Lets discuss Faction Warfare


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

I know we have had several discussions on the PFO TS Server. Its time to get our topic posted and on target.

I will copy paste some of my previous posts to get us rolling. Please argue away, and this is a rated R thread... LOL

The Factional warfare system is meaningless PVP. In its current known state.

Fighting for NPC's with a cause that does nothing in the game is meaningless to human interacion. The NPC factions are not going to conquer PC territory. Sure the NPC's will have towns of their own but I doubt we can conquer those. Sign up for as many factions as you can just so you can PVP with as many people as you can. There is no point other then the PVP itself.

Kinda meaningless other then for RP reasons, which I can think of many legitimate RP reasons that are more meaningful but you will still suffer the consequences.

Just as bad as RvB.

Lhan wrote:
I'm also somewhat puzzled by the idea that faction PvP is now all of a sudden "meaningless" PvP. People who have been advocating the right to attack all and sundry with free rein since they could justify it for RP reasons or simply because they might want what their victim was carrying are now complaining because there is an additional reason to attack, as if this somehow makes the whole interaction devoid of value. Mark me down as confused.

Well, for me anyway, It really isnt all of a sudden. I didnt post much in the blog that announced Faction PVP. Its not that Faction PVP is meaningless, its that it is not meaningful human interaction in the sense described as reasons to limit PVP in the first place.

In my mind I dont find it any more meaningful then the open world pvp we already have. It just adds complications to the system.

Dont misunderstand, I dont want the right to attack people free of reigns and slaughter all in front of me. We have games for that, mainly FPS type games.

As for the RP arguments, they were directed at reputation. There should be RP reasons to PVP that leaves the consequences aside. Yes the Faction system does that, but it is not meaningful human interaction...

In the end, what we really need is a full dev blog devoted to the Faction system that gives it meaning beyond what we already have. I know they were just announcing it, so we can give them the time they need to explain further. Which they have plenty of at this point.

I have seen several games with Faction PVP. Eve, Warhammer, SWTOR, Rift, and others.

Eve - Its something to do, mainly as a means to live in low sec space and PVP without losing security status and being shot by gate/station guns. Sure there is territory involved but it is only meaningful for grinding ISK. Which in the end is the main reason to join Faction warfare in Eve, to grind money.

Warhammer - Dont know much about it, but its the premise of the game from my understanding. From what I read it is pretty boring.

SWTOR - what a huge pointless system. Probably shouldnt even mention it based on how meaningless it is. The PVP is nothing more then you can get from a FPS, and the faction system is meaningless.

Rift - Same as warhammer, dont know much about it.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
Kinda meaningless other then for RP reasons, which I can think of many legitimate RP reasons that are more meaningful but you will still suffer the consequences.

For me at least, "RP reasons" are going to provide the motivation for most of my choices in game.

Yes, territorial PVP will have more impact on the long-term state of the game, however, I'm going to get a lot more enjoyment out of proudly flying the banner of Sarenrae and hunting down the servants of Rovagug than I will from any other form of PVP.

And, I'll be able to attack those opposing faction players comfortable in the knowledge that we both opted into the PVP system, are both expecting to be attacked, and can do so with a modicum of respect for the opposing player.
I personally find that a lot more "meaningful" than the motivation of "I want your stuff".

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:


The Factional warfare system is meaningless PVP. In its current known state.

Fighting for NPC's with a cause that does nothing in the game is meaningless to human interacion. The NPC factions are not going to conquer PC territory. Sure the NPC's will have towns of their own but I doubt we can conquer those. Sign up for as many factions as you can just so you can PVP with as many people as you can. There is no point other then the PVP itself.

Kinda meaningless other then for RP reasons, which I can think of many legitimate RP reasons that are more meaningful but you will still suffer the consequences.

You do realize that this game is still a Pathfinder property right? And part of catering to the Pathfinder audience is creating outlets for aspects of the IP to make themselves known and allow the players to participate in them? And that by doing this through NPC factions instead of allowing PCs to build their own versions, they allow for tighter control over the living world by not having players making stuff up about the nature of said factions.

Factional warfare has the potential to be very meaningful to a large portion of the player-base, whether you recognize it or not. Whether it will be Meaningful or Meaningless 'Human Interaction' is going to come down to how the devs finally implement it all. I do not believe we have enough information for that, but we should probably put more trust in their abilities than you seem willing to do on this front.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
The Factional warfare system is meaningless PVP. In its current known state.

This I can agree with, and I also agree that a dev blog dedicated to the faction concept is necessary. Even if all they do is state their present level of thinking, we could then discuss that. We know that discussion here in the threads has initiated changes in development direction. Hopefully we will be able to provide constructive analysis and suggestions.

