Goblin Squad Member
|
The thing about factions is, they do exist in Pathfinder. Goblin Works have been pretty clear for the beginning that factions will play an important role in both our character's lives and in settlements.
Faction warfare will be a part of the settlement vs. settlement conflict because settlements will be able to establish factional ties.
There may be a jumping to conclusions that factions and settlements are some how not connected. Factions will require structures, and this is where settlements can come into the relationship.
However, some factions could be designed to be separate from the settlement structure as well. Does it really make sense that a Druidic faction would be tied to a big settlement?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Since it seems PFO will go the faction route with Merchants/Bandits. I hope they have several different factions. One Merchant faction might be at odds with another Merchant factions. The same with Bandits.
I can see one Bandit faction working along side a Merchant factions to disrupt a rival Bandit factions. And many other types of scenarios.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Since it seems PFO will go the faction route with Merchants/Bandits. I hope they have several different factions. One Merchant faction might be at odds with another Merchant factions. The same with Bandits.
I can see one Bandit faction working along side a Merchant factions to disrupt a rival Bandit factions. And many other types of scenarios.
I hate to requote myself:
I would expect that most if not all factions will have merchants and guards, and a few will have bandits, etc. etc.
Merchants, Bandits (Outlaws) and Guards are roles and they should be found in just about any organized faction or settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Since it seems PFO will go the faction route with Merchants/Bandits. I hope they have several different factions. One Merchant faction might be at odds with another Merchant factions. The same with Bandits.
I can see one Bandit faction working along side a Merchant factions to disrupt a rival Bandit factions. And many other types of scenarios.
I hate to requote myself:
I would expect that most if not all factions will have merchants and guards, and a few will have bandits, etc. etc.Merchants, Bandits (Outlaws) and Guards are roles and they should be found in just about any organized faction or settlement.
I actually hope they set it up like a matrix, guilds and factions (although for most mechanics they are treated the same):
Player 1 might be a member of the "Traders Guild" and the "Green faction"
Player 2 might be a member of the "Traders Guild" and the "Purple faction"
Both player 1 and 2 will have access to the perks of the Traders Guild...which will never be at war with itself, but the Green and Purple factions might. In that case, Player 1 and Player 2 would be at war with each other as disciples of the opposing factions.
Since the Traders Guild is found in an NPC town, it is safe to mingle even with people of the opposing faction (NPC Marshall policed).
This same setup can be used for the Assassins Guild (Poisoners and Assassins Guilds combined), and Thieves Guild (bandits/outlaws)...and perhaps even yet unexplored guilds like the Crafters Guild, Harvesters Guild, Warden Guild, etc.
I would have guilds as essentially neutral factions...but have slotting skills from certain guilds mutually exclusive.
Player 1 might be trained as both a bandit (Thieves Guild) and a teamster (Traders Guild), but would not be able to slot skills for both at the same time. Similarly, I would make assassins (Assassins Guild) and PC Marshals (Warden Guilds) mutually exclusive...or maybe even make all 4 mutually exclusive!
I would not see a reason to restrict Crafting and Harvesting Guild skills unless there is just a need to make decisions even more meaningful.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just because someone is in an enemy faction, does not mean you must fight.
If its faction based, SAD is not needed. You can either role play it or just kill.
Faction A can always attack faction B, and vise versa. You can support party members in any fight. If you are not of an opposed faction, you will not be attacked first without a counter attack or rep hit. Yes, you can get killed by fellow faction members in that type of situation. If you defend a friend, who is of an opposite faction against someone of your own faction... What can you expect? You fought them.
The problem with the player driven organisation... No one wants to agree. This is the better of the choices.
I think my main issue is that I was of the understanding the factions would be one dimensional, and that merchants would be red, guards blue and bandits green. This I would see as leading to the diminishing of interaction and roleplay.
However, Bluddwolf has a very good point:
I would expect that most if not all factions will have merchants and guards, and a few will have bandits, etc. etc.
This would solve the worries I have about the system and would add the multi-dimensional aspects into the game that I am after.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hate to requote myself:
I would expect that most if not all factions will have merchants and guards, and a few will have bandits, etc. etc.Merchants, Bandits (Outlaws) and Guards are roles and they should be found in just about any organized faction or settlement.
