paranoia, not a constant feeling.

@ Nihimon and Lifedragn,

Having you heart rate "pick up a few beats" was hardly meant to equate the feeling of "stress". If it is stress that you feel while playing a game that has Open World PVP, then perhaps you are holding onto your pixels a bit too closely?

I'm hoping that PFO will break players from that sense of entitlement and gear worship that Theme Park MMOs have so destructively created and then reinforced.

Player Crafted Gear, being the best in game will do wonders for that. No real phat lootz drops from Mob Bosses will also go a long way. Not having to grind the same dungeons over and over again, should seal the coffin on the "Loot Monkeys" death grasp on the gear-centric mindset.

The lore of Golarian, particularly the River Kingdoms, further drives this point home with the River Freedom of "You Have What You Hold."

I have made no bones about my agenda, that is to pursue banditry, hopefully in a sanctioned manner as often as possible. But, I will resort to unsanctioned PVP is the prize is too great to ignore. I'm hoping that this reality causes you to be wary, but not stressful. If on the other hand you do feel stress as a result of my activities, unfortunately that may be your issue, I won't make it mine.

What I mean by that last line is, I will decide on whether you use sanctioned or unsanctioned PVP based on my calculation of which is more useful to me at the time. I will not consider what the victim might feel about it.

Silver Crusade Goblinworks Executive Founder

If there was no PVP allowed I would find the game much more interesting. If PVP were only allowed by people agreeing to Duel or taking part in a conflict, I would also find that much more interesting.

I believe Audoucet has put it better then I can. I have no desire to play in a world full of psychopathic killers. I believe thats what the anonymous cloak playing one of these game provide will bring out the worst in people in terms of bullying etc.....and I'm not putting too much stock in the safe guards.

NC pvp is one of the corner stones of the game. I realize that ship has sailed. I am willing to give the game a try. Who knows, I may even like it.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
I'm hoping that PFO will break players from that sense of entitlement and gear worship that Theme Park MMOs have so destructively created and then reinforced.

While gear worship is completely clear would you mind elaborating on what you mean with "entitlement"? Entitlement to what?

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Obviously I am not Bluddwulf, and he might mean something different, however;

An entitlement to having the game fulfil your ingame wants, rather than having the players work on fulfilling them themselves. You may have seen competitive players on gaming websites complain about how developers are building towards the common denominator, the much maligned 'casual'. This is what they tend to be talking about.

In a Themepark MMOs the only thing stopping most competent players from accomplishing any of the ingame content is time. Barring competition at the very highest level (Top 100 WoW Raiding for example) none of the content is designed to actually be particularly challenging. This is, generally, done on purpose to attract the maximum number of people and to hit that part of the brain that sparks that rewarding feeling you get.

Sandbox MMOs, on the other hand, generally have actual skill as the barrier to accomplishing ingame goals. Do you want to own an Inn that players from hexes around frequent? You better be prepared to compete with one thousand similarly motivated players. Do you want to own the most legendary weapon in the game, the envy of every swordsman throughout the land? You better be prepared to compete with one thousand similarly motivated players who are now hunting you down.

Themepark MMOs have created a generation of gamers within which failure is not an option. If they cannot accomplish something it means that the developers have failed them, and that it is the developers duty to fix that. They will cry 'OP' or 'NERF!' at the first possible sign of difficulty. They tend to follow the 'scrub' mentality of self imposed rules over victory. Obviously this has always been present, there will always be players unwilling to learn and grow into their wants. But the constant reward-for-no-risk cycle that Themepark MMOs have developed has exacerbated the situation greatly.

You shouldn't always get what you want. There should be times as a player that you are forced to stop, reconsider your goals and then move forward. Maybe you aren't skilled enough to be the wielder of the Banner of Rovagug. Other people are better than you at that. But that's OK, because there is probably another aspect of the game that you are better than they are.

Themepark MMOs largely do not do that, and their players have grown entitled to the feeling that anything is possible. Even for those people that can only barely tie their shoes.


