Could PFO Thrive with No Unsanctioned PvP?


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 2,166 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Please understand I'm not even remotely suggesting that the game mechanics disallow Unsanctioned PvP, or even that the consequences should be onerous enough that most people choose not to engage in it. For the sake of this hypothetical question, let's pretend that there are absolutely no system-enforced consequences for engaging in it.

Could Pathfinder Online thrive as a successful game if everyone simply chose not to engage in Unsanctioned PvP?

I believe the answer is clearly "Yes", and conversely that the game would suffer immeasurably if the majority of PvP were Unsanctioned, but I'm curious to read others' arguments.

Goblin Squad Member

That depends entirely on how well they design sanctioned PvP. The reason most games that don't have unsanctioned PvP fail as PvP games is because the methods they provide for PvP aren't well designed.

I want to attack a caravan in a timely manner that doesn't a) allow the caravanner to simply run away before I can attack them and b) doesn't allow the caravanner to put out the call over Vent and have 100 of his friends there super quick. Does the sanctioned PvP method for doing this (SADs) allow me to do this? If yes, then I never have a reason to simply ambush the caravan. If no, then I will ambush them every single time.

I believe that the vast majority of the people who push for unsanctioned PvP to be more consequence free do so because they have little faith in the developers to provide satisfactory sanctioned equivalents. Not because the developers of this game have done anything wrong, but because the past developers of other games have screwed the pooch so many times, over and over.

I believe that it could thrive, even without what I would consider satisfactory sanctioned PvP. But I don't believe I would enjoy the game, and I don't think that the game would be as exciting for everyone else.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No

What is currently sanctioned PVP, besides a few things like Territory War, is meaningless.

Faction warfare is meaningless. It as far as I know of is the only sanctioned PVP that is not involved in territory wars.

I do consider SAD's as part of territory wars. "This is my turf, you want to pass through then there is a cost."

Everything that happens around territory conflicts is what makes holding territory fun. Small gangs that pass through your territory and cause a little mischief is fun.

"Unsanctioned PVP" (I really do hate that term) is the type of pvp that makes sandbox games great.

I will be honest, after playing darkfall for a while, the territory fighting and pvp in that game is boring and meaningless. I dont really consider that game much of a real sandbox. It seams to be lacking a lot of sand in the box.

Goblin Squad Member

Given that wars and banditry are sanctioned I would say yes. It's not what we have been promised, and I'm not sure that I personally would enjoy it, but I think if it had been marketed that way from the beginning it could draw a large enough to crowd to function.

Goblin Squad Member

To find a middle way between the tyranny of the majority if there was only sanctioned PvP and the terror of the minority if there was only unsanctioned PvP.

Goblin Squad Member

The problem is, we have games out there like this already. They are not thriving. They are not slowly increasing the player base. They are just sitting stagnant wondering what went wrong.

That is why I hope PFO breaks some of the boundaries already set by other games. There are tons of games on the market now and only a couple actually shine above the rest. There is huge potential for PFO and I honestly think some of the PVP limits being set are going to hold it back. The problem is we dont know fully yet what will be in play.

Best MMO's of 2013

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
Could Pathfinder Online thrive as a successful game if everyone simply chose not to engage in Unsanctioned PvP?

No.

There will be lots of ways for players to be involved in PvP against flagged opponents. War. Feuds. Raids. Faction Warfare. It is the nature or at least history of MMOs, that if attacking unflagged characters is out of bounds, within 5 minutes of the game's launch someone will use an unflagged character as a spy, or to trash talk in global with impunity, or to steal a kill or to (fill in the blank).

There are innumerable ways to use an unflagged character to mess with my neighbor, and many of them don't even rise to the weakest definition of griefing. Many of them are very much context sensitive, like having a unflagged friend carry gear. It is impossible even for a AAA title to code all of the rules, context, and nuances to stay ahead of the players.

The players need to be able to engage in unsanctioned PvP to police such actions on their own. That, I think, is the reason we must be able to attack unflagged characters. Because some of them will definitely need killing. And the consequences for such killings need to be high enough that it isn't entered in lightly, but low enough we can do it sometimes.

