How to make PfO better than Eve

[Lam]

OK, I broke my resolution in another thread, so time to broach this one.

We have people demanding how PfO will work but some of these things are TBD and others are planned but will be crowd forged not only in EE but even after OE as the play shows needs change.

Instead of demanding what is not part of Minimum Release, what do you want to see in minimum and in final concept?

For those that compare to EVE or other PvP games, what can PfO to make a better game for you and why would this be better for your desired style of play? ( I acknowledge that PfO can not meet all the desired styles. Let GW know not only what you want, but why. If you want better PvE, this may not be your game!)

Bluddwolf, we know what you have asked for, so think of additions instead of making the "world" safe for banditry. Likewise to others who have already expressed ideas over and over, don't repeat in this thread, or, if you can not resist, provide short statement and link to the thread(s0 discussing it.

To all, if someone is again presenting what has been said over and over, ignore it, or follow in the linked threads. (How long will this go before it degenerates into SAD vs DAS.)

[Pax Shane Gifford]

PvE which is a credible threat to the player-run settlements. Get players away from thinking of PvE content as a slightly more interesting form of loot acquisition, and instead thinking of it as a danger to their people which needs to be destroyed. Escalation fighters should feel like they're stopping a dangerous incursion, not grinding out materials for their settlement.

[Jester David]

I played EVE for a bit and did some mine and ratting. The mining involved hitting system after system and plopping myself in an asteroid belt and watching the screen for 10 minutes. Ratting involved hitting system after system and looking for pirates.
Either way there was a lot of travel for no reason and a lot of waiting.

With crafting being the background, having mining be less painful and more attractive might be nice. A fun crafting system that is more involved than just assembling reagents might be nice too.

[Aeioun Plainsweed]

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:

PvE which is a credible threat to the player-run settlements. Get players away from thinking of PvE content as a slightly more interesting form of loot acquisition, and instead thinking of it as a danger to their people which needs to be destroyed. Escalation fighters should feel like they're stopping a dangerous incursion, not grinding out materials for their settlement.

Seconded.

[AvenaOats]

1. Ambush: Good geography for ambush eg scree, trees, large boulders so I can camp on the roof for rdps. Also camo options already discussed in the blog ie detections.

2. Haulage: Horses/Mules/ponies/donkeys that can carry considerably more gross, bulky weight than a character can. IE essential for transport. I mean I can carry upwards of 15-20Kgs on a trek but that's seriously pushing it if the trek is going on all day and for days on end, seriously that's just extra pain. A healthy load when going up and down moutains for a sustained period of time is no more than 10kgs for me (weeks+). Bulky stuff such as from nodes I'd expect to be a nightmare to haul back without a pack animal? Horses are in so I'd like this sort of serious consideration for serious operations. Things like looting items from mobs or players not such an issue as that stuff can be packed easily. But eg timber and some ores you'd expect pack animals?

3. Movement speed variables:

i. Burden of weight reduction (see 2.)
ii. variable due to skill-training?
iii. variable due to terrain type in conjunction with ii. ie heavy forestry, mountainous terrain reduce movement speed auto?
iv. variable due to armour?
v. variable due to conditions
vi. variable due to roads vs off-road vs mounts if horses are used as mounts?
vii. overburdened/heavy armour and you fall off a cliff or into a river, death and in fact only light armour can swim over a river or no armour can swim. I imagine swimming is out anyway in EE?

I like the idea that hexes may have an average assuming neutral conditions travel time, but that is totally altered by all the above and even later on weather conditions?

EVE seems interesting due to all the travel options across an immense galactic map. I think with the above then you can have less actual space but more room within that space?

4. Highly variable mob stats for goblin/ogre/bandit/wolf - if these are unpredictable and range variably then you have to be more cautious when taking on these creatures instead of them being auto-loot dispensers; should be variable challenge so you judge whether it's worth taking out some mobs or not = interesting decision making. Defo agree above: Escalations that really push back proactively - not just running a cycle and ignoring players. Be interesting if there's some hero mobs occassionally with different challenge options such as a goblin chieftan that means Goblins organize attack/defence more collectively around the chieftain as well as a few special attacks.

5. If ultimately I want my char to skill-train to Druid which is ways away: Then I'd like to know how most appropriately I will spend or save skill points? And can I have a wolf pet in EE? :p

6. Interested to hear more about the early economy...

[Madclaw]

Have it not be Excel Spreadsheet the game?

[Tyncale]

For the environment to be attractive and immersive. Towns should have atmosphere, monsters should be funny/scary/well animated, armor should look good, mountains, swamps, rivers should look good.

I realize that the Settlement-game and the Killing and Economy that come with it are the bread and butter of this game, but if this happens in an all-together dull environment then I will slowly be repelled out of the game no matter how hard my Settlement needs me.

I need Beauty before I can make myself care about Victories and Death.