Morbis wrote:

Obviously I am not Bluddwulf, and he might mean something different, however;

An entitlement to having the game fulfil your ingame wants, rather than having the players work on fulfilling them themselves. You may have seen competitive players on gaming websites complain about how developers are building towards the common denominator, the much maligned 'casual'. This is what they tend to be talking about.

In a Themepark MMOs the only thing stopping most competent players from accomplishing any of the ingame content is time. Barring competition at the very highest level (Top 100 WoW Raiding for example) none of the content is designed to actually be particularly challenging. This is, generally, done on purpose to attract the maximum number of people and to hit that part of the brain that sparks that rewarding feeling you get.

Sandbox MMOs, on the other hand, generally have actual skill as the barrier to accomplishing ingame goals. Do you want to own an Inn that players from hexes around frequent? You better be prepared to compete with one thousand similarly motivated players. Do you want to own the most legendary weapon in the game, the envy of every swordsman throughout the land? You better be prepared to compete with one thousand similarly motivated players who are now hunting you down.

Themepark MMOs have created a generation of gamers within which failure is not an option. If they cannot accomplish something it means that the developers have failed them, and that it is the developers duty to fix that. They will cry 'OP' or 'NERF!' at the first possible sign of difficulty. They tend to follow the 'scrub' mentality of self imposed rules over victory. Obviously this has always been present, there will always be players unwilling to learn and grow into their wants. But the constant reward-for-no-risk cycle that Themepark MMOs have developed has exacerbated the situation greatly.

You shouldn't always get what you want. There should be times as a player that you are forced to stop, reconsider...

Well put, Morbis. It's analogous to the whole "don't keep score at soccer games thing" that schools are sometimes doing nowadays. Make everyone a winner... and no one's a winner. Catering to the lowest common denominator essentially brings everyone down to the LCD's level.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Alarox wrote:
IGNORE EVERYTHING IN THE PREVIOUS POSTS BY ME

Not a chance! You shall henceforth be known as "that guy who didn't know what 'Sanctioned PvP' was all about" :) Just kidding, I actually have a soft spot in my heart for anyone who can publicly admit they didn't know something.

But since you're paying attention now, and since it's what I do, please allow me to direct your attention to:

If you want to PvP without consequence in PFO you will have to do it in one of the following ways;

1) Catch a flagged character (criminal, heinous, etc).
2) Start a feud, literally giving you the chance to choose which enemies are meaningful to you.
3) Start a war, again giving you the chance to choose with whom to fight.
4) Join one or more factions in order to take on one or more enemy factions.
5) Stand and Deliver (within its limitations).
6) Assassination (again, within its limitations. More on that another time!)
7) Pick up some bounties.
8) Take ownership/management of one or more elements of a PoI and defend them from attackers (who have initiated an attack).

...

The ONLY kind of PvP that is not sanctioned is jumping players who have no quarrel with you at all and who have deliberately avoided flagging themselves for PvP. That kind of PvP is completely open to you, but it will cost you reputation and alignment.

That list constitutes everything that is currently Sanctioned PvP. Anything not on that list is Unsanctioned PvP. I think most of us expect that new types of Sanctioned PvP will be identified and added to that list over time. At a minimum, if there's some category of Unsanctioned PvP that's causing folks to become Low Reputation when they shouldn't be, then it should definitely be Sanctioned as soon as the devs can find some way to identify and account for it.

That's already a lot of pvp. Then, with your rep score and alignment right in front of you, it will sometimes be worth it to engage in 'unsanctioned' pvp to hit a particular juicy target (bandits) or disrupt the operations of a rival when your organization cannot yet afford to declare a feud/war. If the rep system works as intended, unsanctioned pvp will add to the risk and danger of the game and fuel a host of economic activities. This will hopefully produce everchanging content for the game without the need for GW to produce hundreds of hours of pve content-that's the sandbox model, no? The one glitch to me in the system is the ability to grant rep, which undermines the idea of it taking lots of boring tasks and time to repare rock-bottum rep.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think that faction warfare, as described, is meaningless at all. It already has at least as much lore and RP importance as the horde vs. alliance setup in WOW. The Hellknights clashing with the Knights of Iomedae makes perfect sense to me. It also has the advantage of introducing players to pvp, PFO style, without the need for a 'red vs. blue' practice system. Eventually player inaugerated conflict (wars, feuds) will naturally bisect these clashes of interest, and tie players more closely to the story of the game world.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

@ Nihimon and Lifedragn,

Having you heart rate "pick up a few beats" was hardly meant to equate the feeling of "stress". If it is stress that you feel while playing a game that has Open World PVP, then perhaps you are holding onto your pixels a bit too closely?