I do not believe that we will be engaging in "meaningless" PvP by joining a faction. IIRC, it may be possible for characters to detect the factor association of those they meet. However, even if there is dire enmity between your faction and someone you meet, it is still your choice as a player on what actions to take as a result of that meeting.

One of the things I have learned from my TT experience is that it is hard for me to be creative within a context vacuum. I am at my best when I have at least some information that allows me to be connected to my environment and those within it. Sometimes the simplest piece of lore or knowledge give me great impetus for my imagination. From that I can develop a goal that calls me forward into action.

It is my hope that factions will be sufficiently rich in back story to feed my ever hungry need of context. I play best when I am connected.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
Xeen wrote:


The Factional warfare system is meaningless PVP. In its current known state.

Fighting for NPC's with a cause that does nothing in the game is meaningless to human interacion. The NPC factions are not going to conquer PC territory. Sure the NPC's will have towns of their own but I doubt we can conquer those. Sign up for as many factions as you can just so you can PVP with as many people as you can. There is no point other then the PVP itself.

Kinda meaningless other then for RP reasons, which I can think of many legitimate RP reasons that are more meaningful but you will still suffer the consequences.

You do realize that this game is still a Pathfinder property right? And part of catering to the Pathfinder audience is creating outlets for aspects of the IP to make themselves known and allow the players to participate in them? And that by doing this through NPC factions instead of allowing PCs to build their own versions, they allow for tighter control over the living world by not having players making stuff up about the nature of said factions.

Factional warfare has the potential to be very meaningful to a large portion of the player-base, whether you recognize it or not. Whether it will be Meaningful or Meaningless 'Human Interaction' is going to come down to how the devs finally implement it all. I do not believe we have enough information for that, but we should probably put more trust in their abilities than you seem willing to do on this front.

As for the second part, yeah your right, we do not have enough information yet. There is not much that can be added that is controlled by NPC's that will be meaningful human interaction.

Now the first part... PC's will build their own versions of everything that is Pathfinder... Whether Paizo likes it or not. There will be player created factions of the Hellknights for instance. They will be self appointed but that is no different then what you say they are trying to prevent. In essence that first paragraph is meaningless since players will do as they wish for story no matter how much control is thought to be on the living world.

Players will build their own factions... It cannot be stopped unless you take the sandbox out of the game. That is part of the whole settlement concept.

Goblin Squad Member

Gaskon wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Kinda meaningless other then for RP reasons, which I can think of many legitimate RP reasons that are more meaningful but you will still suffer the consequences.

For me at least, "RP reasons" are going to provide the motivation for most of my choices in game.

Yes, territorial PVP will have more impact on the long-term state of the game, however, I'm going to get a lot more enjoyment out of proudly flying the banner of Sarenrae and hunting down the servants of Rovagug than I will from any other form of PVP.

And, I'll be able to attack those opposing faction players comfortable in the knowledge that we both opted into the PVP system, are both expecting to be attacked, and can do so with a modicum of respect for the opposing player.
I personally find that a lot more "meaningful" than the motivation of "I want your stuff".

I want your stuff is already in the game in the form of SAD.

So are you saying that you will hunt down the servants of Rovagug no matter what?

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Sadly here will be no NPC-based social structure on which we can grow our sandbox elements in this game, but here are some ways to make Faction Warfare meaningful for everyday lives of our characters.
What if regional suppression of some factions will reduce infusion of cetain goods into the game? You've made hellknights scarce - no baatorian steel to loot, because hellknight escalations are stopped for a month or two. Certain Daggermark poisons can be vital components for some medicine, and you can't make these poisons (iirc even Daggermark assassins can't, in fact - they got part of their their supply from elsewhere).
What if prevalence (and success) of some faction in settlement allows to build their base of operatioms with unique trainers and services. Not better than anything else - just different.
Just my random thoughts.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
Lifedragn wrote:
Xeen wrote:


The Factional warfare system is meaningless PVP. In its current known state.

Fighting for NPC's with a cause that does nothing in the game is meaningless to human interacion. The NPC factions are not going to conquer PC territory. Sure the NPC's will have towns of their own but I doubt we can conquer those. Sign up for as many factions as you can just so you can PVP with as many people as you can. There is no point other then the PVP itself.

Kinda meaningless other then for RP reasons, which I can think of many legitimate RP reasons that are more meaningful but you will still suffer the consequences.

You do realize that this game is still a Pathfinder property right? And part of catering to the Pathfinder audience is creating outlets for aspects of the IP to make themselves known and allow the players to participate in them? And that by doing this through NPC factions instead of allowing PCs to build their own versions, they allow for tighter control over the living world by not having players making stuff up about the nature of said factions.

Factional warfare has the potential to be very meaningful to a large portion of the player-base, whether you recognize it or not. Whether it will be Meaningful or Meaningless 'Human Interaction' is going to come down to how the devs finally implement it all. I do not believe we have enough information for that, but we should probably put more trust in their abilities than you seem willing to do on this front.

