Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder Online's Ryan Dancey on crowdforging a 'minimum viable product'
In response to our recent editorial questioning whether we are in fact in the middle of a sandbox renaissance, Goblinworks CEO Ryan Dancey has penned a Massively-exclusive dev blog to explain why his game, Pathfinder Online, is indeed at the center of such a renaissance.
Cont'd...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
From the article:
You can't study the history of the MMO genre and not be familiar with the way that PvP has warped players' experiences and expectations since the very start.
We think that PvP is a critical element needed to make the game loop function. And we think that PvP is a fascinating and incredibly rich mechanic to stimulate meaningful human interaction. We accept that there are hazards and risks to including it in our game, but we think the upside of succeeding in restoring PvP as a desirable feature of MMOs is worth the risk.
I wonder if the nuance in those statements will break through the perception that PFO will be just another murder simulator. I'd've been happier if Ryan had included something like he's said before:
If you are one of those people who doesn't like the idea of PvP we ask for you to keep an open mind. We're well aware of the kind of non-fun experiences that PvP has created in some games, and we think we have lots of ideas on ways to keep misbehavior under control in Pathfinder Online.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@AvenaOats, you have a knack for finding really good articles to link here. Thanks for sharing :)
Thanks Nihimon, but in all honestly, blind chance!
I really like the description of the core loop both as an alternative to quest-loops and as an actual concept of what gameplay will be like in EE.
Here's that loop description:
The core game loop
To make our MVP, we had to figure out what the smallest number of features were needed to implement a compelling game loop with meaningful human interactions. We decided that our loop would have two interconnected segments.
- Segment one would be finding monsters in the world, killing them, and taking their stuff.
- Segment two would be finding resources, harvesting those resources, and turning the resources into crafted goods.
- The interconnection would be that the stuff one character crafted would make another character better at killing monsters.
We also accepted that there would be a complication of this interconnection:
- Killing another character and taking its stuff would be a shortcut.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think Ryan really wanted to concentrate on explaining the MVP and how it would grow, and not so much about what it should grow into.
I agree that people who decide to read this blog are left with many questions: hopefully the two links at the end of the blog will be clicked a lot.
But I think it is good that he did not try to cover both the MVP and the scope of the entire game. It could have easily become one of those articles with a lot of trumpeting about all the features and awesomeness that the game will have and people could discard such an article just as easily.
At least what Ryan is describing here sounds credable: risky, but credable.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do not think this article accomplished much. There was too much focus on trying to convince the Massively audience that the end product is a fully-featured MMO. However he really did not put in enough effort to alleviate the Combat Lobby fears. Now they just see it as a Combat Lobby with crafting and monsters. :(
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There will be detractors, naysayers, and doubters no matter what you post on the internet. If they are truly interested, they should follow the links and read before they form an opinion.
I will say that gleaning information from the links (that might change their outlook) is a daunting task, currently.
Hopefully Ryan will get a chance to do some follow ups that can lay out more details of intention for their concerns.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I wrote a version of this article that was about 3 times as long as what I eventually sent to Massively. There is a lot of information worth discussing and if this goes well I may try to get them to run more such features in the future.
Ryan, would you say that trying to convince prospective players that PFO won't be a murder simulator is still a high priority? Is it difficult to balance that with the obvious goal to also attract players who are already comfortable with PvP and who might actually worry about PFO constraining them too much?
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
TBH, I'm not really that worried about the "combat lobby" concerns. Long term, the game either establishes that PvP can be implemented without becoming degenerate, or it can't. No amount of hand waving by us at this point is going to convince anyone otherwise.
The objective is really to kill the nay-saying about the graphics and animation. That's a deadly strain of PR that we can't allow to take root. It's inherent in the MVP concept that we aren't going to go all-out on graphic quality and some people will equate graphic quality with game quality unless that point is addressed.