At this point, I wouldn't be surprised if they rolled up both merchants and caravan-type guards within the merchant faction. ;)
When the Hellknights or Knights of Iomedae need something hauled, they can pay a drover and his guards. They might even have some merchant faction people on retainer. Things need to be moved, sure. But most factions don't need to be spending their time honing skillsets and trades that they can hire out.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still do not see what happens when a bandit chooses to be a merchant. This is an inefficient structure. It is being used because it is there, not because it is a good model.
What about bandits who want to rob bandits?
See the world as two sides is really a poor model.
A two year old with a hammer sees everything as a nail.
This mechanism serves to make players of less dimension. Interaction is lost or constrained to the mechanic, not player interaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If all factions give skills, then factions are becoming replacements for the settlement.
Factions were announced well after settlements, and to say otherwise is disingenuous. Its possible I missed a blog post somewhere, but until a few months ago, we didn't even *have* factions, and until a week ago, they were so people could PvP Red vs Blue style.
PFO is all about meaningful interaction. And the more you shift the focus to NPC led factions and away from player led settlements and nations, the more you *decrease* meaningful interactions.
And that is a sad day indeed for PFO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If all factions give skills, then factions are becoming replacements for the settlement.
Factions were announced well after settlements, and to say otherwise is disingenuous. Its possible I missed a blog post somewhere, but until a few months ago, we didn't even *have* factions, and until a week ago, they were so people could PvP Red vs Blue style.
PFO is all about meaningful interaction. And the more you shift the focus to NPC led factions and away from player led settlements and nations, the more you *decrease* meaningful interactions.
And that is a sad day indeed for PFO.
Where do you suppose these faction training halls will be?
Isn't it possible that a player settlement would align itself with a faction or more, and elect to build training halls?
Player settlements are locations that they build up to provide services. They will care about what they built because of the time, effort and costs associated with building it. To believe that training being provided by other sources woukd strip that all away I think misses the point that settlements are more than just a place to get training.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If all factions give skills, then factions are becoming replacements for the settlement.
Factions were announced well after settlements, and to say otherwise is disingenuous. Its possible I missed a blog post somewhere, but until a few months ago, we didn't even *have* factions, and until a week ago, they were so people could PvP Red vs Blue style.
PFO is all about meaningful interaction. And the more you shift the focus to NPC led factions and away from player led settlements and nations, the more you *decrease* meaningful interactions.
And that is a sad day indeed for PFO.
Factions are no replacement for Settlements. They are just an added flavor. Settlements will still have full control of most of PFO.
Factions were never about RvB PVP. That was only in the heads of some. It does not mean thats possible, but that is not the intent. Since the creation of factions, there has been talk about each faction providing skills to its members.
There is nothing more meaningful in Settlement interaction then there is in Faction interaction. Its all the same meat and potatoes, the only difference is the cheese running over the top.
The sad day for PFO is not Factions, it the taking sand out of the box. Which has been going on long before factions were created. Dont misunderstand what I am saying. I am not a big fan of factions at all. But PFO was advertised as a PVP game all over the kickstarter. The problem from the kickstarter completion on is that PVP has been reduced to not much more then settlement wars and getting beat with a stick for PVPing outside of that.
PFO's sad day... Kickstarter says PFO is a PVP game. Dev blogs point the major design intentions back at Eve... Then Ryan reverses that whole thing. "Calling it a PVP game is like calling Football a tackling game." or how about "PFO is not like Eve at all."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If all factions give skills, then factions are becoming replacements for the settlement.
Factions were announced well after settlements, and to say otherwise is disingenuous. Its possible I missed a blog post somewhere, but until a few months ago, we didn't even *have* factions, and until a week ago, they were so people could PvP Red vs Blue style.
PFO is all about meaningful interaction. And the more you shift the focus to NPC led factions and away from player led settlements and nations, the more you *decrease* meaningful interactions.
And that is a sad day indeed for PFO.