As for the second part, yeah your right, we do not have enough information yet. There is not much that can be added that is controlled by NPC's that will be meaningful human interaction.

Now the first part... PC's will build their own versions of everything that is Pathfinder... Whether Paizo likes it or not. There will be player created factions of the Hellknights for instance. They will be self appointed but that is no different then what you say they are trying to prevent. In essence...

As for players building factions, yes it will happen. But lore enthusiasts can still point to the official faction as the canon faction.

As for being meaningful, who says that territory conquest or holdings is the only thing that is meaningful. Imagine if a faction's success rating, measured by active player contributions, could affect the type, frequency, and severity of Escalations in the world? Perhaps in the distant future such factions could serve as training points for Factional Prestige Class Skills? Perhaps having a settlement allied with said faction might provide extra NPC guard power depending upon the strength of said faction in the local region, again determined by player action.

There are tons of ways for the factions to be meaningful. There are also ways for them to detract from the interaction. The goal should be such that they are designed to impact other players based on actions of players themselves. They serve as the medium through which the interactions occur, much as a sword serves as the medium through which an attack interaction would occur.

Goblin Squad Member

And apparently I took too long to type, as Marlagram beat me to the punch with most of my ideas XD


Good post Lifedragn. I suppose they could make factional warfare meaningful. Some good ideas there...

It sounds like the factional warfare system is designed to just give more PvP opportunities, but I like PvP flagging (just regular PvP flags, not the "Champion" "Assassin" flags from b4) with advantages that grow larger the longer you're flagged up.

I also like the idea of making monster/wilderness hexes Consequence-free PvP zones, where players are only punished for corpse camping.

Goblin Squad Member

First of all, Xeen, thank you for addressing this. I do see where you are coming from when you say that faction PvP is meaningless if by that you mean that it will have no lasting impact on the world we are playing in. We don't know that to be true yet, however, and have already had a couple of ideas from Marlagram and Lifedragn on how to address that. I echo your call for a blog on factions and faction PvP as soon as possible.

I also think looking at faction PvP in a vacuum is a mistake. When you attack someone in an opposing faction, that does not prevent you from also attacking him to take his stuff, or to protect your lands, or simply because he isn't wearing a green hat on wear a green hat day. All of these things go hand in hand in that interaction. And for many RPers, the faction rivalry will be a sufficient story-telling element to accept all the other reasons you may have had that were opaque to them. It's just a veneer of RP reasoning that can cover a multitude of other sins - and allow you to get away with them "unpunished" (i.e. no rep or alignment hit).

This is why I am confused by your view, not opposed to it. As a bandit you can attack a caravan from an opposing faction without even SADing it and take it all - and lose nothing, for example. As such, I can't quite see what you are complaining about - whether you don't like faction PvP at all (for reasons I don't really understand - I can't see how it harms you) or because you don't think it goes far enough and would like to see something such as Marlagram and Lifedragn have suggested. If it is the former could you elaborate on what you see the problem as being and if the latter, what would you like to see happen to give faction warfare more teeth?

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I still favor the Reputation hits. If, as a Marked of Pharasma, you come up and assault me I am definitely going to speak bad of you if I was able to identify you as the assailant.

Again, the Psycho murdering out in the woods is going to be no more welcome in town than the guy who does it in his own basement. The guy in his own basement is just much more likely to have the city guard come a-calling. While out in the woods, adventurers or bounty hunters may need to establish search parties and there is ample time for the killer to make his escape.

Personally, I favored the flagging system over the factional system as well. I think the best would be where both are possible, factions + flagging. I am in the low-PvP camp. I accept there is risk in wandering out, but I don't want to be a free target. On the other hand, when I decide I want the PvP I do not wish others to be deterred from attacking. The flag system was excellent for that. It did not make anyone safe, but it 'tipped the scales' on who might be a more appealing target. And providing some incentive for turning the flag on was also a great idea.

But yes, ultimately every system is meant to drive human cooperation and human conflict in this game. In that regard, Factions are no different from Feuds or Wars.

Making it interesting and compelling is the challenge. And ultimately, faction-based PvP is a more realistic scenario than a flagging system. It allows for greater immersion. But also keep in mind that they stated not all factions will be PvP heavy factions and they also foresee PvE focused ones as well. Factions are more than a reason to allow PvP, they are a means to drive content in all aspects of the game in a fashion that GW feels is desirable. They are one more lever in which the devs can ramp the action up or down or direct it to various portions of the map (say... newly expanding edges).

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
I think the best would be where both are possible, factions + flagging.

Doesn't the "for the cause" flag count as "flagging"? I can't think of a single Long-Term Flag that couldn't be re-envisioned as a Faction. In fact, I could see a variety of Factions for any given Long-Term Flag that provided additional nuances to them.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
So are you saying that you will hunt down the servants of Rovagug no matter what?