[AvenaOats]

Madclaw wrote:

Have it not be Excel Spreadsheet the game?

Let's play the game Flip: "Have it not be Brain-Dead the game?"

There's more nuance here:

1. Economy is important so complexity should grow so for Alliances game and running settlements at some level it will require those sorts of skills.
2. In terms of combat maths for builds maybe power-gamers will do anyway?
3. Have other gameplay where there's much less recourse to just spreadsheet based gameplay - hopefully fantasy combat will be more fun than the ship combat in eve with avatars?
4. I leave the game of Flip at this point due to my limited knowledge of EVE, hopefully a new player can take my place at the table: I'm cashing out!

But seriously a lot of criticism of themepark games is brain-dead handholding grind and repeat rail-roading as much as eve is spreadsheets in space/microsoft excel the game tm.

[AvenaOats]

Tyncale wrote:

For the environment to be attractive and immersive. Towns should have atmosphere, monsters should be funny/scary/well animated, armor should look good, mountains, swamps, rivers should look good.

I realize that the Settlement-game and the Killing and Economy that come with it are the bread and butter of this game, but if this happens in an all-together dull environment then I will slowly be repelled out of the game no matter how hard my Settlement needs me.

I need Beauty before I can make myself care about Victories and Death.

My standards may be lower than some people but the art is already outstanding in the last video they produced. The running animation needs work I think is fair to say as the trunk/legs didn't feel right in motion and perhaps more variable z-axis terrain so the world feels curved and not flat. But I think the graphics are very good already. Tbh I can live with 2d graphics. For me it's the systems complexity that makes the immersion in the world grow over time whereas shiny graphics the immersion decays over time with only surface appeal I've found in mmorpgs.

What I expect is coherent world-building informing the art. Everything fits the universal aesthetic I think aids immersion as much or more than detailed complexity of graphics?

[Being]

Isn't this a management problem?

It seems like the solution is for the players to more appropriately attend to those game elements suited to them. Spreadsheets are appropriate for informing leadership. The leadership should identify those in their organization who are adept at and interested in mathematical analysis, then assign those worthies appropriate tasks or request from them ideas how they could apply their skills. Once facts are available then the responsible leader would distribute the results in digestible chunks for the organization's betterment relieving those who don't want 'fantasy spreadsheets' occupying their play time.

[Pax Shane Gifford]

Speaking of management:

Another aspect which I hope will make this game better than EVE for a lot of people is a dedication to monitoring their game and squashing exploits and abuses instead of labelling every one that pops up "emergent gameplay" and telling new players to just figure it out on their own and deal with it. I'm okay with nuance and risk, as long as the player is aware of the risk.

[Tyncale]

AvenaOats wrote:

What I expect is coherent world-building informing the art. Everything fits the universal aesthetic I think aids immersion as much or more than detailed complexity of graphics?

I absolutely agree. I like the style that I have seen so far too, from buildings to avatars and armors.

[Bluddwolf]

I want the world to feel vast, not just by the size of the map, but by the limitation of communication based on locality.

Local Knowledge is a key feat from PF RPG, and it should be equally important in PFO.

As explorers, merchants and other travelers expand their range and knowledge, more of the lands are revealed.

We should not know that a war has broken out, on the other side of the map, mere seconds or minutes after it has started. It should take time (in-game) for that news to spread.

[Urman]

Bluddwolf wrote:

We should not know that a war has broken out, on the other side of the map, mere seconds or minutes after it has started. It should take time (in-game) for that news to spread.

That would be cool, but with meta-game communication it's easily bypassed once the right person knows about it. Rather than advantaging meta-game networks, why not give everyone the same knowledge? I could see a few minutes delay in announcing an attack occured, but I wouldn't expect the news to travel at running speed, for example, across the map.

[Being]

I'm sympathetic with the impression that it would be better to have to hear of important events via messenger, but the news will spread anyway out-of-game. In effect, limiting the availability of in-game information is fragmenting the non-meta gaming population and rendering even greater advantage to the metagaming community.

I'm getting a vague, nebulous impression, as if from a waking dream or psychic episode, that you would rather be able to hit a succession of unaware victims, one after the other, until somehow one of them managed to get warning out to the rest of the hex. Right?

[Lifedragn]

Being wrote:

I'm sympathetic with the impression that it would be better to have to hear of important events via messenger, but the news will spread anyway out-of-game. In effect, limiting the availability of in-game information is fragmenting the non-meta gaming population and rendering even greater advantage to the metagaming community.

I'm getting a vague, nebulous impression, as if from a waking dream or psychic episode, that you would rather be able to hit a succession of unaware victims, one after the other, until somehow one of them managed to get warning out to the rest of the hex. Right?

I think I am aligned with putting in-game communications and alerts on the same level as meta-game possible communications and alerts. The guys doing the assaulting are sure as heck going to be communicating through meta-game channels, why should the ones being assaulted be treated any different?