I'm hoping that PFO will break players from that sense of entitlement and gear worship that Theme Park MMOs have so destructively created and then reinforced.

I'm sure you didn't intend that to be patronizing, but it was.

The fact that you have embraced the toxic nature of murder simulators doesn't mean that everyone who hasn't is flawed, either holding onto pixels too closely, or filled with a sense of entitlement or gear worship.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

@ Nihimon and Lifedragn,

Having you heart rate "pick up a few beats" was hardly meant to equate the feeling of "stress". If it is stress that you feel while playing a game that has Open World PVP, then perhaps you are holding onto your pixels a bit too closely?

I'm hoping that PFO will break players from that sense of entitlement and gear worship that Theme Park MMOs have so destructively created and then reinforced.

Player Crafted Gear, being the best in game will do wonders for that. No real phat lootz drops from Mob Bosses will also go a long way. Not having to grind the same dungeons over and over again, should seal the coffin on the "Loot Monkeys" death grasp on the gear-centric mindset.

The lore of Golarian, particularly the River Kingdoms, further drives this point home with the River Freedom of "You Have What You Hold."

I have made no bones about my agenda, that is to pursue banditry, hopefully in a sanctioned manner as often as possible. But, I will resort to unsanctioned PVP is the prize is too great to ignore. I'm hoping that this reality causes you to be wary, but not stressful. If on the other hand you do feel stress as a result of my activities, unfortunately that may be your issue, I won't make it mine.

What I mean by that last line is, I will decide on...

I think you're putting words inside other's mouths.

I don't really care so much if you take my sucky-chain-mail. I care if you do that everyday of the week, each time I'm fishing at the nearest river. I'll just stop fishing, stay afk in town, get bored, and eventually quit. And leave you playing alone.

Goblin Squad Member

As with most arguments on these forums I think that the trouble with the "is Faction Warfare meaningful" argument is largely based on miscommunication. I do not believe that those calling Faction Warfare meaningless are implying that there isn't reason behind it, or that it isn't thematically compelling. Rather that in its current form it has no integration with the other elements of the game.

Consider – PvP combat has an extremely clear influence on those people not involved in PvP combat. Who owns what territory, who controls what resources, who controls gets to walk down this road. All of these things integrate PvP combat with the rest of the game. Similarly, merchants are directly integrated into the rest of the game in a similar manner. When a merchant decides to raise all of their prices they influence every single player in the game.

But how are players not involved in Faction Warfare influenced by the actions of those who are? There have been hints that some buildings may only be available to those high ranking member who spend a lot of their time fighting for their cause. So far that is the only integration I have seen so far. For those players not involved in Faction Warfare the actions of those who are are largely meaningless.

That could be a symptom of lack of information. No one knows how Faction Warfare is actually going to be implemented (and any information they have released will almost certainly change before OE). If you use "do uninvolved players care about this?" as a measurement for how meaningful a subsystem is, Faction Warfare currently falls flat.

Goblin Squad Member

ElyasRavenwood wrote:

I believe Audoucet has put it better then I can. I have no desire to play in a world full of psychopathic killers. I believe thats what the anonymous cloak playing one of these game provide will bring out the worst in people in terms of bullying etc.....and I'm not putting too much stock in the safe guards.

NC pvp is one of the corner stones of the game. I realize that ship has sailed. I am willing to give the game a try. Who knows, I may even like it.

I think it will very much depend on the fraction of aggressive player killers in the player base, and the mechanisms/penalties they risk for their behaviour.