No. I am saying that when I decide to join a faction, I will take that decision seriously, and attempt to advance the goals and philosophies of that faction.

If that faction allegiance leads me into PVP combat with opposing factions, that PVP will be at least as "meaningful" as PVP combat that has the goal of taking someone else's shinies.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gaskon wrote:
Xeen wrote:
So are you saying that you will hunt down the servants of Rovagug no matter what?

No. I am saying that when I decide to join a faction, I will take that decision seriously, and attempt to advance the goals and philosophies of that faction.

If that faction allegiance leads me into PVP combat with opposing factions, that PVP will be at least as "meaningful" as PVP combat that has the goal of taking someone else's shinies.

Very much a Chicken and Egg scenario.

Some people wish to PvP, and see Factions as a means to an end.
Some people wish to advance a Faction, and see PvP as a means to an end.

The same actions that are one person's goals are merely someone else's methods. The outcomes seem similar, but the way somebody sees the design is drastically different based on which view they are looking from the problem at.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think this is the key to meaningful faction PvP.

Player faction conflict is and should remain the primary avenue for meaningful PvP, but that doesn't mean NPC faction conflict shouldn't have any meaningful affects on the world.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think part of the argument that factions are meaningless PvP is more to do with why some will join certain factions, rather than others. It will also further add to the problem by allowing for multiple factions.

Just for the record, I'm kind if a one toon, one company, one settlement and one faction kind of player. I don't like splitting loyalties and don't like suspecting others who may have them as well.

We all need to recognize that OE will usher in hordes of min/maxers. These players will choose whatever combination they need to maximize their sanctioned targets, with no other consideration other than that.

This stance of mine might surprise some of you, but it shouldn't for those that have thought of my many battles on these forums. I project that I'm a PvPer, but at my core is role playing.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Just for the record, I'm kind if a one toon, one company, one settlement and one faction kind of player.

What does Qiang Tian Zsu think of that?

Goblin Squad Member

If you find no meaning in something it does not mean there is no meaning there, but only that you haven't found meaning yet.

Faction warfare may appear meaningless to those who are unread, who aren't 'into' faction storylines.

They may be using an analytic, top-down view of what should rightly be whole and integral to each character's virtual life. If someone could really care less about story and plot, then sure, story and plot will be meaningless to them. That doesn't mean the factions, or warfare between them, are going to be meaningless.

The factions will be the very fabric of in-game meaning. As an example the rivalry between the Pathfinder Society and the Anaphexis is more than just antipathy: where Pathfinders seek out esoteric knowledge to preserve it the Anaphaxis seek it out to destroy it.

If a character seeks out an ancient relic there may be two factions interested, and they may affect the ultimate outcome. Not sure how that will work out in a non-themepark setting, but some player organizations, if the game is very lucky, may well capitalize on the wealth of lore present in Golarion, making factions and the parts they play absolutely vital, even central.

Some look at factions as a player of the mere game and deem them meaningless.
Others will look at factions as a player of greater adventure and find the experience alive.


Bluddwolf wrote:

We all need to recognize that OE will usher in hordes of min/maxers. These players will choose whatever combination they need to maximize their sanctioned targets, with no other consideration other than that.

This stance of mine might surprise some of you, but it shouldn't for those that have thought of my many battles on these forums. I project that I'm a PvPer, but at my core is role playing.

This is exactly right. I'm going to be choosing an NPC faction based on how many enemies they have for two reasons:

1) I want to kill. Simple.

2) The ones with the most enemies offer the greatest rewards. (Risk/Reward).

Some people will choose a faction based off the RP principles that Gaskon mentioned, but like Bluddwolf mentioned, many if not most people will join a faction for more meta game reasons.

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Just for the record, I'm kind if a one toon, one company, one settlement and one faction kind of player.

What does Qiang Tian Zsu think of that?

I am not intellectually or spiritually bound to this individual known as "Bluddwolf". He seems to be an erratic type, his life internal and external are at odds and he is far from the path of perfecting one's mind and soul. He is both consumed by greed and yet generous towards those that he respects or calls his friends.

He is beyond my guidance, which is my failing, not his. Perhaps one day, when I have achieved perfection, I could heal the chaotic heart, mind or soul. I shall strive to bring such order in my life external.


Qiang Tian Zsu wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Just for the record, I'm kind if a one toon, one company, one settlement and one faction kind of player.

What does Qiang Tian Zsu think of that?

I am not intellectually or spiritually bound to this individual known as "Bluddwolf". He seems to be an erratic type, his life internal and external are at odds and he is far from the path of perfecting one's mind and soul. He is both consumed by greed and yet generous towards those that he respects or calls his friends.