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".

Goblin Squad Member

PFO definitely could thrive without unsanctioned PvP. Though I do not really feel that is the direction the game should go at the moment. I like the approach of having unsanctioned PvP with consequences for it layered in.

When you can attack anything and everything, but choose not to, that is meaningful.

Goblin Squad Member

Morbis wrote:
I believe that the vast majority of the people who push for unsanctioned PvP to be more consequence free do so because they have little faith in the developers to provide satisfactory sanctioned equivalents.

I think you're probably right about that.

Goblin Squad Member

@Urman, you seem to be answering a question other than the one I asked. I'm not talking about there being any kind of consequences or repercussions for engaging in Unsanctioned PvP, so talk of abusing those consequences or repercussions doesn't make sense to me.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
PFO definitely could thrive without unsanctioned PvP. Though I do not really feel that is the direction the game should go at the moment.

I think I must have failed to adequately frame my question. I am very assiduously trying to avoid talking about anything remotely like "the direction the game should go".

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.


The game would do well if everyone just walked around picking flowers all day while partaking in polite and engaging conversation. Sounds like fun.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

@Urman, you seem to be answering a question other than the one I asked. I'm not talking about there being any kind of consequences or repercussions for engaging in Unsanctioned PvP, so talk of abusing those consequences or repercussions doesn't make sense to me.

You're asking, very hypothetically, if everyone could simply chose not to engage in Unsanctioned PvP and would the game thrive. I thought I was answering that question.

If everyone chose not to engage in Unsanctioned PvP, that would mean that no one at all was policing most of the bad behavior. Everyone would simply say, "well, Hojo Hominygrits is using that unflagged character to cheat around the feud rules, but that's ok. Everybody does it, amiright?"

I think that is where it would end up, if no players used unsanctioned killings to temper the worst abuses. Players are creative. They'll find ways to use unflagged character that 99% of players would term 'misuse'. And if no one does anything, because everyone has chosen to not engage in unsanctioned PvP, it will just get worse and worse.

Oh, we'll find ways to misuse the sanctioned forms of PvP, too. That's what players do. I don't think I'm cynical. I think I'm realistic.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think UO is a good empirical experiment in this. The game thrived, but it thrived in a very toxic, anti-social way. And as Ryan has pointed out many times, when Origin took away unsanctioned PvP, the game began to loose steam.

It looks like you absolutely need involuntary competition to make a sandbox game worth playing, something Ryan has pointed out again and again--as a designer, he thinks players who ask to be insulated from competition truly don't understand the implications of what they are asking for.

But as he also pointed out multiple times, letting that competition be consequence free--madmen in a box--makes for a pretty nasty game experience.

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 would approach it from the opposite: What pvp do we definitely make "unsanctioned" and add a big cost to. Then look at the cases where characters might pvp in a way that is useful or " highest in demand" and ask how to sanction or make them less unsanctioned more accurately, by lowering the costs in narrow scenarios to encourage players to seek those opportunities when the present themselves.

Everything else would be assumed to be sanctioned. And new results might be added to the second question over time.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
If everyone chose not to engage in Unsanctioned PvP, that would mean that no one at all was policing most of the bad behavior.

Okay, I see the angle you're taking. For the sake of my hypothetical, please pretend that there isn't any bad behavior that needs to be policed by the players. That may not be realistic, but neither is the rest of my hypothetical :)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
AvenaOats wrote:
What pvp do we definitely make "unsanctioned"...

That's an impossibly large space to define. It's like trying to define "roads" in terms of where you want cars not to be driven.

Goblin Squad Member

Mbando wrote:
I think UO is a good empirical experiment in this. The game thrived, but it thrived in a very toxic, anti-social way. And as Ryan has pointed out many times, when Origin took away unsanctioned PvP, the game began to loose steam.

I'm failing to adequately define the hypothetical. I realize it's my own fault.

Goblin Squad Member

In an attempt to make clear the nature of the question I'm asking, consider a Football game - is it possible for the game to be engaging and meaningful when there are no fouls committed?