The bulk of the player base will have to enforce their societal standards to whatever degree the rules don't. If 90% of the players accept a game where most PvP takes place in the form of feuds and wars and other wholly sanctioned ways, they have the ability to coerce the rest to limit predation. When the aggressive PK side gets large enough, to the point where the pro-sanction side of the population is too small to limit predation, then the game risks exodus: MMO players can always opt out of a game.

The penalties for bad behavior matter. If a low rep player killer is disadvantaged compared to a high rep opponent, then the pro-sanction side has an effective force multiplier. I would think that the tipping point for exodus - the fraction of aggressive PK that the game will tolerate - can be higher with the rep system. How much depends on how severe the penalties are.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I do not believe the roleplaying value of factional warfare can be so cavalierly discarded. The competition between the Pathfinder Society and the Aspis Consortium throughout Golarion is a great source of conflict and adventure. Remember, for many Pathfinder fans, this will be their introduction to pvp, in an mmo, for the first time. It will serve as practice for later organizational warefare, without need for a 'red vs. blue' system. The factional warfare described is absolutely integrated into the rest of the game world. When factions fight, you will sell them consummables, weapons, armor and magic items. You will serve as guards and mercenaries in their battles and raids. You will offer them scouting and intelligence for a fee. You will manipulate them in diplomacy and ally with them in war. I'm going to join the Hellknight faction asap myself-can't wait.

Goblin Squad Member

I liked Sepherum's post above, but wanted to modify part of it just a bit:

Quote:
When player characters that belong to factions fight, you will sell them consummables, weapons, armor and magic items. You will serve as guards and mercenaries in their battles and raids. You will offer them scouting and intelligence for a fee. You will manipulate them in diplomacy and ally with them in war.

It's not the NPC members of the factions that we're interacting with as much as it is the PC members. Factions are a driver for more player interaction.

Goblin Squad Member

Sepherum wrote:
Remember, for many Pathfinder fans, this will be their introduction to pvp, in an mmo, for the first time.

That's actually a really exciting thought for me. The benefits of getting Reputation right are enormous if a new generation of players - untainted by prior bad experiences in murder simulators - embraces this kind of consequential PvP.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

@ Nihimon and Lifedragn,

Having you heart rate "pick up a few beats" was hardly meant to equate the feeling of "stress". If it is stress that you feel while playing a game that has Open World PVP, then perhaps you are holding onto your pixels a bit too closely?

I'm hoping that PFO will break players from that sense of entitlement and gear worship that Theme Park MMOs have so destructively created and then reinforced.

I'm sure you didn't intend that to be patronizing, but it was.

The fact that you have embraced the toxic nature of murder simulators doesn't mean that everyone who hasn't is flawed, either holding onto pixels too closely, or filled with a sense of entitlement or gear worship.

First, it was not meant to be pointing at your beliefs exclusively. I was speaking in a broader sense, of the culture that had been created by Theme Park MMOs that does not translate well into the Open World PVP MMO genre. I found that the use of the term "stress" was a bit misplaced, unless we put it into the context of a Theme Park MMO.

I also can see you have adopted the use of the term "Murder Simulator", which also reveals a mindset that is also "Theme Parky" in nature. It comes from the culture of entitlement that I had mentioned briefly, and Morbis had detailed perfectly.

But to add to his detailed definition, I will add another sense of entitlement that has been expressed on these boards frequently.

No one is entitled to know the motivation of someone else's action. The fact that you do not know it, does not make the action wrong or even suspect of being wrong.

This I think is why Faction Warfare is accepted by some, and not others. Those that like faction warfare, like it because it is predictable and its motives are clear. Those that dislike faction warfare are also in favor of unsanctioned PVP as a useful tool, for the exact opposite reasons. Unsanctioned PVP is more free-form, less predictable, and its motives are not so clear.

Faction Warfare is a Theme Park element (Yes, even in EVE Online). The only meaningful human interaction involved in it is choosing the faction initially. After that, your actions are scripted to a certain extent.