He is beyond my guidance, which is my failing, not his. Perhaps one day, when I have achieved perfection, I could heal the chaotic heart, mind or soul. I shall strive to bring such order in my life external.

Whatever dude.

Goblin Squad Member

As Epimenides the Cretan said in the famous paradox, "all Cretans are liars."

Goblin Squad Member

I don't see belonging to multiple factions in addition to your settlement as a bad thing.

Let's say you belong to X religion, support a political interest group, and a club.

As long as those organizations aren't opposed in purpose, that seems very normal.

So if you belong to the Church of Sarenrae, Eagle Knights, and Pathfinder Society that makes plenty of sense to me.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marlagram wrote:
What if prevalence (and success) of some faction in settlement allows to build their base of operatioms with unique trainers and services.

I'll add to this bit of Marlagram's.

I think that three of the factions that will be relevant early on will be the Hellknights, the Knights of Iomedae, and the League of the Woods, because these factions are going to provide us with our NPC guards, both for settlements and for wilderness hex (company) POIs. We have been told that in exchange for their protection, these alliances take supplies and resources from your settlement, represented by a cap on your Development Indexes based on how long your PvP window is open.

So what if a settlement or company can build up their relationship with these factions - might be they allowed a slightly higher DI cap at a certain level of relationship? Let me use the low bound case as an example: if the settlement PvP window is never open, they might only be able to get up to 200 in each Development Index, limiting them to low-end structures.

But what if this LG village has 100% of its members join the Knights of Iomedae faction at Rank 1. Or perhaps 33% of its member belong at Rank 3. Or any other mix that adds up to an average faction Rank 1. Perhaps that allows a slight discount, and they can get up to a whopping 225 DI with the closed PvP window. And maybe they can get to 250 DI with an average Rank 1.50, and building a medium sized chapter house in the settlement will bring more benefits.

Mechanisms like that could greatly encourage faction membership. But getting to Rank 2 in the Knights is likely more work, and might actually require getting PvP kills as a Guardian. Maybe it doesn't even require kills - maybe you can earn faction just by flagging as a guardian at one of the settlements or POIs that the Knights are guarding. An hour here, and hour there, eventually you earn faction to get to Rank 2.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
I don't see belonging to multiple factions in addition to your settlement as a bad thing.

I don't know why I didn't see it this way until I read that, but if we can make player-created Factions, then all of our old wishes about belonging to multiple Companies suddenly have a way of coming true.

*crosses fingers*


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Urman

Belonging to a faction cannot confer any real bonus except for maybe cosmetics. If it does so then belonging to a faction becomes non optional. Especially if the bonus was what you suggest about DI's at which point you would have settlements dictating what factions they wanted people to belong to.

Factions should be an optional choice for players much as they are in Eve online then those who do not wish to partake in faction warfare (which many find meaningless) can ignore it without being gimped.

The moment you start rewarding anything whether it be race choice, faction choice or any other small part of the gameplay with bonus traits you will create a situation where 80% of the people belong to what is perceived to be the best min/max wise.

It happened in Eve when they had racial bonus's, it happened in Wow when they had racial bonus's. In short extra's being given for one particular play choice leads to everyone feeling they have to participate in that choice or fall behind


Faction Warfare will be one of the fundamental reasons I chose to play PFO. It is far from meaningless to me. There are several fantasy sandbox game options yet I have picked PFO because it is Pathfinder and because of Golarion. Without factions it might be a generic fantasy game.

I expect that I will engage in faction based and settlement based PVP. From my perspective, i.e. my character's perspective, such PVP has a purpose.

I also like the idea that to achieve the higher levels of power and presumably benefits within a faction you must participate in PVP, i.e. there is risk associated with power gain.

I would like to see many different factions. Some with overlapping benefits and characteristics. Therefore there would be no one faction which everyone 'must' join. I'd also be happy if there were alternative means to obtain a benefit available from a faction. For instance a feat such as power attack might be available from a number of factions, or available by another achievement such as killing x ogres singlehandedly. An item available via a faction might be functionally identical but be cosmetically different from an item available elsewhere. Even if not certain exclusive items might find themselves onto the open market and not be game balance disruptive.

In EVE faction membership doesn't wreck the game despite providing benefit to faction members, whether access to a decent LP store for FW participants, or other exclusive LP stores for more PVE focused types (eg virtue implants from sisters of eve mission runners).

Goblin Squad Member

(Ive done the Eve Faction Warfare game, for PVP it is no different then what was available before joining a Factions... Past that it is just a grind)

Well of course we want the factions and story. They are part of the Golarion. That in and of itself is not the problem.

What is the problem....

What will make Faction Warfare in and of itself meaningful? I am not talking about story and RP, we have that no matter what.

The question still remains, what makes Faction Warfare a meaningful way to PVP?