What I hope people take away from this article is that there's more to the game than PvP (which was what Jef implied with his original article) and that we're committed to iterating on all game systems over time - the product on release to Early Enrollment is not "Finished" by any stretch of the imagination.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
TBH, I'm not really that worried about the "combat lobby" concerns. Long term, the game either establishes that PvP can be implemented without becoming degenerate, or it can't. No amount of hand waving by us at this point is going to convince anyone otherwise.
I can dig it.
The objective is really to kill the nay-saying about the graphics and animation. That's a deadly strain of PR that we can't allow to take root.
Point taken, and thanks for the reply.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Marlagram: Keep it simple is the best approach. You will never convince those people against PvP in mmorpg comments: They're not early adopters, but you can get their attention on that change in the core gameloop.
@Lifedragn: It sounds well-thought out which means it's got more chance of being true and interesting. Some players will like the fact there's a core game-loop of players doing what they like as well as taking the "alternative decision" of pvp if that is what they want in games (interesting decisions).
There's links to the blog and the crowdforging and crowdfunding finally for players to act on if following the above they see something they want a part of.
Tight article.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait till Bludd and his merry band find out he is a "shortcut" in the loop process, and an established part of the MVP. :)
Oh oh!!!! here we come!!!!!! :-) And this isn't "News," this is information that we already had. We knew that the "Shortcut" existed but as Marlagram said:
It is sad that Ryan Dancey hadn't delivered greatest selling point (in my view) of PFO - all your action have consequences, both good and bad, and "shortcut" mentioned in this article besides getting loot and having your fun have bad consequences too.
Read the comments at Massively - these guys didn't get a clue about specifics of PFO.
There are consequences to taking the shortcut, by way of rep and/or alignment hits. The UNC are fully aware of these and are very happy they are in the MVP. We WANT to be the bad guys, the reason you hire guards for your caravans and POI's, and why you don't travel alone if you don't have to. We want to give bounty hunters and people dedicated to helping/protecting others someone to hunt and protect against. People seam to think we are out to break PFO or turn in into a murder sim or something and that isn't what UNC stands for. We want that meaningful interaction, that Human to Human interaction.
yes we strive to ensure there is a strong PVP presence, but that is because I am not 100% sure how we can be effective "Bad guys" if we can't PVP? We will take hits to rep and alignment for doing so, but that is for US to balance. If we let our rep get too low, we can't train and are easier targets for everyone else, alignment isn't that big of a deal as we will most likely be some chaotic anyway, but it is still there limiting us from lawful and possibly good factions and cities and such.
We at the UNC want ALL play styles and "Roles" to exist and be "equal" in that they are each needed and viable for their role without overshadowing the others. You need bandits as well as caravan and city guards. Without 1, the other is pointless. Without good and evil to balance each other out, it gets boring and dull, without crafters we can't get gear, without merchants we have to do the traveling for goods to purchase, ect. We at the UNC support all roles.
Sorry for the rant and the side-tracked post. Good blog Ryan. :-)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Wait till Bludd and his merry band find out he is a "shortcut" in the loop process, and an established part of the MVP. :)Oh oh!!!! here we come!!!!!! :-) And this isn't "News," this is information that we already had. We knew that the "Shortcut" existed but as Marlagram said:
It is sad that Ryan Dancey hadn't delivered greatest selling point (in my view) of PFO - all your action have consequences, both good and bad, and "shortcut" mentioned in this article besides getting loot and having your fun have bad consequences too.
Read the comments at Massively - these guys didn't get a clue about specifics of PFO.There are consequences to taking the shortcut, by way of rep and/or alignment hits. The UNC are fully aware of these and are very happy they are in the MVP. We WANT to be the bad guys, the reason you hire guards for your caravans and POI's, and why you don't travel alone if you don't have to. We want to give bounty hunters and people dedicated to helping/protecting others someone to hunt and protect against. People seam to think we are out to break PFO or turn in into a murder sim or something and that isn't what UNC stands for. We want that meaningful interaction, that Human to Human interaction.
yes we strive to ensure there is a strong PVP presence, but that is because I am not 100% sure how we can be effective "Bad guys" if we can't PVP? We will take hits to rep and alignment for doing so, but that is for US to balance. If we let our rep get too low, we can't train and are easier targets for everyone else, alignment isn't that big of a deal as we will most likely be some chaotic anyway, but it is still there limiting us from lawful and possibly good factions and cities and such.