Factions are no replacement for Settlements. They are just an added flavor. Settlements will still have full control of most of PFO.
Factions were never about RvB PVP. That was only in the heads of some. It does not mean thats possible, but that is not the intent. Since the creation of factions, there has been talk about each faction providing skills to its members.
There is nothing more meaningful in Settlement interaction then there is in Faction interaction. Its all the same meat and potatoes, the only difference is the cheese running over the top.
The sad day for PFO is not Factions, it the taking sand out of the box. Which has been going on long before factions were created. Dont misunderstand what I am saying. I am not a big fan of factions at all. But PFO was advertised as a PVP game all over the kickstarter. The problem from the kickstarter completion on is that PVP has been reduced to not much more then settlement wars and getting beat with a stick for PVPing outside of that.
PFO's sad day... Kickstarter says PFO is a PVP game. Dev blogs point the major design intentions back at Eve... Then Ryan reverses that whole thing. "Calling it a PVP game is like calling Football a tackling game." or how about "PFO is not like Eve at all."
Players that want a challenge really seem to be a minority these days. I'd hope you'd welcome adversity upon choosing to play a "player-killer." Instead you view it as "PO is unjust because they treat murderers unfairly compared to merchants." Well bravo, it seems you've convinced the developers that the victimizers should be treated exactly like the victims; hello to you faction system. Bravo.
Did either of you (Xeen and Bluddwolf) play Ultima Online? That's what you should be comparing PFO to in my opinion and hoping Goblinworks draws inspiration from. Not Darkfall or PotBS. And FYI, bandits and murderers weren't treated fairly in UO either and that augmented the fun factor.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Did either of you (Xeen and Bluddwolf) play Ultima Online? That's what you should be comparing PFO to in my opinion and hoping Goblinworks draws inspiration from. Not Darkfall or PotBS. And FYI, bandits and murderers weren't treated fairly in UO either and that augmented the fun factor.
I played UO, and while it had some incredible ideas, some of the mechanics and other ideas were horrible - for example, creating Trammel was effectively a death sentence for the game.
UO's initial premise was to create social groups to get the protection or resources you needed to achieve your goals, whatever they may be. Taking away the threat PvP (from griefers) made the game nothing more than single player with some chat.
I agree with some of your points, but I'm not sure personal attacks and lauding UO as the posterboy of PvP games is the best way to get your point across.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Players that want a challenge really seem to be a minority these days. I'd hope you'd welcome adversity upon choosing to play a "player-killer." Instead you view it as "PO is unjust because they treat murderers unfairly compared to merchants." Well bravo, it seems you've convinced the developers that the victimizers should be treated exactly like the victims; hello to you faction system. Bravo.
Did either of you (Xeen and Bluddwolf) play Ultima Online? That's what you should be comparing PFO to in my opinion and hoping Goblinworks draws inspiration from. Not Darkfall or PotBS. And FYI, bandits and murderers weren't treated fairly in UO either and that augmented the fun factor.
Allow me to ask you a question I asked Decius.
Do you know what the color purple tastes like?
I asked that question of him when he was talking giberish, or gobly if you will. You pretty well did the same thing with that statement. You have absolutely no clue what my view is and I do not think you are capable of understanding it.
Darkfall, PotBS, and UO are all crap games.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Nevy,
I can't quote you directly because you have left too much of other quotes in your post and there is just no room to do it. iPads can't cut and paste off the screen. If you are responding to Xeen's post, you should clip out Alexander's.
On the point you make about players wanting or not wanting a challenge. Now in the faction based system, merchants and their guards will have to provide the challenge to the bandit. The bandit in turn will present the merchant with his challenge.
PFO has PvP at its core, the Devs have said this over and over. PvP will come in at different levels: individual, group, company, settlement, kingdom, alliance and faction. I put faction on top, not because it is the most important but because it may have fewer (political or association) boundaries.