I want to play PFO. I don't want to play Teamspeak Networking.

[leperkhaun]

For me.

Dont take the "if its not prevented its a feature" approach of EVE. Know that some things will be madly difficult to code in and prevent. Make it clear which of those things are not allowed and then if someone is doing it, take action against them. So something like jet canning would be considered a loophole and people who used it would be punished directly by GW.

As an addition to the above. Allow players to police themselves within the sandbox. For example my merchant keeps running into bandits and keeps losing gear because i dont want to take another route. I instead show up with 100 of my settlement mates and I do constant patrols killing every bandit on sight until they leave. That should be considered a feature, sure was overwhelming force used, yes but it was done for a purpose.

Make the economy central to the game. Everything except the starter equipment should be player crafted. All levels of harvested goods should be used through out the entire crafting process (copper always being useful).

No warning when people enter hexes. If you own a settlement and you want to prevent people from getting on your land, you need to do patrols, there should be no system that automatically alerts you to the the fact that someone entered your territory.

Avoid chock points (warp gates) where a small amount of people can hold a large area just because they control that point. Some chock points are ok, If the eastern edge of the hex has a choke point, then people can just go to the other side to get in. If a group wants to control an area they MUST put in major effort.

Create diversity in the choices players have in regards to builds, weapons, armor. Sure most fighters will probably be in heavy armor, but they all shouldnt be using the same weapons and all the same skills.

Do not pigeon hold people into Good or lawful alignments. Ensure that Evil and chaotic alignments are just as good, but different choices.

Include a very good new player/character tutorial where they are shown what kinds of things they can do.

Make escalations matter, and make them HARD. make the require MAJOR commitment to remove if you let them get to bad, as in you basically have to go to war to get rid of it.

Do not dumb the game down, make it complex and rich.

Entering pvp should be a risk. Other than seeing what kind of weapon/armor/name/flags you shouldnt know how much rep they have, their alignment (unless you cast a spell) or how much xp they have. Engaging a target needs to be part of the risk

if possible implement a WAR style book of lore. that thing was amazing

include bunches of easter eggs.

Allow LG to go to war with other good folks and non evil folks.

[theStormWeaver]

I think, no matter his intentions, Bluddwolf's idea has merit. It would greatly add to the feeling of great size if communication took time. Unfortunately, the large advantage granted to meta-game groups makes it an unacceptable option.

Besides, Sending is a low enough level spell to imagine a handful of mages using it to keep the region apprised of major news.

[AvenaOats]

Bluddwolf wrote:

As explorers, merchants and other travelers expand their range and knowledge, more of the lands are revealed.

How does exploration work in EVE?

What sort of things could PFO do:

1. Skill-training different types of discovery of info in maps
2. Different exploration per hex type per the above types of discovery?
3. Some sort of penalty without explorer skill active? Could be movement penalty or detection penalty?? Or a fog-of-war effect - though that could be circumvented couldn't it... ?

[GrumpyMel]

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:

PvE which is a credible threat to the player-run settlements. Get players away from thinking of PvE content as a slightly more interesting form of loot acquisition, and instead thinking of it as a danger to their people which needs to be destroyed. Escalation fighters should feel like they're stopping a dangerous incursion, not grinding out materials for their settlement.

+1

[Notmyrealname]

Some type of world progression that is a result of player actions. I know the world and gameplay will change as new features get patched in, but it might be fun if some of it needed to be unlocked first. Like an epic battle that needs to be won against mobs to open up a new map area, or research needed to allow new spells into the game, something everyone can contribute to if they want. Even better would be a competition between two or more progression choices based on player actions , it might fit in well with crowdforging new features into the game.

[Being]

Notmyrealname wrote:

Some type of world progression that is a result of player actions. I know the world and gameplay will change as new features get patched in, but it might be fun if some of it needed to be unlocked first. Like an epic battle that needs to be won against mobs to open up a new map area, or research needed to allow new spells into the game, something everyone can contribute to if they want. Even better would be a competition between two or more progression choices based on player actions , it might fit in well with crowdforging new features into the game.

On that same note I'd like to see the ebb and flow of factional influence reflected in the River Kingdoms and visibly affected by the actions and reputation of their player character adherents.

The dynamic of modeling the relative power balance among the factions could be fluctuating levels of benefit. I think it would be too labor intensive for 'news' to spread about it but maybe there could be something like a loot table of press releases and other effects (stronger guards, lower prices, more numerous guards, more patrols on the roadways) that might circulate among NPC town criers announcing the ascendancy of the Knights, for example, or the Denizens of the Woods, or some such.

[Proxima Sin]

AvenaOats wrote:

Bluddwolf wrote:

As explorers, merchants and other travelers expand their range and knowledge, more of the lands are revealed.