We at the UNC want ALL play styles and "Roles" to exist and be "equal" in that they are each needed and viable for their role without overshadowing the others. You need bandits as well as caravan and city guards. Without 1, the other is...
Well spoken ;), scary "Goodfellow"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We WANT to be the bad guys, the reason you hire guards for your caravans and POI's, and why you don't travel alone if you don't have to. We want to give bounty hunters and people dedicated to helping/protecting others someone to hunt and protect against. People seam to think we are out to break PFO or turn in into a murder sim or something and that isn't what UNC stands for. We want that meaningful interaction, that Human to Human interaction.
Hear! Hear! Would that everyone who expressed UNC's goals did it so eloquently.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i really liked the article.
about the game loop is exacly what a mmo is.
Some people dont understand it even they are playing mmos for years.
adding high end graphics and some people will pay for your game right away but if your game has no deph they will get bored and move on another game.
Adding more variables in the loop can make the game more complicated and interesting but no matter how many you add in some point people will know it all and get bored.
Adding random variables in the loop makes the loop even more complicated and interesting and we saw already games moving in that direction.
Random events and stuff like that are fine but they required alot of development time and resources.so in truth they are just few more options and nothing more.and a player can experience all the options alot faster than a developer adds them.
So the only way to make that loop complicated and interesting is adding truly random variables and the only thing that can generate something like that is human mind.
Pathfinder Online is a game like that and thats why its so interesting.
Players can add new variables to the loop using tools that a developer created and that way from day to day the loop will change.and no matter when you last check it will be different.The loop stops to be a loop anymore and becomes a World.
Thats a true dynamic game Pathfinder Online thats why its different than any other open world pvp game.
TBH, I'm not really that worried about the "combat lobby" concerns. Long term, the game either establishes that PvP can be implemented without becoming degenerate, or it can't. No amount of hand waving by us at this point is going to convince anyone otherwise.
@Ryan - Assuming it can't, what's Plan B? Are you going to shut off PvP entirely, or, just remove the Reputation system and let people have the pure PvP freedom?
How can the game possibly work with NO PvP, if that's the solution?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
TBH, I'm not really that worried about the "combat lobby" concerns. Long term, the game either establishes that PvP can be implemented without becoming degenerate, or it can't. No amount of hand waving by us at this point is going to convince anyone otherwise.@Ryan - Assuming it can't, what's Plan B? Are you going to shut off PvP entirely, or, just remove the Reputation system and let people have the pure PvP freedom?
How can the game possibly work with NO PvP, if that's the solution?
I'd rather shut down the game and quit than run a simplistic murder simulator for the enjoyment of a tiny fraction of sociopaths.
Yea, that question was really directed at Ryan. Thanks though, I'll pretend that allowing FFA PvP even when people are motivated to engage in the "desired" forms of PvP and game-building would somehow magically turn the game into a "Murder simulator" which would indicate that my question was answered (even though we both know it wasn't).
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we cannot get people to engage in meaningful PvP and they simply insist on treating the game like a murder simulator, we'll have to impose restrictions on where and when PvP can occur. But there's no design or plan for that because I don't think we'll need one.
If we cannot get people to engage in meaningful PvP and they simply insist on treating the game like a murder simulator, we'll have to impose restrictions on where and when PvP can occur. But there's no design or plan for that because I don't think we'll need one.
No offense, though I think people in general are underestimating the power of incentive. People will engage in meaningful activities (PvP included) if they have an incentive to. Even if there are absolutely no restrictions on PvP.