As for UO, no I never played it. My sandbox Open World PvP MMO experience is with SWG, EvE, Pirates of the Burning Sea, Fallen Earth, and Darkfall UW. I've also played a few dozen Theme Park MMOs, as well as a few FPS MMO hybrids.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Players that want a challenge really seem to be a minority these days. I'd hope you'd welcome adversity upon choosing to play a "player-killer." Instead you view it as "PO is unjust because they treat murderers unfairly compared to merchants." Well bravo, it seems you've convinced the developers that the victimizers should be treated exactly like the victims; hello to you faction system. Bravo.
Did either of you (Xeen and Bluddwolf) play Ultima Online? That's what you should be comparing PFO to in my opinion and hoping Goblinworks draws inspiration from. Not Darkfall or PotBS. And FYI, bandits and murderers weren't treated fairly in UO either and that augmented the fun factor.
Allow me to ask you a question I asked Decius.
Do you know what the color purple tastes like?
I asked that question of him when he was talking giberish, or gobly if you will. You pretty well did the same thing with that statement. You have absolutely no clue what my view is and I do not think you are capable of understanding it.
Darkfall, PotBS, and UO are all crap games.
Oh, come on now, my post might have been a bit opinionated and snarky but it wasn't that bad. I'll work on my future replies though in order to come across less sarcastic... And stop posting so soon after waking up. I'm a grump! I'm man enough to apologize, sorry about that!
|
If the faction skills are only trainable in player settlements, this could encourage more people who would not ordinarily seek out a settlement to do so and maybe create their own, creating more of a diversity of settlement types. The problem, then, is if the settlements across the map end up only having the popular factions, limiting players' choices.
One way to make different factions more accepted is to have the allied/enemy factions of the settlement's hex be determined by the settlement. Another may be to only have people who have high-level faction skills slotted be freely attacked by opposing factions, allowing those in the faction with lower skills to be used to interact with other factions on behalf of the higher-ranked members.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Bluddwolf
No, bandits are stewards of a healthy economy and will "victimize" other players far less than merchants in the player economy.
You have written this (in various ways) since well before I first posted here. I have to believe that it is a deeply seated feeling or philosophy (if you will). If you should ever be so inclined, I would love to read more detail about why you think that someone that buys or sells things is more of a victimizer than someone that just takes things from everyone they see, when they think they can.
Sorry it took me so long to get back to this, it slipped my mind, but I wanted to answer it.
It is not so much the merchant that sells items on the market, items that he or she has made or items that they purchased low and transport to another market where they can be sold high.
It is the harvester that finds a rare resource and strip mines it into a longer respawn, or one that finds a repeatable section of dungeon then proceeds to farm it. The second example was shown by a video that Andius had posted months ago.
In that video you could see the most economically detrimental behavior ( the front end of gold farming) to the player economy. There you see a player farming hundreds of good pieces worth of pork chops in less than 10 minutes.
That is the kind of character I would love to gank, instantly killing him in a one shot, and take his 10 minutes worth of fortune in less than 3 seconds! But games like WOW don't allow for non consensual PvP in that way, and so this guy gets to gain vast wealth from little effort and in complete safety.
You show me gold farming bots on the PFO server and they would be my target of choice, everyday and all day. You show me farmers of rare resources or strip miners, and they will be my next favorite targets. These are not "honest" merchants, they are as greedy if not greedier than I or my horde of robbers, thieves and killers. Yet we are the "bad guys" to some and they are "innocently minding their own business".
Those of us in UNC have at least been honest about our intentions. We will be criminals and most likely disliked for what we do. But, depending on whom we are directing our attention to, someone else will be benefiting from our actions.
If we are attacking and killing a merchant that is not associated with you, your company, or your settlement, we are benefiting you. Your cargo will have more value. We will be killing someone else, and not you. That other merchant might even be your settlement's rival.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You are almost like Robin Hood!
Other than "robbing from the rich to give to the poor", I am identical to Robin Hood. ;-)
But seriously, if I do chose to offer a SAD, I do believe it is out of mercy and generosity that I am doing so. It will only be when I'm reasonably sure my group can steam roll you, that we will offer it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I need a little reminder; when you get killed by a player, then 25% of the unthreaded items gets destroyed immediately on death, and the rest of the unthreaded items(75%) could all be looted by your killer (encumbrance allowing)?