As far as whether or not I "embrace" the concept that "it is a cold, and harsh world out there", I not only embrace it, I'm actively advocating for it.

I come from a RPG background of D&D / AD&D (1st and 2nd editions)where the game play was brutal in comparison to what is the norm for what is considered "hard core" MMOs. We might as well have had permadeath, because it could be weeks or months (if ever) that our DM(s) would grant access to resurrection spells.

My transition into Open World PVP MMOs (including those with full loot) was really taking quite a baby step.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Bluddwolf, I see you're going to double-down on the patronizing faux-psychoanalysis. It's not appreciated.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon, while i agree with you on many points that contain it. If you continue to use the term "murder simulator" I'll start referring to you as Jack Thompson.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Those that like faction warfare, like it because it is predictable and its motives are clear.

Not universally. Predictability and clarity of motivation are not at all central to my preference. Others probably vary from your motivation hypothesis as well if I do.

I like well-told stories. Well-told stories have well-developed characters (which factions are) and plots and sub-plots about the conflict between those characters.

If we have everything we need to build meaningful and adventurous tales using these factions as dynamic agents of our own stories' setting then I know will enjoy my gameplay. If the only driver for interplayer conflict, whether economic or militant, is the size of relative player egos in the metagame, then for me it would become an abysmal failure, simply because the players turned out to be, for my intents, seriously suboptimal.

It is story depth, not superficial action, that is significant to me.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, now we discard the initial choice of faction as trivial, as well as the roleplaying element? Trivial, as in, choosing to be a bandit, crafting or merchant archetype? You can choose a faction-or not. You can leave a faction. You can betray the other PCs in your faction. You can choose whether you're just going to defend against factional foes or be more gung-ho. The timing and execution of these choices, like all meaningful ones in game, should be based on your actual alignment and rep score and what you care to absorb/improve. Are peeps campaigning for no factional warfare for anyone 'cause it didn't make their Christmas list? Making choices mindful of alignment and especially reputation is the grief mitigation component of the entire system.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

@Bludd, I don't think it wise to assume that everyone that likes a system likes it for the same reason. You will always take offense to people equating banditry to griefing, so I'll take offense to equating faction PvP to wanting clear-cut motivations and predictable actions. Blanket statements on any sizable group of people are a no-no. In fact, many people have already stated a variety of reasons for why they like the proposed faction systems.

The argument that factional PvP scripts your actions for you is kinda silly. I could say joining a company or settlement scripts your actions, because the other players are telling you what needs to get done and expecting you to do it.

To all: there's a lot we don't know about factions yet. Declaring them meaningless, useless, or the most important part of the game is kinda pointless at the moment, because there's not a lot of info either way. I would assume the GW team would make a system like this well integrated into the rest of the game; they've been telling us the whole time that it's all going to be woven together and the systems will work as a whole instead of as individual parts. I don't see any reason to assume that they're lying about that.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:

As far as whether or not I "embrace" the concept that "it is a cold, and harsh world out there", I not only embrace it, I'm actively advocating for it.

I come from a RPG background of D&D / AD&D (1st and 2nd editions)where the game play was brutal in comparison to what is the norm for what is considered "hard core" MMOs. We might as well have had permadeath, because it could be weeks or months (if ever) that our DM(s) would grant access to resurrection spells.

My transition into Open World PVP MMOs (including those with full loot) was really taking quite a baby step.

You're comparison with D&D is misplaced.

"Okay, I'll go to the smith, in the market, to get my armor repaired."
DM : "You die. An orc black-knight backstabs you in the street."
"Oh, bad luck. Well, I'll make a new char'."

"Char' ready, I'm a wizard orc. I'll go to the nearest inn to find some fellow adventurers !"
DM : "You die. An orc black-knight backstabs you in the street."
"Haha ... I see, you think an orc wizard doesn't makes sense. BRB."

"Ok ! This time, I'm a human mage. I ... "
DM : "You die. An orc black-knight backstabs you in the street."
"What ? Geez ... Okay, well I'll ... "
DM : "You die. An orc black-knight backstabs you in the street."
"Er, wait a m ... "
DM : "You die. An orc black-knight backstabs you in the street."
" ... "

That never happens. With a normal DM I mean.