Qallz out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We WANT to be the bad guys, the reason you hire guards for your caravans and POI's, and why you don't travel alone if you don't have to. We want to give bounty hunters and people dedicated to helping/protecting others someone to hunt and protect against. People seam to think we are out to break PFO or turn in into a murder sim or something and that isn't what UNC stands for. We want that meaningful interaction, that Human to Human interaction.Hear! Hear! Would that everyone who expressed UNC's goals did it so eloquently.
Not to take away from The Goodfellow's eloquence, but everything he wrote has been our stance from day one, and has been said repeatedly albeit more abruptly or bluntly.
Goodfellow is an Assassin, while I'm a brutal thug of a Raider-Bandit. Our goal is the same. Steal your stuff through intimidation or bloodshed, whichever gets us to the coin fastest and easiest.
As for Ryan's interview, yes obviously I'm glad to see the "short cut" as part of MVP. And as far as the worries of PFO becoming a "Murder Sim", I think Ryan has expressed it enough times, that he is not concerned with that happening. It certainly is not his primary concern for the potential negative perception of MVP.
Let us not forget, EvE Online, is not a "Murder Sim" according to Ryan and I think most of us would be comfortable with that level of PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's in the industries best interest for PvP to evolve. The more time players spend doing PvP the less content companies have to churn out.
Let's not go encouraging the kind of thinking that provides we the customer with less dollar per value than we already need to. Video game content creation has already had enough sacrifices on the altar of 'Good Graphics' as it is. Filling our RPGs with PvP as an excuse to cut even more corners on content would leave us with empty husks of a game. Not worth playing in my book. I'm still hanging on for the hopefully rich settlement building and social interplay game. The fact that GW is taking the risk to sacrifice graphics to shore up our systems and enrich the game mechanically up front gives me confidence. But I am still very concerned of over-bearing PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Are you speaking for UNC or the community at large?
Let us not forget, EvE Online, is not a "Murder Sim" according to Ryan and I think most of us would be comfortable with that level of PvP.
I speak for all of UNC, but I think it is fair to say, there will be more PVP in PFO than EVE. I haven't read many anti PVP posters here, so "most" I believe covers it fairly accurately. That still leaves room for a portion (minority) that has no desire to PVP, but will if they have to.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just wanted to add a comment as I thought it was funny that people like "how" I said my early post in this thread vs how us at the UNC, myself included, have been received in nearly every post on nearly every other thread. As Bludd had stated, as I knew he would, I have said nothing new, and didn't change anything that we have said in the past concerning the intended actions and desires that we at the UNC have. If anything it might be the wording that I chose to use, but I think that just proves that there are people who start to read anything written by one of our ranks with a skewed perspective and immediately take it beyond what was actually said. Now yes, we do get heated and state things a bit blunt and leave it open to interpretation.
The point of this comment was just to point out that we at the UNC are members of this community, have a passion for this game and what we believe it could be, and want it to not only be successful, but live on for many years to come. We desire it to be the most enjoyable and intriguing game ever built. We want stories, like the stories that many of us have from our TT experiences, to be created and possible in this persistent online environment. Epic battles, daunting enemies, rewarding treasure, epic defeats, all that stuff.