25% destroyed (unthreaded / inventory)
75% is loot enabled / anything left behind on corpse could be looted by another but if it is not by the end of a timer, it too is destroyed.
Threaded items lose durability (take damage)
I can see circumstances where the cost to repair threaded items might actually exceed the value of all of the looted and or destroyed inventory. That is why I see the potential of very high SAD demands being accepted, in order to avoid a more expensive repair bill.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Bluddwolf
No, bandits are stewards of a healthy economy and will "victimize" other players far less than merchants in the player economy.
You have written this (in various ways) since well before I first posted here. I have to believe that it is a deeply seated feeling or philosophy (if you will). If you should ever be so inclined, I would love to read more detail about why you think that someone that buys or sells things is more of a victimizer than someone that just takes things from everyone they see, when they think they can.
Sorry it took me so long to get back to this, it slipped my mind, but I wanted to answer it.
It is not so much the merchant that sells items on the market, items that he or she has made or items that they purchased low and transport to another market where they can be sold high.
It is the harvester that finds a rare resource and strip mines it into a longer respawn, or one that finds a repeatable section of dungeon then proceeds to farm it. The second example was shown by a video that Andius had posted months ago.
In that video you could see the most economically detrimental behavior ( the front end of gold farming) to the player economy. There you see a player farming hundreds of good pieces worth of pork chops in less than 10 minutes.
That is the kind of character I would love to gank, instantly killing him in a one shot, and take his 10 minutes worth of fortune in less than 3 seconds! But games like WOW don't allow for non consensual PvP in that way, and so this guy gets to gain vast wealth from little effort and in complete safety.
You show me gold farming bots on the PFO server and they would be my target of choice, everyday and all day. You show me farmers of rare resources or strip miners, and they will be my next favorite targets. These are not "honest" merchants, they are as greedy if not greedier than I or my horde of robbers, thieves and killers. Yet we are the "bad guys" to some and they are...
Great answer Bluddwolf. Your first statement was a little vague. I didn't get that meaning from the context. Thank you for clearing that up! ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Bluddwolf
No, bandits are stewards of a healthy economy and will "victimize" other players far less than merchants in the player economy.
You have written this (in various ways) since well before I first posted here. I have to believe that it is a deeply seated feeling or philosophy (if you will). If you should ever be so inclined, I would love to read more detail about why you think that someone that buys or sells things is more of a victimizer than someone that just takes things from everyone they see, when they think they can.
[...]
In that video you could see the most economically detrimental behavior ( the front end of gold farming) to the player economy. There you see a player farming hundreds of good pieces worth of pork chops in less than 10 minutes.
That is the kind of character I would love to gank, instantly killing him in a one shot, and take his 10 minutes worth of fortune in less than 3 seconds! But games like WOW don't allow for non consensual PvP in that way, and so this guy gets to gain vast wealth from little effort and in complete safety.
[...]
Yeah, sorry...I still don't get it. I mean, I understand the player conflict is necessary for the game, incentives have to be there, GW has already embraced supporting what appears to me to be parasitic roles. I am glad they will be supported for their possible effect on the "Game of Settlements", but this justification I keeps seeing about how they will be good for the economy and such...I don't buy it.
Even in your example quoted above, I see little difference between the guy up top we are suppose to hate, and your intent. In fact, the reason you give as to why I am suppose to hate the top guy, that he found a way to harvest lots of materials in less than 10 minutes, pales in comparison to the result of what you want to be able to do...essentially harvest 75% of what he did, in seconds. In your model no gold farmer would bother with harvesting...they would just take up banditry.
Returning to a debate about how it is good for the economy, if we sink every 5th or 10th cargo ship traveling between China and the US, who does that benefit? Does making product more expensive benefit customers? Does selling less product benefit the manufacturer? You keep talking about how merchants will be able to sell their stuff for a higher price due to banditry making all items more rare...if you weren't taking their stuff, they would not have to. They are not able, they are forced to to make up for their losses. If they cannot find a buyer at the higher price, they loose.