Looks to me as a way for a pure PVPer to get in as many as possible so they can engage as many people as possible. So... is it just a way for people to opt out of the reputation system? (not much of a way to do it but a thought)

Goblin Squad Member

@ZenPagan: I wonder if there are proportional membership limits per faction? So if all factions = 100%, then the Knights of Nii (I mean Iomedae) could be well-represented and be available to 23% of the playerbase at any given time compared to perhaps a small faction having 8% )?

I wonder if that helps? Obviously places become filled quicker, but different factions share different relationships to each other. That changes with the increase in size of the playerbase. Atst devs can enter new factions if they want over time to change balances. Finally devs could incorporate a system where the percentage representation starts off equal but then if player settlements increase representation of one type that increases their % towards a higher max. which then could change some of the pvp-relationships as "a threat grows" to the other neutral factions associated with that faction: I mean at 10% (if there are 10 factions) then every 2% increase in membership some of your neutrals factions switch to enememy factions upto a max. representation of 20% = x5 new enemy factions in total)?

I like Urman's idea above about NPC Guard links. Also Faction Escalations would be good to see based off this too.

Goblin Squad Member

@Xeen if it's integrated in a proportional system as above that has pros to growing your faction in the player base (each settlement's NPC guard costs and/or chance to get your NPC Faction to esacalate an enemy hex) vs increasing proportional representation shifts your friends/neutrals/enemies to adding more neutrals towards enemies it might then be impactful pvp.

Of course individually players might gain different things from different factions particularly when fighting their enemy factions?

Goblin Squad Member

It is possible to have faction bonuses, but that may be like Pagan said.

If it is the best bonus to use then not only will more people flock to that faction but settlements may require their members to be a part of that faction as well.

Hard to say though, but we really cant judge the meaning to be in faction warfare based on bonuses.

What is the meaning to be a part of faction warfare in and of itself? Just PVP with some people you may run across somewhere sometime? I can do that anywhere anytime with a rep hit.

Goblin Squad Member

It is non-random player killing, which makes it (more) predictable.
It is both explicitly consensual and symmetric, which makes it (more) "fair".

I don't see it as "opting out of the rep system" but as opting in on global team-based pvp, and that the rep system is there to identify/penalize those who routinely pvp without opting in.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
What is the meaning to be a part of faction warfare in and of itself? Just PVP with some people you may run across somewhere sometime? I can do that anywhere anytime with a rep hit.

My impression was that it was exactly this, which is why I was/am confused by your opposition. You no longer have to worry about the consequences (which you have been arguing against) but, just as importantly, your target has played an active role in the confrontation by choosing to gain favour with your opposing faction. This will hopefully mean that they feel that they somehow 'own' the interaction as well and it becomes far less like PvP inflicted upon them, and far more part of their story too. I would hope that this in turn would lead to a greater acceptance of PvP in general by those PvEers who are generally wary of it. After all, what's the difference if you are killed by an ogre for being too close to its lair, or by a player because you belong to the Pathfinder Society? There's not much really.

I realise this is just my interpretation: that it just an aid to make PvP combat more acceptable to those less inclined to take part while making it more accessible to those who want to PvP lots. As such, I think it works. What am I missing?

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen's kinda right about this. My worry is that the two-layered Pvp won't mix well, oil and water. What happens when the NPC generated factions contradict with PC generated factions? It almost seems like a cheap cop-out so that factioned PvP can happen at any time between anybody.

But of course the real answer to the thread is: need more info.

Goblin Squad Member

Why have the devs provided Faction-based PvP option?

1. Very harsh unsanctioned PvP penalties means need to create a space for "literally flagging for pvp" PvP gameplay.
2. The flag system was feature creeping or too complex to handle, so Factions cuts it back down to a manageable position with 1. to ensure the pvp crowd get what they want without causing too much of a pain to the flag system?
3. To add lore/RP/story
4. To add another wedge or "cosmopolitan" aspect to Settlements-CCs and division of loyalties/priorities maybe?

Those are some guesses.

=

I'd be happy if they integrate Faction PvP with other systems and checks and balances:

1. Proportional-based so one faction does not become a blob (eg sketched numbers above).
2. Changes to proportions with pros-cons (ie GAINS: cheaper guard costs per settlement, better faction building and boons to the settlement and gear for the players and top level escalation use to disrupt enemy faction settlements and CONS: More factional enemies, more blood of enemies required to fuel benefits or gain benefits, potential for faction sect splits ie a settlement has cheaper guard costs but does not want more enemies so limits other settlements using the faction to gain cheaper guards by fighting them?)
3. The devs change the proportions/relations/add new factions at any time to randomize things for narrative progression even? Why not add that chance factor?

I'd be unhappy if Factional PvP over-simplifies the previous flag system of allowing players to flag themselves for roles they want to perform.