How does exploration work in EVE?

You train a branch of skills that makes you steadily more efficient at using specialized exploration equipment to find little pockets of stuff or doorways to special pockets of space (wormholes) that you would never find just flying around randomly.

The equipment used to be specialized to find one type of stuff at a time, but EVE ended up combining them so a single exploratory effort could find anything in that area. I like it better the second way.

[Bluddwolf]

Being wrote:

I'm getting a vague, nebulous impression, as if from a waking dream or psychic episode, that you would rather be able to hit a succession of unaware victims, one after the other, until somehow one of them managed to get warning out to the rest of the hex. Right?

Unfortunately the vague, nebulous impression resulting from your waking dream or psychic episode did not impart you with the foresight to realize that the system I proposed is universal.

Simply put, if I gain advantage from it, so do others. If you suffer a disadvantage, under similar circumstances I would as well.

The Devs have already said that alerts as the result of raiding, may not be instantaneous, but further discussions on their end are taking place. So it is TBD at this point.

As for there being meta game communications that circumvent local chat, yes there will be. If you are not using meta game communications you are at a disadvantage, even if there was a global chat.

The argument that some are disadvantaged because they don't have access to meta game communications is specious. It's like saying you don't have access to a vehicle with power steering, there is no excuse why you don't have it.

Any MMO that has even a marginal focus on group based PvP requires meta game communication. You are a hinderence to your team without it. Even for non PvP such as major mining operations or dungeon raids, VOIP programs are invaluable.

Even if you don't like your voice to be heard, you can still listen. Most of the time, listening is actually more important anyway.

[Bluddwolf]

theStormWeaver wrote:

I think, no matter his intentions, Bluddwolf's idea has merit. It would greatly add to the feeling of great size if communication took time. Unfortunately, the large advantage granted to meta-game groups makes it an unacceptable option.

Besides, Sending is a low enough level spell to imagine a handful of mages using it to keep the region apprised of major news.

There us a very good chance that markets will not be global, and neither will there be global chat.

On the latter point I hope there is not, it is not immersive and it makes the world seem small.

As for the large advantage of meta game communications, what is the reason you won't have access to it yourself?

[Pax Shane Gifford]

i think that, more important than how quickly the game sends information of a major attack to your own settlement members is how quickly it sends it to other settlements. This is because we can reasonably expect people to be notified quickly within their own group of an attack, but other groups which they are not communicating with will only have the in-game messages and anything their scouts or spies pick up.

[Steelwing]

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:

PvE which is a credible threat to the player-run settlements. Get players away from thinking of PvE content as a slightly more interesting form of loot acquisition, and instead thinking of it as a danger to their people which needs to be destroyed. Escalation fighters should feel like they're stopping a dangerous incursion, not grinding out materials for their settlement.

Something to think about when requesting this.

1) Settlements will vary greatly in their size. It will be difficult therefore to craft escalations such that it will not either overwhelm small settlements or be a pushover for large settlements

2) You will definitely at times be interfered with during the escalation. A settlement that dislikes yours but also found you out of their reach to attack can and will use the opportunity of an escalation that can threaten your settlement to ensure it falls

[Sepherum]

For the vey reason that Goblinworks can't control the use of cell phones, smart phones, email, PMing, Ventrilo, TeamSpeak, etc. out of game why shouldn't they offer their own metagame communication? As a game feature? You know, like a business. So let me get this straight, peeps are saying "Well, if you think metagame communication is an unfair advantage get it yourself"; but if PFO offers it it's immersion breaking? Gimme a break.

[Pax Shane Gifford]

@Steelwing, the second point was moreso what I was aiming at; it should be extremely rare for an escalation to singlehandedly wipe someone out, but it would definitely present a large threat if not dealt with, and it could off-balance a settlement and set it up for destruction. I think a big settlement should view them in the same light that they do the smaller settlements (as I described above).

The issue with settlement size is of course something that would need to be worked out. One way it could work is that escalations that spawn near the most valuable hexes (thus, the ones where the biggest settlements will form) will be the biggest and baddest escalations, with fringe hexes of little importance also getting less threatening escalations.

This is all just my opinion of course. However, I do feel like it would be a worthy change to the sandbox MMO paradigm.

[Steelwing]

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:

@Steelwing, the second point was moreso what I was aiming at; it should be extremely rare for an escalation to singlehandedly wipe someone out, but it would definitely present a large threat if not dealt with, and it could off-balance a settlement and set it up for destruction. I think a big settlement should view them in the same light that they do the smaller settlements (as I described above).

The issue with settlement size is of course something that would need to be worked out. One way it could work is that escalations that spawn near the most valuable hexes (thus, the ones where the biggest settlements will form) will be the biggest and baddest escalations, with fringe hexes of little importance also getting less threatening escalations.