So, again, I am not arguing against bandits being in game, I am glad they will be there. I am glad mechanics are being developed to support them. What I do not agree with is this silly idea that their existence financially benefits merchants and customers overall.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Forencith,
I am in agreement that the whole macro economic case has not been made, other than the 25% that is destroyed and the durability loss of the threaded gear needing to be repaired.
However there are other economic impacts as well. I'm just not certain if they are micro or macro?
Any time combat is involved, key words are used and from what I gather those act as "charges". This obviously creates a market for such consumable times.
I have already spoken to the economic impact of gear repair.
Then there are the other opportunities for employment that come out if the conflict: Guards, Crafters, Bounty Hunters, Assassins, Marshals (?), etc.....
I believe it is not until you start considering all of these moving parts, will you actually see the total picture of the merchant / bandit economy.
However I am no economist, but I do believe that there needs to be a certain amount of consumption on the bandit' send as well. Building Blinds is now an obvious one. Hideout construction and maintenance is another. I really, really hope that a fence is needed to sell stolen finished products to. I think that would add both flavor and realism to the whole underworld economy that I hope will eventually develop.
Contraband
Stolen Goods
Smuggling / Blockade Running
Black Markets
I would also love to see the ability to steal slaves and then liberate them. Even though robbing them may trigger a Criminal Flag, there liberation (destruction mechanically) should grant some form of reward (probably alignment shift).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... but this justification I keeps seeing about how they will be good for the economy and such...I don't buy it.
Neither did Bastiat.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@ Bluddwolf
No, bandits are stewards of a healthy economy and will "victimize" other players far less than merchants in the player economy.
You have written this (in various ways) since well before I first posted here. I have to believe that it is a deeply seated feeling or philosophy (if you will). If you should ever be so inclined, I would love to read more detail about why you think that someone that buys or sells things is more of a victimizer than someone that just takes things from everyone they see, when they think they can.
Sorry it took me so long to get back to this, it slipped my mind, but I wanted to answer it.
It is not so much the merchant that sells items on the market, items that he or she has made or items that they purchased low and transport to another market where they can be sold high.
It is the harvester that finds a rare resource and strip mines it into a longer respawn, or one that finds a repeatable section of dungeon then proceeds to farm it. The second example was shown by a video that Andius had posted months ago.
In that video you could see the most economically detrimental behavior ( the front end of gold farming) to the player economy. There you see a player farming hundreds of good pieces worth of pork chops in less than 10 minutes.
That is the kind of character I would love to gank, instantly killing him in a one shot, and take his 10 minutes worth of fortune in less than 3 seconds! But games like WOW don't allow for non consensual PvP in that way, and so this guy gets to gain vast wealth from little effort and in complete safety.
The problems with the WoW economy is that the products of almost all crafting are worthless vendor trash and skill increases, and that high level characters can earn gold so much more quickly than lower level characters that it makes economic sense for them to outsource the time-consuming part of gaining crafting skill.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
There's a huge difference between 'good for the economy' that means 'The characters have a higher average quality of living' and the version that means 'makes the game on average more fun'.
To me, 'more fun' implies that the player must almost always consider their costs when determining what they want to do, even if that consideration is often 'I can afford to lose what I'm carrying.' I don't think condition is sufficient, but a full treatise is beyond my current time constraints.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
@ DeciousBrutus
There is a huge difference because they are unrelated in the context of the discussion.
I'm wondering in your second paragraph if you meant to write "I can't afford to lose what I'm carrying. I don't think this condition is sufficient...."
No, I meant that of one had to make the decision/calculation that they could afford to lose what they were carrying fairly often would be more fun than one in which that calculation never had to be made- even if the typical player never got to the point where they couldn't afford to lose what they intended to carry.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No, I meant that of one had to make the decision/calculation that they could afford to lose what they were carrying fairly often would be more fun than one in which that calculation never had to be made- even if the typical player never got to the point where they couldn't afford to lose what they intended to carry.