The only difference between many of our frequent posters on these forums and us at the UNC, is that we volunteer to be the bad guys that are required for many of the above situations. How can you honestly have epic battles with NPCs? they are predictable to a point, based on the programming skills of the devs. What can be a more epic enemy then an assassin that is good enough to kill literally anyone, anywhere, and can't be found? :-)
We focus on PVP because you can't really be "Bad guy" crafters/PVEers. That is called competition and you don't have to be "Bad" to do that. The guys who rob you, who assassinate your king, who R&P your towns, those are "BAD GUYS." That is all. Speaking only for the UNC: WE DO NOT WISH TO BE ALL POWERFUL!!! Honestly we don't. That would get boring to not have opponents (The "Good guys") who can offer us resistance. If SAD's were truly as powerful as some fear they will be, then we will join you in asking they be adjusted down to be on par with other similar abilities. If PVP becomes more of a "Shoot first and don't both asking the dead questions" murder sim, then we will join you in requesting changed be made to tone it down. We don't want a murder sim. We want meaningful interactions. We will rob you, and we will kill you from time to time, but not 100% of the time, and not 100% everyone. We want there to be incentives to accept a SAD, vs fighting and losing it all. We want there to be incentives to pay other PC's to fight us while you make a run for the next town with your wagon of goods. That gives us content as much as we are your content.
Please understand this is our stance, always has been and always will be. With this, the game endures and succeeds and thrives, without it, it flops and we all are depressed at the loss of another potentially great game. Help us make this game great and we promise to give you meaningful and enjoyable enemies to fight.
Disclaimer: I speak only for the UNC, there are others who have (and some who haven't) come forward to express a desire to also play "Bad guys" and they do what they do. I only promise and offer with the utmost sincerity the desires of the UNC. It is my hope and wish that the other "Bad guys" follow our lead and provide meaningful (though in their own way) interactions and assist in making this game great.
<Steps off soap box and back into the shadows>
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Do you feel that you have been forcibly placed in your role? Are you a victim? Or was your role something you chose? If the former then sorry. If the latter stop whining. It was your choice and remains your choice to be the bad guys. So should anyone be surprised if you are treated like outlaws?
I think we are, at least most of us, fully aware that there has to be conflict for there to be a worthwhile story. At the same time please realize that those who do not choose to play the role of bad guy are not all peaches and cream either.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Let us not forget, EvE Online, is not a "Murder Sim" according to Ryan and I think most of us would be comfortable with that level of PvP.
Yes, EVE is not a "murder simulator".
Now, ask Ryan how much "meaningless" PvP takes place in EVE, and if he hopes to significantly lessen that in PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Do you feel that you have been forcibly placed in your role? Are you a victim? Or was your role something you chose? If the former then sorry. If the latter stop whining. It was your choice and remains your choice to be the bad guys. So should anyone be surprised if you are treated like outlaws?
I think we are, at least most of us, fully aware that there has to be conflict for there to be a worthwhile story. At the same time please realize that those who do not choose to play the role of bad guy are not all peaches and cream either.
It isn't the "being treated as outlaws" that is the issue, it is the idea that people have expressed towards a majority of the UNC posts that seam to indicate that we have the desire to turn PFO into a FFA murder sim. Some posters (based on their posts) seem to think that the UNC stands for making PFO better for us and hard for everyone else. I merely wished to show that those ideas are incorrect and inaccurate. We fight for "our things" like SAD and raiding because we feel it needs to be there so that we may perform our Chosen role to a level that is needed to create the balance needed for this game to be successful. Again, if it makes it into EE and gives us bandits too much power without enough consequences, then we will be among the first to request it get changed and powered down. The same applies with any of the other mechanics that need balancing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A significant part of keeping a lid on SADs/meaningless PVP and what not will be a two-part effort.
1) OOC/Metagame from groups like UNC to attempt to install a sense of decorum among the "baddies" so the game is not abused (note how I don't say stop the SADing altogether).
2) IC from groups like TEO to actively hunt down and personal destroy with bloodied gauntlets those who attempt to poison, and destroy my brothers. BLESSED IS HE WHO IN THE NAME OF GOODWILL AND CHARITY SHEPHERDS HIS BROTHERS THROUGH THE VALLEY OF DARKNESS, FOR HE IS TRULY HIS BRO---
woops got a lil' carried away there.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that part of the feeling here is that many times you see people writing how they will "work the system", i.e. SADs for 100% as Cirolle mentions. Then you have a refreshing post from "The Goodfellow" looking like a whole different attitude.