This is all just my opinion of course. However, I do feel like it would be a worthy change to the sandbox MMO paradigm.

While I haven't been paying much attention to the pve side of the game as it is not really of much interest to me as I understand it escalations start off small and only grow if you do not curtail them. In the case you cite why would any settlement let them grow?

[Sepherum]

Steelwing wrote:

Pax Shane Gifford wrote:

PvE which is a credible threat to the player-run settlements. Get players away from thinking of PvE content as a slightly more interesting form of loot acquisition, and instead thinking of it as a danger to their people which needs to be destroyed. Escalation fighters should feel like they're stopping a dangerous incursion, not grinding out materials for their settlement.

Something to think about when requesting this.

1) Settlements will vary greatly in their size. It will be difficult therefore to craft escalations such that it will not either overwhelm small settlements or be a pushover for large settlements

2) You will definitely at times be interfered with during the escalation. A settlement that dislikes yours but also found you out of their reach to attack can and will use the opportunity of an escalation that can threaten your settlement to ensure it falls

If I was a large settlement I'd camp escalations and lairs in nearby hexes, helping the mobs and ambushing the players during periods of high player traffic. To keep competitors from gaining achievements and obtaining expendables, which are apparently only available as loot drops.

[Bluddwolf]

Steelwing wrote:

While I haven't been paying much attention to the pve side of the game as it is not really of much interest to me as I understand it escalations start off small and only grow if you do not curtail them. In the case you cite why would any settlement let them grow?

There was some talk months ago that killing an escalation boss may drop a "seed" that could either start an escalation or advance one.

If this is still planned or if it could be done, it could very easily become a powerful weapon to use as a pre siege tactic.

[Steelwing]

Bluddwolf wrote:

Steelwing wrote:

While I haven't been paying much attention to the pve side of the game as it is not really of much interest to me as I understand it escalations start off small and only grow if you do not curtail them. In the case you cite why would any settlement let them grow?

There was some talk months ago that killing an escalation boss may drop a "seed" that could either start an escalation or advance one.

If this is still planned or if it could be done, it could very easily become a powerful weapon to use as a pre siege tactic.

In which case far better just to muscle in and handle the dangerous escalation near some weakling settlement when it is at the right point. No sense putting your own settlement at risk

[Pax Shane Gifford]

1. The drops from escalations are supposed to be good; they'd likely be better if the escalation is allowed to grow. Every time an escalation pops up this would give the nearby settlements a risk/reward factor to take into account; some of them may bite off more than they can chew by allowing the escalation to grow too big for them to handle.

2. Sometimes there are bigger fish to fry. If you're fighting off player invaders you likely aren't worried about the nearby escalation until suddenly that's a bigger problem for both of you.

3. GW has hinted that players may be able to fuel escalations themselves. This could be another form of indirect attack for a settlement to employ when another settlement is vulnerable, and would likely cause it to ramp up a lot quicker.

I've no doubt that there are more reasons an escalation could get out of control, but these are what I've got at the moment. It'd likely be a combination of several factors that turns a small, carefully curtailed escalation into a full-blown invasion.

As an example, you get an escalation nearby your settlement, and you keep the PvE hounds off of it while it's in its infancy so it can grow to the point that it's actually valuable to you. You get a little greedy and let it grow just past your "optimum point" where you can easily farm it and it gives good return, and at that point one of your big bad neighbors declares war and starts building siege engines outside your place. That leads to a massive conflict that spans several days; once you finally beat back the aggressors and check the escalation again, it turns out big bad neighbor number 2 was feeding the escalation while you weren't looking and now both you and the attacking neighbor (who are both depleted after a war) have to contend with this nearby escalation which is starting to take your land and defeat the PvE groups you throw its way.

Maybe my first idea was just a pipe dream and the escalations will still be generally treated like farmable content, but I'd at least like them to scare people every once in a while.

[Ayar]

I'd like a way to 100% opt out of PvP. (Until today I've just read the dev blogs... not until today's visit to the boards have I realized how out in left field this desire appears to be.)

Regardless, I have no interest in PvP, and no desire to participate. It is clear that's not the direction the game is going. I'll give PfO a try (since the money is already spent!) but I suspect that I just made a hefty donation to the development effort. C'est la vie.

[Bluddwolf]

Ayar wrote:

I'd like a way to 100% opt out of PvP. (Until today I've just read the dev blogs... not until today's visit to the boards have I realized how out in left field this desire appears to be.)

Regardless, I have no interest in PvP, and no desire to participate. It is clear that's not the direction the game is going. I'll give PfO a try (since the money is already spent!) but I suspect that I just made a hefty donation to the development effort. C'est la vie.

If you choose to be a crafter, and remain in doors (within a PC settlement) and your settlement is not very politically active, you may avoid PvP about 90% of the time.

Venturing outside of that relatively safe play style and you will obviously increase your risk of PvP.