I think the real fun comes into play when you are just about carrying what you can't afford to lose, and your unsure if you will get it to where you intend to. Then there is the true sense of accomplishment when you actually achieve your goal, especially if you had to fight, or evade your way to it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You are never safe
Don't carry what you can't afford to lose
It's nothing personal, it's all about the coin
It sounds like if you never really undertake risky things - if you are never willing to carry more than you can afford to lose - just about, but never quite more than you can afford - you'll never reach that true sense of accomplishment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It sounds like if you never really undertake risky things - if you are never willing to carry more than you can afford to lose - just about, but never quite more than you can afford - you'll never reach that true sense of accomplishment.You are never safe
Don't carry what you can't afford to lose
It's nothing personal, it's all about the coin
Perhaps a "true" sense would have been more accurate if said, a "greater" sense of accoknplishment. But it is not just in carrying nearly what you can't afford to lose, but there actually being risk overted or evaded.
I would expect that most players will carry as much of threaded gear as they can, but probably not their best gear unless they feel fairly safe. However they will also want to be as effective in combat as they can as well. Since risk taking is something that is encouraged in most MMOs I think most will carry just about what they can afford to lose, give or take a few coins.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Put a different way: don't self-insure for a larger amount than you can cover.
Or at least don't do it on a consistent basis. The thing about MMOs is, you can also dig yourself out of a hole and fairly quickly. You can hit zero coin to your name and bounce back with a bit of grinding. Harvesting small quantities is for free. You can also take from others what you can not or will not provide for yourself. Finally, you could also hire yourself out to compete some task for another.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well bravo, it seems you've convinced the developers that the victimizers should be treated exactly like the victims; hello to you faction system. Bravo.
If our efforts truly led to this then it is an affirmation of the crowd forging process, and that is good for all, including GW.
However, Faction Warfare was a part of their plans for some time. All that we may have accomplished is rolling some roles into the faction structure, which makes sense in my opinion.
You must remember that at PFO's core is PvP. It makes little sense to have many limitations on participating in the core of the game. We are all active participants in the PvP aspect of the game, within our roles, and are responsibile for preventing our own victimhood.
This move towards factionalizing the bandit vs merchant is a move towards reenforcing the need for player grouping, and that is a major goal for GW.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well bravo, it seems you've convinced the developers that the victimizers should be treated exactly like the victims; hello to you faction system. Bravo.If our efforts truly led to this then it is an affirmation of the crowd forging process, and that is good for all, including GW.
However, Faction Warfare was a part of their plans for some time. All that we may have accomplished is rolling some roles into the faction structure, which makes sense in my opinion.
You must remember that at PFO's core is PvP. It makes little sense to have many limitations on participating in the core of the game. We are all active participants in the PvP aspect of the game, within our roles, and are responsibile for preventing our own victimhood.
This move towards factionalizing the bandit vs merchant is a move towards reenforcing the need for player grouping, and that is a major goal for GW.
Hey now, I've already apologized for that little bit of "snarkasm" Bluddy 'ol pal! I'll let the developers figure out what will work best for the game and try up keep my opinions my own. Although amazing opinions they shall remain... :-)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hey now, I've already apologized for that little bit of "snarkasm" Bluddy 'ol pal! I'll let the developers figure out what will work best for the game and try up keep my opinions my own. Although amazing opinions they shall remain... :-)Well bravo, it seems you've convinced the developers that the victimizers should be treated exactly like the victims; hello to you faction system. Bravo.If our efforts truly led to this then it is an affirmation of the crowd forging process, and that is good for all, including GW.
However, Faction Warfare was a part of their plans for some time. All that we may have accomplished is rolling some roles into the faction structure, which makes sense in my opinion.
You must remember that at PFO's core is PvP. It makes little sense to have many limitations on participating in the core of the game. We are all active participants in the PvP aspect of the game, within our roles, and are responsibile for preventing our own victimhood.
This move towards factionalizing the bandit vs merchant is a move towards reenforcing the need for player grouping, and that is a major goal for GW.
I was not in anyway criticizing your for expressing your opinions or for presenting your ideas. Nor am I so thin skinned that I seek or even expect apologies for snarkiness or even more abrasive language.
Please do express your opinions, that is what this forum is for.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You must remember that at PFO's core is PvP. It makes little sense to have many limitations on participating in the core of the game. We are all active participants in the PvP aspect of the game, within our roles, and are responsibile for preventing our own victimhood.