It is all here on record, in past posts. Saying that the "sweet talk" (just a little more gruff) has always been the attitude, is just plain untrue.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"We will just SAD for max, forcing people to fight (good) or declining, so we can kill them without concequences. Even if they accept, we will just kill them with low rep alts"
This last part to my best recollection has never been said as something we would do. It may be possible to do and that may have been discussed, but not something in our best interests.
We have also stated that we would not "over fish the same pond". We will not single out any particular settlement or group of players (company), unless we are in an active feud or they have been placed in our hostile status. We plan to move around and be somewhat unpredictable.
I have said it before, a SAD is not our preferred activity. We give up ambush to use it. We also have to train it and slot it. We also have to "set up" future SADs with a meta game reputation that the traveler is better off accepting the SAD than rejecting it. That will take effort and time, and low demand SADs to establish that, and quite frankly, ambush and slaughter would be easier.
SADs I believe may turn out to be the tactic of a fledgling bandit. They might also be used as a means of transferring payment between a mercenary bandit company and their employer. They could also be the mechanic used as part of a pre arranged extortion racketeering ring. SADs may also be used as an interdiction tool to search cargo passing through an area, by forces that feel they have the ability or right to do so.
We intend to use ganking as our primary PvP method. Our use of that term is in the context of using overwhelming force to achieve our objectives. We are not looking for fair fights, we are looking for lower risk vs. higher rewards. If you don't want to fall prey to us or others like the UNC, then don't present that profile.
None of this is anything new. We in the UNC have been saying this for over a year.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Let us not forget, EvE Online, is not a "Murder Sim" according to Ryan and I think most of us would be comfortable with that level of PvP.Yes, EVE is not a "murder simulator".
Now, ask Ryan how much "meaningless" PvP takes place in EVE, and if he hopes to significantly lessen that in PFO.
If we accept the defining of "meaningless PvP" from the perspective of the victim, then all PvP would be labeled meaningless. The same is true if we accept the definition of "meaningful PvP" from the side of the victorious. They will always claim their victories had meaning.
In order to accept your premise, I'd have to accept that games like EvE have a lot of meaningless PvP. That is simply not the case. That is a false impression created by a few on these boards who have very little or no experience actually playing the game.
PFO will be different, but I don't think in the way you believe or hope it will be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me personally getting killed by another player comes in 3 different sizes of grief(roughly).
1) You are specifically going on a mission (of War) against a specified enemy, knowing there will be a fight, and that you are very likely going to get killed (multiple times). This is the state that mimicks the state when I play any FPS.
I do not feel "griefed" when I get killed during something like this. And only slightly annoyed if it was a "knife kill" :)
2) You are not on your way to a specific fight/war but you are doing something dangerous where you could expect trouble/getting killed; like entering an enemy hex to see if you can harvest some nodes.
If I get killed during this activity, I may feel embarassment and some feeling of being griefed, but logic dictates that the enemy was protecting his interests. Your mileage may vary and I expect to become rather cautious if this happens all the time, and less cautious when I get away with it. Cautious as in "not engaging in that activity anymore". If I go in a group and get killed then I will feel annoyed but not griefed; i.e. trying to do better next time.
3) You have reasons to feel safe and are going about your business that has nothing to do with fighting players, entering a state where you basically have dropped your guard and enjoying one of the many other aspects of PFO that does not directly include fighting another player.
If I get killed during this state of mind I wil likely feel annoyed and griefed, at least feeling that the kill was meaningless to ME.
If the last happens a lot this could sortof ruin the enjoyment of the other parts of PFO, like crafting, fighting monsters and harvesting in friendly hexes. If this happpens seldomly then that is fine.
It is possible that PFO requires you to have a 4th state of mind, which is always being on your guard no matter what you do but not sure if I could play a game like that for long. But maybe I can if the game is fun enough!