And btw, I should lose my third WoD character next saturday this year. The first one died killed by a critical hit from a teenager's hammer. The second one died in his sleep, eaten by the character of a fellow player who accidently turned flesh eater (she lost her PC too). The third one will most certainly die this week-end, because my DM doesn't like my japanese accent.

That's for the last 15 sessions. Well, I still don't wanna play EvE again.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Audoucet: Dude, go on the interwebz. Or to a game store. Or the club events board of your local college and find another game. Your DM sounds like a freakin' Bozo.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It is not the type of risk that a lot of folks seem to be concerned about. It is the amount of risk.

Theme-park senses of entitlement are spoken of poorly, but I believe it is misunderstood what one of the many aspects that draws folks to RPGs and even the Pathfinder property the game is inspire upon. That is the growth of characters and the amassing of stuff.

Most people here have already bought into the fact that they will lose some of their stuff some of the time. But when you cross the boundary to losing most of your stuff most of the time... well, why not go play Team Fortress or Battlefield at that point? If expectations are to constantly return to 0, then why work to try to build in the first place?

Let us say I made 10 excursions to harvest Mineral 1. Mineral 1 is slightly uncommon, but not exactly rare. I varied hexes and times of day, avoided NBSI and unfriendly territories, and frequently took help with me just to watch my back while collecting and generally just avoiding dumb behavior that a sane person would expect would get them repeatedly killed.

If I get killed 0-2 times out of 10... pick up and carry on.
If I get killed 3-5 times out of 10... am I getting enough back to cover the cost of lost gear?
If I get killed 6+ times out of 10... This is frustrating! What's the point of trying? Maybe I should quit.

Edit: Correcting words, but not the message. I am getting bad at skipping or mistyping words these days. :(

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Sepherum wrote:
@ Audoucet: Dude, go on the interwebz. Or to a game store. Or the club events board of your local college and find another game. Your DM sounds like a freakin' Bozo.

I can't go back to college. I could end up in prison.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
It is not the type of risk that a lot of folks seem to be concerned about. It is the amount of risk.

Indeed.

Goblin Squad Member

@LifeDragn

Using your scale of between 0 - 10 kills, out of 10 attempts, at what point do you move from your "heart beating a bit more" to the logging into the game being stressful?

Personally I'm at 4:10 for Heart Beating Faster and at Stressful at 8:10. Under 4 and I find the risk to be pretty blah! At 8 or above, even I will begin to feel "Wow this is tough".

Goblin Squad Member

Critical difference here Bludd; he's not saying 'out of 10 attempts on my life', he's saying 'out of 10 attempts at gathering'. Are you saying that if you were a gatherer and you died 7 times out of every 10 times you tried gathering (so only getting stuff 3 out of 10 times, and losing whatever you had 7 times), you wouldn't be stressed by that? Personally I'd like to see success at least half of my times, especially when doing gathering as safely as Lifedragn described. I'd expect death maybe 2-3 times out of 10 for the described scenario, personally.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:

It is not the type of risk that a lot of folks seem to be concerned about. It is the amount of risk.

Theme-park senses of entitlement are spoken of poorly, but I believe it is misunderstood what one of the many aspects that draws folks to RPGs and even the Pathfinder property the game is inspire upon. That is the growth of characters and the amassing of stuff.

Most people here have already bought into the fact that they will lose some of their stuff some of the time. But when you cross the boundary to losing most of your stuff most of the time... well, why not go play Team Fortress or Battlefield at that point? If expectations are to constantly return to 0, then why work to try to build in the first place?

Let us say I made 10 excursions to harvest Mineral 1. Mineral 1 is slightly uncommon, but not exactly rare. I varied hexes and times of day, avoided NBSI and unfriendly territories, and frequently took help with me just to watch my back while collecting and generally just avoiding dumb behavior that a sane person would expect would get them repeatedly killed.