Goblin Squad Member

I agree with Xeen here. Faction PvP detracts from player-driven conflict, in much the same way that instanced battleground PvP does.

Drawing people towards activities that exist in their own little bubble isolated from the power struggle between player-run groups makes no sense to me. Company v. company, settlement v. settlement, kingdom v. kingdom conflicts could potentially provide everyone with all the PvP they could ever want. These are the interesting conflicts, they affect the world and the players in the world.

Up until the faction system was announced, everything in the game seemed to revolve around this PvP power struggle, which was great. Everything had it's place and contributed to creating an integrated whole, within the context of player groups fighting each others for land, resources and power. Faction PvP doesn't naturally fit in with the other pieces. Attracting players towards faction conflict attracts them AWAY from those interesting conflicts. That can't be good.

I hope I'm wrong and the factions will actually add something to the central game but I just don't see it.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's got to work if it's a side-dish that complements the main meal and is optional eg "extra rice with that garlic naan bread". But if's baked beans side-dish with your hot madras curry then it won't work.

Goblin Squad Member

AvenaOats wrote:
It's got to work if it's a side-dish that complements the main meal and is optional eg "extra rice with that garlic naan bread". But if's baked beans side-dish with your hot madras curry then it won't work.

Yeah I'll go with that. I think it is meant as a side dish so that people who want to PvP all day can do so without disrupting the game dynamics. The war mechanics are meant to be used for the benefit of of a settlement in a meta struggle for power, not to appease boredom.

Goblin Squad Member

Without faction warfare, the people who wanted more fighting might be forced to attach themselves to groups that were more aggressive, promising their followers fighting and loot, whether it was through warfare or not. I'll wait to see what factions bring, though.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Seems to me it isn't merely a side dish, but instead a second entrée. There are people who will not be in PFO for the PvP. There will be people here for Pathfinder Online for whom PvP is merely a side dish.

Goblin Squad Member

avari3 wrote:
AvenaOats wrote:
It's got to work if it's a side-dish that complements the main meal and is optional eg "extra rice with that garlic naan bread". But if's baked beans side-dish with your hot madras curry then it won't work.
Yeah I'll go with that. I think it is meant as a side dish so that people who want to PvP all day can do so without disrupting the game dynamics. The war mechanics are meant to be used for the benefit of of a settlement in a meta struggle for power, not to appease boredom.

The thing I am looking at for that... Will there be enough people in any Faction much less the opposing faction to be enough to get peoples PVP fix in? Doubtful, so no appeasing boredom.

The other problem with that as an example is... They are using it in place of the flag system which would have been the same concept except it did not require them to be a part of the opposing faction as well as flying the flag.

So now, they have to be in the opposing faction and have the standings to be PVP able.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
So now, they have to be in the opposing faction and have the standings to be PVP able.

Or, if they are Rank 1-3 in a faction, they can self-flag*.

So with the three guard factions, for example, the character might have to self-flag during the open-PvP window at a protected settlement. And stay there as a potential target for a full hour to some reward.

Most of the alignment flags earned bonuses over time. I wouldn't be surprised to see many/most of those same roles (guardian, champion, maybe the others) appear as faction missions, gaining rewards over time. The rewards might be faction points, or rep, or alignment gains in return for atonement missions. There's a lot of ways they could use this. With risk comes rewards, though, and I'd expect the self-flagging missions to pay out more than the non-flagged missions.

*This might expose them to any attacker, or just to factional enemies.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
avari3 wrote:
AvenaOats wrote:
It's got to work if it's a side-dish that complements the main meal and is optional eg "extra rice with that garlic naan bread". But if's baked beans side-dish with your hot madras curry then it won't work.
Yeah I'll go with that. I think it is meant as a side dish so that people who want to PvP all day can do so without disrupting the game dynamics. The war mechanics are meant to be used for the benefit of of a settlement in a meta struggle for power, not to appease boredom.

The thing I am looking at for that... Will there be enough people in any Faction much less the opposing faction to be enough to get peoples PVP fix in? Doubtful, so no appeasing boredom.

The other problem with that as an example is... They are using it in place of the flag system which would have been the same concept except it did not require them to be a part of the opposing faction as well as flying the flag.

So now, they have to be in the opposing faction and have the standings to be PVP able.

I think the way the Faction system (the pvp factions) could incentivize membership is cool buildings, buffs for their unique gear in certain ways perhaps specific targets and of course high enough support to warrant an escalation of their own NPCs ie reinforcements from outside the River Kingdoms. Membership fees also from members (good 'ol pyramid selling!) and of course voting rights in settlements if powerful enough.

If it's "hey you can pvp if you join faction x go pvp" I'm not sure that is worth it?

Goblin Squad Member

If its only for PVP then it is completely worthless.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
If its only for PVP then it is completely worthless.