I'm not asking whether or not it's appropriate to define fouls, or to enforce them. And I'm certainly not making the argument that it's always inappropriate to intentionally foul someone. I'm simply asking what it would be like if no fouls were committed.


Nihimon wrote:

In an attempt to make clear the nature of the question I'm asking, consider a Football game - is it possible for the game to be engaging and meaningful when there are no fouls committed?

I'm not asking whether or not it's appropriate to define fouls, or to enforce them. And I'm certainly not making the argument that it's always inappropriate to intentionally foul someone. I'm simply asking what it would be like if no fouls were committed.

The players would have no free will, and we could officially call football a "theme park" game... I see what you're getting at.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
In an attempt to make clear the nature of the question I'm asking, consider a Football game - is it possible for the game to be engaging and meaningful when there are no fouls committed?

I'd think so. For a large part of most games there are no fouls committed - or at least not called. Is the game still engaging when no one's playing dirty for a few moments? Sure.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Mbando wrote:

I think UO is a good empirical experiment in this. The game thrived, but it thrived in a very toxic, anti-social way. And as Ryan has pointed out many times, when Origin took away unsanctioned PvP, the game began to loose steam.

It looks like you absolutely need involuntary competition to make a sandbox game worth playing, something Ryan has pointed out again and again--as a designer, he thinks players who ask to be insulated from competition truly don't understand the implications of what they are asking for.

But as he also pointed out multiple times, letting that competition be consequence free--madmen in a box--makes for a pretty nasty game experience.

UO thrived in another time, with another generation… Would it now ?

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

In an attempt to make clear the nature of the question I'm asking, consider a Football game - is it possible for the game to be engaging and meaningful when there are no fouls committed?

I'm not asking whether or not it's appropriate to define fouls, or to enforce them. And I'm certainly not making the argument that it's always inappropriate to intentionally foul someone. I'm simply asking what it would be like if no fouls were committed.

I think that analogy is off.

In football, fouls by definition aren't supposed to happen--they are outside the game rules.

In games that include involuntary competition, that competition by definition is mean to happen--it's within the game rules.

Goblin Squad Member

Qallz wrote:
I see what you're getting at.

I seriously doubt that.

But for the record, if I were planning on trying to infiltrate one of the "Evil" or "Bandit" organizations, I'd probably make a sock-puppet that acted a lot like you act.

Goblin Squad Member

Mbando wrote:

I think that analogy is off.

In football...

I think you're right, and I wanted to change the analogy to Basketball right after I posted, but don't want to edit it so much now.

In fact, I think the analogy works extremely well with Basketball. There are times when it's 100% appropriate to foul someone, and everyone recognizes that it's 100% appropriate, but it's still a foul, and if you get enough of them you're out of the game.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Qallz wrote:
I see what you're getting at.

I seriously doubt that.

But for the record, if I were planning on trying to infiltrate one of the "Evil" or "Bandit" organizations, I'd probably make a sock-puppet that acted a lot like you act.

I see what you're getting at.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Mbando wrote:

I think that analogy is off.

In football...

I think you're right, and I wanted to change the analogy to Basketball right after I posted, but don't want to edit it so much now.

In fact, I think the analogy works extremely well with Basketball. There are times when it's 100% appropriate to foul someone, and everyone recognizes that it's 100% appropriate, but it's still a foul, and if you get enough of them you're out of the game.

Its the same thing with football. People foul for reasons and its considered acceptable.

Also to add to the point, you may be out of that game, but your not out for the season or out of the league.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

BLOOOOOOOOOOOD B...

Mmh. Sorry, wrong IP.

Goblin Squad Member

Anyways, to answer your question, no. It's a design feature--in fact, the foundational design principle--for a reason. I think Ryan's design analysis is accurate and robust.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
AvenaOats wrote:
What pvp do we definitely make "unsanctioned"...
That's an impossibly large space to define. It's like trying to define "roads" in terms of where you want cars not to be driven.

The way I see it rules are finite, possibility is infinite. I'm pretty sure what the law does is legislate for the 5% or even less that it recognise and everything else is "life"? The major rules are established and it's a question of forming new rules in rules.