But, maybe you will become accustomed to those added risks because the rewards will also be greater as well.

Welcome to the boards, regardless what you decide after your initial time in game expires.

[Tyncale]

Bluddwolf wrote:

Ayar wrote:

I'd like a way to 100% opt out of PvP. (Until today I've just read the dev blogs... not until today's visit to the boards have I realized how out in left field this desire appears to be.)

Regardless, I have no interest in PvP, and no desire to participate. It is clear that's not the direction the game is going. I'll give PfO a try (since the money is already spent!) but I suspect that I just made a hefty donation to the development effort. C'est la vie.

If you choose to be a crafter, and remain in doors (within a PC settlement) and your settlement is not very politically active, you may avoid PvP about 90% of the time.

Venturing outside of that relatively safe play style and you will obviously increase your risk of PvP.

But, maybe you will become accustomed to those added risks because the rewards will also be greater as well.

Welcome to the boards, regardless what you decide after your initial time in game expires.

I was wondering about the people who bought an Inn for 5k. It sais that as long as you pay upkeep it is immune for warfare and can not be taken away from you. Does this mean that the Inn-owner is immune for warfare/PvP too when he is inside his Inn?

I have been wondering about Inns a lot: will players be immune for PvP when inside? What will the perks be of an Inn? Will they become central hubs for travelers, trade caravans, refugees, wounded players(crits), the Hunted?

Or just a place where you can buy an Ale that gives you +5 Str for an hour and that is it?

If the former is true then I think owning an Inn can be a roleplayers heaven for someone who is very social and loves to chat it up.

Anyway, when an Inn-owner is immune in his own Inn then all you need is 5K dollars and you can roleplay to your hearts content and be safe too.

[Proxima Sin]

Ayar wrote:

I'd like a way to 100% opt out of PvP. (Until today I've just read the dev blogs... not until today's visit to the boards have I realized how out in left field this desire appears to be.)

Regardless, I have no interest in PvP, and no desire to participate. It is clear that's not the direction the game is going. I'll give PfO a try (since the money is already spent!) but I suspect that I just made a hefty donation to the development effort. C'est la vie.

As malicious and scary as it can seem on the forums, in practice it works out a lot like pve with really good AI.

What is it you wanted to do in PO that motivated you to back the KS?

[Proxima Sin]

Tyncale wrote:

I was wondering about the people who bought an Inn for 5k. It sais that as long as you pay upkeep it is immune for warfare and can not be taken away from you. Does this mean that the Inn-owner is immune for warfare/PvP too when he is inside his Inn?

I have been wondering about Inns a lot: will players be immune for PvP when inside? What will the perks be of an Inn? Will they become central hubs for travelers, trade caravans, refugees, wounded players(crits), the Hunted?

Or just a place where you can buy an Ale that gives you +5 Str for an hour and that is it?

If the former is true then I think owning an Inn can be a roleplayers heaven for someone who is very social and loves to chat it up.

Anyway, when an Inn-owner is immune in his own Inn then all you need is 5K dollars and you can roleplay to your hearts content and be safe too.

While the Inn itself can remain indestructible, I don't recall anything explicit about whether or not you can walk in and attack patrons. The coin from sales either goes to NPC gold sink or it goes to the player owner who has to craft/buy/replace a finite stock of wares, either way how likely are the upkeep costs to be maintained if the owning party never goes outside?

[Being]

Proxima Sin wrote:

Ayar wrote:

I'd like a way to 100% opt out of PvP. (Until today I've just read the dev blogs... not until today's visit to the boards have I realized how out in left field this desire appears to be.)

Regardless, I have no interest in PvP, and no desire to participate. It is clear that's not the direction the game is going. I'll give PfO a try (since the money is already spent!) but I suspect that I just made a hefty donation to the development effort. C'est la vie.

As malicious and scary as it can seem on the forums, in practice it works out a lot like pve with really good AI.

What is it you wanted to do in PO that motivated you to back the KS?

Given the name, I'd guess some folks were attracted to the idea of playing Pathfinder, but online.

Player versus player conflict probably didn't seem like more than an additional option. They may have imagined that playing their role might be expanded a bit to include the potential for conflict with a villain or a hero that was being played by another player.

There was likely not a thought in their conception of the game that other players would purposefully form organizations whose whole focus was on murdering other players because that is so contra-intuitive, even preposterous.

[AvenaOats]

Ayar wrote:

I'd like a way to 100% opt out of PvP. (Until today I've just read the dev blogs... not until today's visit to the boards have I realized how out in left field this desire appears to be.)

Regardless, I have no interest in PvP, and no desire to participate. It is clear that's not the direction the game is going. I'll give PfO a try (since the money is already spent!) but I suspect that I just made a hefty donation to the development effort. C'est la vie.