In Age of Wushi I got killed about once per game-session (of 2-3 hours), completely randomly by highlevel criminals that could almost one-shot me(so pretty meaningless if you ask me), and I could live with that just fine.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It isn't the "being treated as outlaws" that is the issue, it is the idea that people have expressed towards a majority of the UNC posts that seam to indicate that we have the desire to turn PFO into a FFA murder sim. Some posters (based on their posts) seem to think that the UNC stands for making PFO better for us and hard for everyone else. I merely wished to show that those ideas are incorrect and inaccurate. We fight for "our things" like SAD and raiding because we feel it needs to be there so that we may perform our Chosen role to a level that is needed to create the balance needed for this game to be successful. Again, if it makes it into EE and gives us bandits too much power without enough consequences, then we will be among the first to request it get changed and powered down. The same applies with any of the other mechanics that need balancing.
Alright, except you seem to be asking everyone else to just back off and let UNC put forth your envisioning without suffering a considered counter-argument. While the UNC's motives are pure and pristine, nobly intending only the best for the game and your members are without blemish and avarice, if there is a way to exploit the systems you propose those systems will be exploited by lesser, more nefarious players and should be pointed out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Tyncale
Ideally 3) is indeed safe unless during a time of war with the enemy setting up a siege camp outside the settlement walls!
I think players can use that part of the game to do useful things, to harvest "success" so they are in credit for their game session before venturing out for tweaking their risk-reward to more risk and more reward knowing they're padded with success (eg social, production, grapevine intel, maintenance etc). Then you're trying to profit and do some more tense activities eg squaring off with hostiles (that thrilling adventure stuff with a hint of danger) and the pay-off (gains/goods + euphoria on risky success) vs losses dampening of your endocrine system on defeat.
I know this outcome happens in actual sports: They've tested testosterone levels on winning vs losing for example and besides I've experienced both in real life, in teams. "Pumped" feeling vs "Deflated". That's kind of conjecture unless people have hooked up players and tested them! But fairly sure the collapse on warhammer servers of destros vs order was a symptom of this when one team steamrolled another in RvR constantly. The stress hormone often mentioned is cortisal especially nasty for unexpected ganking and powerlessness. Whereas stress in a combat can be in small dose quite invigorating (adrenaline) leading to that euphoria if you escape from the jaws of defeat and/or haul a big catch. There's a whole gawd-darn coctail of these things but those are the highlight ones why PvP is so polarizing flying to sublime heights of gameplay as well as falling to crude lows.
It is possible that PFO requires you to have a 4th state of mind, which is always being on your guard no matter what you do but not sure if I could play a game like that for long. But maybe I can if the game is fun enough!
Out and about a low level vigilence is good for the dangerous world atmosphere you want for adventure in these fantasy world and demands higher concentration (higher focus invested by the player) but not without a safe place to chill out and not requiring being on edge too long for too high-tension because that is unsustainable and enervating: Therefore counter-productive to promoting a fun game experience per session over the long-run.
The pvp(player vs player)experience its not only a matter of combat.
Pvp combat is fun but Pathfinder Online can offer more than that.
every kind of conflict beetween players is a way to pvp.Maybe some people thinking "i dont like pvp" considering that pvp is only a matter of player vs player combat.You can dislike pvp combat and like all other aspects of pvp a game like Pathfinder Online can offer you.
As there is human interaction there will be conflict and even this never leads to combat is somekind of pvp.
Alot of mmos the last years even they come out with somekind of combat pvp they decrease human interaction and conflict,Making most of players believe that pvp is something like an online version of Mortal Combat.
Even if you believe you are a pve focus player.you are playing a mmorpg for that litle player interaction and confict even if you dont know about it, else you have no reason to prefer a mmo than a single player game.
Single player games are far superior in pve in every aspect.
PFO will be based on human interaction and conflict,if people want to turn it in murder simulation ignoring all other options of pvp this game can offer will be sad.But knowing the community of the game.That will not happen.