If I get killed 0-2 times out of 10... pick up and carry on.
If I get killed 3-5 times out of 10... am I getting enough back to cover the cost of lost gear?
If I get killed 6+ times out of 10... This is frustrating! What's the point of trying? Maybe I should quit.

Edit: Correcting words, but not the message. I am getting bad at skipping or mistyping words these days. :(

Excellent post to distinguish between ganking and griefing. I remember my Warlock in WOW, Ris. If I got ganked once or twice I would fight or move/adjust and didn't really mind, indeed, some of it was fun. But once I was ganked and corpse-camped by a max level player. He ran around, danced, and emoted 'Korvack spits on Ris', 'Korvack farts in Ris' face', etc. and killed me until I switched to an alt and did something else. I thought, 'that poor guy has no personal life.' He wasn't getting loot or taking one of the Horde/Alliance objectives that gave out the bonus or improving his skills or gaining xp. And of course I had guildies who did the same thing and said, "well, they did it to me" but the 'lore' in that game just wasn't compelling enough for me to do the revenge thing. Blizzard is wise to offer the option of 10 characters, so nine alts, on a pvp server. Or at least they used to.

Goblin Squad Member

Shane Gifford wrote:
Critical difference here Bludd; he's not saying 'out of 10 attempts on my life', he's saying 'out of 10 attempts at gathering'. Are you saying that if you were a gatherer and you died 7 times out of every 10 times you tried gathering (so only getting stuff 3 out of 10 times, and losing whatever you had 7 times), you wouldn't be stressed by that? Personally I'd like to see success at least half of my times, especially when doing gathering as safely as Lifedragn described. I'd expect death maybe 2-3 times out of 10 for the described scenario, personally.

Huh. 3/10 for lima beans. 5/10 for silver. 8/10 for adamantine. Acceptable losses.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sepherum wrote:
Huh. 3/10 for lima beans. 5/10 for silver. 8/10 for adamantine. Acceptable losses.

No one should EVER die for lima beans....

Goblin Squad Member

HolmesandWatson wrote:
Sepherum wrote:
Huh. 3/10 for lima beans. 5/10 for silver. 8/10 for adamantine. Acceptable losses.
No one should EVER die for lima beans....

Upon this foundation I will build my financial Empire! Hahahahahaha!

Goblin Squad Member

Kinda sad, this subject no longer concerns me one bit... The MTX thread has me seriously concerned about the game.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am confused about what skilled or unskilled have to do with PvP or PvE have to do with Sandbox or themepark have to do with stress (or excitement, however you want to look at it) and relaxation.

Secondlife and Minecraft are the two most pure sandboxes I have ever played, both have PvP extensions, but in neither case is the PvP a requirement, prerequisite, or consequence of the possibility or lack thereof of being a sandbox.

Similarly, Secondlife and Minecraft are the two of the most pure sandboxes I have ever played and neither makes my "heart beat a bit more", at least in a way tied to the it being a sandbox (quite the contrary, the calm creative outlet is one of its draws for me).

And, Secondlife and Minecraft are the two of the most pure sandboxes I have ever played and neither requires any skill to enjoy.

On the otherhand, the game which does make my "heart beat a bit more", is a PvP game...and happens to be open world PvP, but is clearly not a sandbox - meaning there is no way to make consequential changes or impacts to the game world. This game is the DayZ mod for Arma. Of course, it also has perma-death...which could arguably be more rightly identified as the cause of the increased heart rate, at least more so than just the fact that there is PvP. And...since I have had this debate here previously, before anyone argues with me that open world = sandbox...yeah I read that wikipedia article too, read it more carefully and it does say the two are not the same thing, only often instituted together.

And as for factions being themepark...maybe, we will see if GW gives us a way to shape the factions and their existence in the game. If so, then I would argue they are really sandbox tools...shovels, buckets, and rakes.

In conclusion, the "but this is a sandbox" argument...does not really mean anything. Sorry, I just see a whole lot of false correlation going on in this discussion.