Welcome to the PFO forums, check out the "Nihimonicon" for any questions on guilds, faqs and useful quotes and links.

Concerning PvP, see how it goes maybe? Here's some useful information from the blog on non-combat activities:

Don't Ask Me No Questions wrote:

Q. What kind of noncombat things can I do in the game?

Many characters will be able to pursue very rewarding careers that don't involve fighting monsters or other players. A basic range of noncombat activities will be available almost immediately in early enrollment, and as the game development continues throughout this period, more and more noncombat functions will be fully deployed. Noncombat-focused players should be able to:

• Gather and harvest components from the world
  
• Refine and craft using those components
  
• Trade and speculate using the markets (or face-to-face)
  
• Scout and spy to provide useful information to organizations
  
• Build and manage settlements and points of interest
  
• Engage in meaningful inter-organization diplomacy

We have additional ideas for systems to support social conflict and enhance roleplaying that will become more fully developed later if prioritized by crowdforging.

In terms of PvE Combat only, hopefully there will be options to specialize in monster slaying and in the Adventure and Exploration pillars of the design you may specialize in these areas to access PvE content, perhaps in a group of players who can specialize in PvP against assailants out in the wilds?

I appreciate that may not be satisfactory enough, but I see PvP'ers as state of the art AI - so long as the PvP gameplay does not degenerate into a gank-fest and the PvP is for purpose (eg in arena pvp to win the flag etc in Open-world to rob or to repel etc).

[Ayar]

First, thanks for the warm welcome to the boards. :)

Proxima Sin wrote:

What is it you wanted to do in PO that motivated you to back the KS?

Good question! I was looking for that feeling of discovery and exploration that comes with being in the first wave of players. I'm motivated by PvE content on an individual, group and raid scale ("us against the world!").

Being wrote:

There was likely not a thought in their conception of the game that other players would purposefully form organizations whose whole focus was on murdering other players because that is so contra-intuitive, even preposterous.

Pretty spot-on. The aspect of PvP that makes me avoid it is that it removes my ability to control what I spend my time on in game. My play time is limited, and it is important to me that while I am playing I am doing something that I find enjoyable that I *choose* to do. PvP can remove that element of choice - potentially embroiling me in conflicts not of my choosing, and of no interest to me.

Proxima Sin wrote:

As malicious and scary as it can seem on the forums, in practice it works out a lot like pve with really good AI.

If this outcome occurs, I'd likely find that enjoyable. For me it is all about whether I can spend my limited play time doing something productive and enjoyable.

[Pax JayBrand]

Ayar wrote:

First, thanks for the warm welcome to the boards. :)

Proxima Sin wrote:

What is it you wanted to do in PO that motivated you to back the KS?

Good question! I was looking for that feeling of discovery and exploration that comes with being in the first wave of players. I'm motivated by PvE content on an individual, group and raid scale ("us against the world!").

Being wrote:

There was likely not a thought in their conception of the game that other players would purposefully form organizations whose whole focus was on murdering other players because that is so contra-intuitive, even preposterous.

Pretty spot-on. The aspect of PvP that makes me avoid it is that it removes my ability to control what I spend my time on in game. My play time is limited, and it is important to me that while I am playing I am doing something that I find enjoyable that I *choose* to do. PvP can remove that element of choice - potentially embroiling me in conflicts not of my choosing, and of no interest to me.

Proxima Sin wrote:

As malicious and scary as it can seem on the forums, in practice it works out a lot like pve with really good AI.

If this outcome occurs, I'd likely find that enjoyable. For me it is all about whether I can spend my limited play time doing something productive and enjoyable.

Yeah, I am in a similar position where I am no able to dedicate massive amounts of time to one game. And thus some of the systems PfO will have in regards to progress sounded very interesting to me.

I have never been big on PvP in MMO's simply because there was so much else to get done in them that I never had the time to dedicate myself to it and thus never become good at it.

In a open-pvp-setting that this is "suddenly" looking like; my ability to complete the things I want to complete seem to be in the hands of other players. If they are well behaved human beings that share my values of fair and entertaining gameplay; then things will not be a problem...more of a welcomed challenge, but on the other hand the world has shown me many times that the best case scenarios rarely come to pass.

This is what has me slightly concerned.

[AvenaOats]

I'm hoping big groups can form various teams (CC's in PFO) that specialize different roles.

Eg: Gatherers/Harvesters are out doing their thing and killing random mobs.

- Meanwhile Pvp Patrol Guards are on standby nearby perhaps contributing.
- Meanwhile haulage teams are likewise doing their thing with the above PvP Patrol Guards escorting.
- Meanwhile crafters are busy in town.
- Meanwhile traders are busy in home town or away town.

That sort of structure. Perhaps others will be doing other things eg keeping escalations in check in their territory - likewise with a pvp contingent attached. Perhaps these escalation groups are also hunting for dungeons? We don't know a lot about that however and how Adventure fits it yet specifically to dungeons.