Yeah, it can't be an end. It must be just another means to an end (your goals) like all the other systems in the game.

Goblin Squad Member

AvenaOats wrote:
Xeen wrote:
If its only for PVP then it is completely worthless.
Yeah, it can't be an end. It must be just another means to an end (your goals) like all the other systems in the game.

Yep yep, but at this point its a side issue... The MTX subject has me concerned.

Goblin Squad Member

Having had a TS discussion with several people today on the topic of factions, I wish they would post their opinions here. I'm especially looking at you, Pagan. :) You had some very well thought out arguments against factions and I wish you would share them.

Goblin Squad Member

Yeah Pagan had some good things to discuss.

I wont post his arguments that I remember from a couple weeks ago.

Goblin Squad Member

I believe part of the concern about factions finds its origin in the different types of play-styles and their approach/use of factions. As much as the majority of current posters would seem to be the type to love the extra content and nuance that factions might bring to PvE, to RP, to lovers of PF lore, etc., I'm afraid we shall be in the vast minority when OE occurs. Many will come to PFO simply to play a game where you can win - where you can create a settlement, raise an army, and conquer everyone else's settlement. They will play PFO the same way they play any game - regardless of the unique setting, lore, races, etc. They will come to win, especially because in a sandbox, there will be the possibility of actually winning. No, I am not attempting to use the paranoia of the Goons to better my argument against factions (we don't have enough info yet for me to even make an informed decision). I'm simply pointing out that there are far more players out there, past these forums, that will play PFO as a game of win or lose, and with that as their sole agenda, they will use every bonus, reward, etc. the game has to do so.

If a faction system provides any bonus, any edge that allows them to win, they will certainly utilize it to its fullest, without any care for the extra trappings it provides which many of us may value. And if any one faction provides more "win" than another, such as better PvP bonuses, gear, etc., then certainly, that is the one that all win-minded players will take. They won't give a rip about the lore or the RP that should accompany being in that faction, and they will be whatever alignment or race the best faction requires without any real care about either except that it affords them the win. As long as it provides the win, that will be the one they'll choose and that will be the one they will expect any of their members to choose. Then they will likely choose the other two factions (I believe you're allowed three)that work best in conjunction with that winning faction to increase the number of sanctioned targets that they are allowed to kill without any concern about reputation.

Taken to the worse case scenario, everyone else would end up choosing their factions in reaction to this group's choice, for survival's sake, and not because they truly enjoy the chosen faction. Possible choices could be...

1. We could all join the same faction this invading group joined to nullify their advantage - a bitter pill for those of us who would otherwise make such a choice based on those more nuanced pleasures. At this point, factions themselves would become pointless, at least from a PvP standpoint, since we would all be in the same faction.

2. If an oppositional faction with the same bonuses existed, we could all join that one so as to be able to fight back without destroying our own reputations. If this opositional faction we joined wasn't blessed with the same bonuses, the PvP players I've chatted with assure me that we'll eventually get trounced. Even if the opposing faction was equally blessed, all the other wonderful nuanced reasons for choosing a faction would be eclipsed by your need to be PvP competitive.

3. The last possible solution would be not to join any factions at all. Now, denied their avenue for sanctioned PvP, the newcomers will be taking reputation hits for their attacks. However, they can still use SADs, Feuds, and War Declarations, which means, they're on the same playing field as everyone else. How then did factions help? I'm also not so sure that such win-minded players would care about their reputations if they had their own settlement to ensure training. Even if the settlement had poor rep and could offer only lower tiered training, their numbers may still give them the winning advantage.

Blech...that was a lot of negativity. Let me end on a more thoughtful (if not truly positive) note.

As a role-player, I think factions could add some interest from a lore, role-played, and even PvE stand point, though I am certain that we role-players could create our own every bit as good or better. I know factions are being considered partially to provide more sanctioned ways for PvP hungry players to get their fix without bothering those who don't desire to PvP, but I do hope all the possible ramifications are thoroughly considered. My final thought is that in a sandbox - a world where one of its most appealing features is that it is not "on rails", where player decision and action, not scripted scenarios and Dev designed content create our experience - I think we need to be mindful of how many game mechanics we ask for. The more mechanics there are to channel behavior down predictable, trackable paths, the less it feels like a sandbox to me. Yes, I think there should be rules and no, I don't want unfettered, rampant killing, but neither do I want the guaranteed safety of a themepark. It's not easy catering to both camps, but it's the only way to have, at least for me, what feels like a fully realized, realistic world with all the good, bad, and in between there for the experience.

Edit: In that I'm not planning to PvP much and have extremely limited experience in anything to do with factions, I'm always interested in learning from other points of view. That's why I've been chatting with Pagan, Morbis, and others who have far more experience at it. Here's to hoping they chime in.

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Lets discuss Faction Warfare All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.