In a game of team contact sport you'd define the limit to contact type first or in a spa eg boxing is simple "No below the belt" or "Only punches".

Those as with the bible: "Thou shalt not... murder." Etc define your limits.

That's listing the what is not allowed which leaves possibility for anything in this limits. So that's why I say you start with what is unsanctioned aka "No, Not, Only."

Eg I'm refing: I waiting for a) mistake b) penalty c) stop in play d) score and then to check it has not done any of the preceding.

A lot of random stuff happens in between!

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

I think you're right, and I wanted to change the analogy to Basketball right after I posted, but don't want to edit it so much now.

In fact, I think the analogy works extremely well with Basketball. There are times when it's 100% appropriate to foul someone, and everyone recognizes that it's 100% appropriate, but it's still a foul, and if you get enough of them you're out of the game.

I think that 'appropriate' isn't quite the right word. There are times when it's the best strategy to foul someone, and everyone understands the strategy. But it's still a foul.

Goblin Squad Member

Mbando wrote:
I think Ryan's design analysis is accurate and robust.

So do I. That's why I tried to separate this from design and make it all about player action. I realize that was probably ill-advised.

Goblin Squad Member

@AvenaOats, I see the point you're making, and there's something fundamentally appealing to me about it. That is, I'm extremely fond of the way the Law defines specific behaviors that are unacceptable, and everything else is presumed to be acceptable. However, that system only works (to the extent that it does work) when there are human beings using their judgment.

In this context, I see it much more like the way the US Constitution enumerates specific powers that are granted to Congress, and everything else is reserved to the States or the People. Goblinworks defines the specific cases where PvP is Sanctioned, and everything else is Unsanctioned. It is my great hope that there is an ever-increasing list of Sanctioned PvP.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Qallz wrote:
Nihimon wrote:

In an attempt to make clear the nature of the question I'm asking, consider a Football game - is it possible for the game to be engaging and meaningful when there are no fouls committed?

I'm not asking whether or not it's appropriate to define fouls, or to enforce them. And I'm certainly not making the argument that it's always inappropriate to intentionally foul someone. I'm simply asking what it would be like if no fouls were committed.

The players would have no free will, and we could officially call football a "theme park" game... I see what you're getting at.

Odd to find someone who believes that free will is foul.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Let's bring the metaphor back to American Football; Is it possible to have a good game of American Football without anyone ever running the ball out of bounds intentionally?

The rules provide for intentional out-of-bounds, and provide some very meaningful consequences for doing so (sometimes making it the best choice.) The suggestion is also not removing the ability to threaten to run out of bounds.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Could Pathfinder Online thrive as a successful game if everyone simply chose not to engage in Unsanctioned PvP?

Very unlikely atmosphere, but it is qualified as hypothetical. :)

Any game can thrive if it is good enough to interest and keep new players coming in, and keep the majority of it's old timers. One problem that I see, as pointed out above, is "opting out" of PVP would give unfair advantage in too many areas of the game.

So, if by "Thrive", you mean the way that the game is intended, then IMO no. If by "Thrive", you mean a large population, then possibly.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Could Pathfinder Online thrive as a successful game if everyone simply chose not to engage in Unsanctioned PvP?
Very unlikely atmosphere, but it is qualified as hypothetical. :)

I was about to jump up and down that someone finally seemed to be focusing on the intended focal point...

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.

Goblin Squad Member

5 people marked this as a favorite.

If the Devs can work into sanctioned PvP everything that a player might need to use PvP as a means to accomplish, then yes, I think it's possible that we could play a meaningful game without unsanctioned PvP. If not, then no.

Another way of putting it...just because they don't make a mechanic to includes a particular type/reason for PvP doesn't mean it equates to "wrong". If unsanctioned equals "wrong", then don't code it into the game as a possible action.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:

Let's bring the metaphor back to American Football; Is it possible to have a good game of American Football without anyone ever running the ball out of bounds intentionally?

The rules provide for intentional out-of-bounds, and provide some very meaningful consequences for doing so (sometimes making it the best choice.) The suggestion is also not removing the ability to threaten to run out of bounds.