[Jester David]

Diverse gathering might be nice. There were a LOT of ores in EVE and most were not worth the time it took to mine. While this allowed for a diverse economy as ores became more or less valuable, fifteen rocks that produce varying amounts of eight metals is a little much.
As Pathfinder doesn't have the same "low sec" and "null sec" segregation, it doesn't need increasingly rare ores. Some of choice and diversity could come from smelty and alloys.

You could get by with fewer ores but different types of crafting materials. So the choice becomes what you're specializing in. Leather, stone, and wood would also be viable crafting components. And if food is crafted then farming and cooking becomes an option as well.

Making the combat more interesting helps for those uninterested in gathering. EVE is a lot of shooting at small dots that are really far away. There's a little RPS in weapon choice but often that's unseen. Just having monsters in your face should help.

Making exploring fun is hard in a game that will eventually be fully mapped very quickly. Little hidden places and easter eggs might be nice. Some ancient ruins and sites of mystery where strange magical things happen.
Random procedurally generated events and structures might be nice. Monster camps, wandering monsters, NPC bandits, etc.

[Proxima Sin]

A single type of material, like iron ore or a garnet, will have different quality levels in PO based on its proximity to civilization or monster hexes and character harvesting skill.

It follows that the adventure instances will be more difficult and more rewarding (and harder to find?) the more out in the weeds they are.

Relevant to Ayar and Jaybrand, out in the weeds more often than not means safer from unsought pvp. The more geographic area there is and farther from bases of operation you go the less likely you are to intersect with any other players. The obligatory EVE comparison is wandering in null sec as a whole is a lot safer than low sec provided you avoid the few places in a vast area that other players frequent.

[Jiminy]

Sepherum wrote:

For the vey reason that Goblinworks can't control the use of cell phones, smart phones, email, PMing, Ventrilo, TeamSpeak, etc. out of game why shouldn't they offer their own metagame communication? As a game feature? You know, like a business. So let me get this straight, peeps are saying "Well, if you think metagame communication is an unfair advantage get it yourself"; but if PFO offers it it's immersion breaking? Gimme a break.

Global chat is different from the other modes of communication you listed above. Every single player has access to that. The other modes are usually linked to specific groups (companies, settlements, kingdoms...) which make the chatter more selective.

If GW could provide comms that is limited to a group of sorts, that would be great. Global comms is not so great imho.

[deisum]

I want to see terrain be a huge factor in the game. I want the environment to feel like an integral part of the game, not just a scenic backdrop.

I want movement to have a large impact on tactical combat, broad military strategy, and even economies. I want movement speeds to vary substantively based potentially on interactions with terrain, roads, class abilities, ability scores, feats, load, armor, maybe skills, and (eventually) mounts & vehicles. I want units, both PC and NPC, to take up space (but maybe not in town) so as to place noticeable limits on the movement of groups. I want high-ground to offer a combat advantage, for trees to offer cover to/for archers, for a narrow mountain pass or river ford to offer a strategic advantage.

I want to see trade dictated by local and regional resource concentrations. I want to see local economies revolve around resource abundance & deficiencies. I want to see the flow of goods, both bulk and individual, be dependent on direct player actions. I also want methods of accelerated movement for traversing large distances (so trade isn't a horrible chore) but only along narrowly-defined routes (such that alternative options may offer lower risk or better rewards). I want goods to take up physical storage space as well. Displaying a dozen suits of armor should require a fair bit of physical space. Carrying that many should be difficult (not to mention incredibly awkward).

Accounting for terrain/movement/capacity is annoying bookkeeping in a table-top game where the focus is on climactic adventure. Computers, however, are great at annoying bookkeeping tasks and with a robust economy, the game benefits from these limits.

[deisum]

As for the contentious issue of PvP, I'd like to see non-consensual PvP (of which banditry is, 100%) be allowed and be a supported play-style. However, outside of combat, I'd like to pose substantially more risk to, or require more resources from those who partake in it.

Characters partaking in non-con PvP will almost certainly be carefully choosing their victims so as to minimize the risk or effort required in combat. To balance that, there should be significant effort or risk required in accomplishing more mundane acts like character advancement or economic development. This contrasts with those whom bandits pray on, who face far more risk or require more effort to protect themselves from bandits, but aren't restricted in other areas of character growth.

Of course, this is all predicated on ample opportunities for consensual PvP where everyone involved is deliberately exposing themselves to similar levels of risk. But I'm confident PfO will have plenty of opportunity for consensual PvP.

[Nihimon]

deisum wrote:

Characters partaking in non-con PvP will almost certainly be carefully choosing their victims so as to minimize the risk or effort required in combat. To balance that, there should be significant effort or risk required in accomplishing more mundane acts like character advancement or economic development.

This, and then some.