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I cant give an ubiased opinion as I'm still not sold on ALL PVP ALL THE TIME. I want to play because its Pathfinder, not DAOC2.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Kinda sad, this subject no longer concerns me one bit... The MTX thread has me seriously concerned about the game.

As information comes out I have my ups and downs. There's a lot of moving parts that we don't fully understand yet. I don't think we'll know until EE how it will actually be.

I don't plan to be a huge MTX shopper. I think there still promises to be a lot inside the game I can enjoy even if the MTX are over the top. Numbers will still matter; cohesive social networks will matter regardless of what sells. There's perfumed nobles in any society. They don't all add to their group's effectiveness.

Goblin Squad Member

Maccabee wrote:
I cant give an ubiased opinion as I'm still not sold on ALL PVP ALL THE TIME. I want to play because its Pathfinder, not DAOC2.

The IP was the initial lure for myself as well. Then I saw positive features and negative features (from my perspective of course). I don't love the whole package, but I've got enough interest to be excited for it.


@ Maccabee

You should realize that everything you do is PvP in sandbox game.
You could peacefully mine or gather mushrooms or whatever, yet you are still a threat. If i am enemy, and i dont kill you, i will get my head chopped off because of the superior longsword that you crafted or i will get blasted by fireball because you gathered stone for the 3th level wizard tower etc.

On the bright side, because of the above reasons you combat oriented guildmates have very real reason to protect you.
In theme park games people get the best gear from dungeons ,that's why they spend their time in raids. Here they get the best gear/training etc because of you work.
Thats your best defence not the reputation or any other similar attempt.

Goblin Squad Member

Vailla wrote:
You should realize that everything you do is PvP in sandbox game.

Again, my 3 year old daughter and I play together on a Minecraft server...we do so entirely cooperatively. Minecraft is a sandbox. Where is the PvP?

Don't get me wrong, I think I think I understand what you are thinking - that almost everything in PfO could be considered PvP if you broaden the definition to include any action that might be causally sufficient to negatively impact another player...but I do not see what this has to do with it occurring in a sandbox.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Vailla wrote:

@ Maccabee

You should realize that everything you do is PvP in sandbox game.
You could peacefully mine or gather mushrooms or whatever, yet you are still a threat. If i am enemy, and i dont kill you, i will get my head chopped off because of the superior longsword that you crafted or i will get blasted by fireball because you gathered stone for the 3th level wizard tower etc.

Well you will, play alone.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
@Bluddwolf, I see you're going to double-down on the patronizing faux-psychoanalysis. It's not appreciated.

What you choose to call "doubling-down" I mean for it to be "further clarification". I can not change the way that you feel, just as you can not change my opinion that I believe some of your beliefs come from misconceptions spawned from theme park MMO culture.

We will just have to agree to disagree, as the cliche goes.

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

Vailla wrote:

@ Maccabee

You should realize that everything you do is PvP in sandbox game.
You could peacefully mine or gather mushrooms or whatever, yet you are still a threat. If i am enemy, and i dont kill you, i will get my head chopped off because of the superior longsword that you crafted or i will get blasted by fireball because you gathered stone for the 3th level wizard tower etc.

On the bright side, because of the above reasons you combat oriented guildmates have very real reason to protect you.
In theme park games people get the best gear from dungeons ,that's why they spend their time in raids. Here they get the best gear/training etc because of you work.
Thats your best defence not the reputation or any other similar attempt.

You should realize that not every player has the time/schedule to hold hands and take windy walks with his guildmates to accomplish simple goals. Exploration, killing npc monsters, and radnomized dungeons all have their appeal to A LOT of players. Everyone is not coming to this game from EVE/DARKFALL/WOWPVPSERVER. Many will also be "Casual" to mid gamers (or even non gamers) that just love the IP. If its a Pathfinder game then its for Pathfinder fans, not PVPfinder acolytes. There should be room for all included.

If that sounds harsh I sincerely apologize. Its my knee jerk reaction to seeing posts in the past that include the phrase "maybe this isnt a game for you". Really? An MMO based on an IP I love and play every Friday night since 2009 isn't for me? Hmm..

151 to 200 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.