I'm not sure there are any good comparisons to a sport games--if you want something analogous, it would have to be real world social structures:

If I chose to go on a Twitter feed and insult someone, it's part of the social and cultural structure. It may work, and may be a better/less constrained option, but it's very risky. Depending on my social position--my alignment and reputation relative to my target's--may suffer greatly.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

Please understand I'm not even remotely suggesting that the game mechanics disallow Unsanctioned PvP, or even that the consequences should be onerous enough that most people choose not to engage in it. For the sake of this hypothetical question, let's pretend that there are absolutely no system-enforced consequences for engaging in it.

Could Pathfinder Online thrive as a successful game if everyone simply chose not to engage in Unsanctioned PvP?

I believe the answer is clearly "Yes", and conversely that the game would suffer immeasurably if the majority of PvP were Unsanctioned, but I'm curious to read others' arguments.

In your hypothetical question, unsanctioned PVP is possible but no one choses to engage in it. There are no consequences for doing so, and it is possible, but no one does.

All other proposed systems are the same?

Rereading your question more carefully, I can see that there is still plenty of danger via the SaD mechanic. No entanglements of feud, war, or faction are required for it.

So what would be the difference?

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
So what would be the difference?

It was a mental exercise to try to rationally determine whether there is an equivalence between "all (or most) of the PvP that occurs is of the Unsanctioned variety" and "all (or most) of the PvP that occurs is of the Sanctioned variety". If the effects of the former are detrimental and the effects of the latter are benign, then there's no equivalence.

Goblin Squad Member

My original take from the topic line is that you were proposing that all PvP was sanctioned. I see you are approaching something different, that of not alowing any PvP against those not sanctioned. Other people have had three level, so let me put hypothetical three level:

1) No PvP against character X in situation Y. [If X engages in PvP this goes away, permanently; If character leaves Y, this cease to hold but will return when Y applies; The concept is for newbies and part of "Y" may be played less than 2 weeks or a month).

2) PvP can occur (unsanctioned), but initial attackers take medium term penalty and possible rep. loss.

3) PvP is sanctioned -- there may still be rep loss, but usually not. (e.g. Killing a character more than N times in M hours).

If this would be the case, how to avoid abuse, e.g. What moves one out of 1, permanently; what activities prohibit players not in a flagged state(2). Some speak to spies in combat area -- OK, if hex or settlement is in WAR, all must be flagged. So on the latter, what suggestion of places/states that must everyone be flagged. BE specific, not what has been suggested that everyone be flagged all the time they are logged in. That is not productive.

Lam

Goblin Squad Member

Lam wrote:
I see you are approaching something different, that of not alowing any PvP against those not sanctioned.

I tried to make it inescapably clear that this was not my intent.

Nihimon wrote:
Please understand I'm not even remotely suggesting that the game mechanics disallow Unsanctioned PvP...

Goblin Squad Member

Yes, personally I think everyone playing as intended and utilizing encouraged and built-in mechanics (sanctioned) to interact would be fun, rewarding, and a positive game environment. For me it is the model to strive for.

I do not really see what anything else has to do with the question Nihimon is asking.

Addressing some of the other points raised - yes, this is dependent upon GW insuring that the variety and scalability of the build-in mechanics for sanctioned play are such that it will allow many different contents and cater to a large variety of playstyles. If I did not assume this was a prime priority for them, I would have no interest in PfO.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
So what would be the difference?
It was a mental exercise to try to rationally determine whether there is an equivalence between "all (or most) of the PvP that occurs is of the Unsanctioned variety" and "all (or most) of the PvP that occurs is of the Sanctioned variety". If the effects of the former are detrimental and the effects of the latter are benign, then there's no equivalence.

IMO, the SaD mechanic is unwanted, but sanctioned, PVP and probably detrimental to the victim in most cases. For some it will be just something they expect to happen every so often.

So without changing the system drastically, it would not make much difference, except the roaming hunter will have an extra step or two to achieve much the same thing as unsanctioned PVP.

That is just a single scenario case. I am sure there are many more.

1 to 50 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.