Okay, I still absolutely disagree with this outlook. Pathfinder's PvP core is not at all devastated by Goblinworks instituting rules to protect, but not fully prevent, attacks on innocent players. It still allows the PvP to happen whilst also preventing Golarion from becoming grief-nation.
You seem so focused on bandits and murderers and what they should be able to do in game yet you might be forgetting, in doing so, many other areas will be affected by that decision. We should be able to come to a happy medium here Bluddwolf, and I'm sorry to say that bandits being able to kill and free-loot merchants without reputation loss is not exactly Belgium.
Now, we still don't know how factions will work, but I'm confident that the developers will implement game designs that will be fair and just to the innocent and a bit more harsh on the bandits/murderers. Time will tell.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Now, we still don't know how factions will work, but I'm confident that the developers will implement game designs that will be fair and just to the innocent and a bit more harsh on the bandits/murderers. Time will tell.
One scenario of the eventual design might be that merchants (drover/guards) and bandits are both implemented as factions that have special skills to train, but those two factions aren't enemies. So if you want S&D capabilities, you have to join the bandit faction. If you want mule drover or advanced cart skills - or bandit detection capabilities as a guard - you have to join the merchant faction.
But the two factions might not (and should not) be at war. The bandits do not win if they eliminate every merchant. The merchants goal is trade, not war, and should not be focused on eliminating every bandit. Would the merchant resent the bandit predations? Sure. Would the bandits resent the merchants putting guards on their caravans? Sure. But outright warfare between them seems out of place for both sides.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My greatest hope is that PFO does PvP so well that all the folks I know who "don't play PvP games" end up really enjoying PFO. I think one of the most difficult things to overcome is going to be the mindset of folks who think there's really nothing wrong with the PvP in most other PvP games. I want PFO to be to EVE what WoW was to EQ; that's not going to happen if PFO develops a reputation as "just another gankfest".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My greatest hope is that PFO does PvP so well that all the folks I know who "don't play PvP games" end up really enjoying PFO. I think one of the most difficult things to overcome is going to be the mindset of folks who think there's really nothing wrong with the PvP in most other PvP games. I want PFO to be to EVE what WoW was to EQ; that's not going to happen if PFO develops a reputation as "just another gankfest".
Exactly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If Wow was a PvP improvement over EQ (which I never played) then EQs PvP must have really sucked. Wows PvP was nothing more than meaningless arena care bear PvP, no player looting and the most you suffered was a repair bill.
I certainly hope PFO has a better PvP system than Eve, but that is a pretty tall order. The key will be to have as low an entry level or lower and I think that is certainly doable. The combat itself should be more dynamic, not just tab targeting + auto facing. The use of keywords and other enhancers should also add greater diversity and skill combinations that should really advance the system beyond other PvP based MMOs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If Wow was a PvP improvement over EQ (which I never played) then EQs PvP must have really sucked. Wows PvP was nothing more than meaningless arena care bear PvP, no player looting and the most you suffered was a repair bill.
I certainly hope PFO has a better PvP system than Eve, but that is a pretty tall order. The key will be to have as low an entry level or lower and I think that is certainly doable. The combat itself should be more dynamic, not just tab targeting + auto facing. The use of keywords and other enhancers should also add greater diversity and skill combinations that should really advance the system beyond other PvP based MMOs.
We are like polar opposites, it's interesting to be honest! In fact, I can't think of one core function we agree upon. We should get married.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The protection of the "innocent" is provided through the strong recommendation of human interaction.
Some of us have repeatedly written, the mechanics alone will never protect you fully. If you are under guarded and heavily burdened with wealth, and you are not a sanctioned target, you will be attacked, killed and looted. This is in spite of the reputation loss. All the reputation loss may prevent is attacking low value targets outside of sanctioned means.
Factionalizing this interaction is one way that you will have the opportunity to form temporary groups for mutual defense or other purposes. In other cases the membership of a persistent company or being sponsored by a settlement will also provide you those opportunities for protection as well.
* Note, two different devices used, so the order of the posts may be out of sequence with the discussion.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My greatest hope is that PFO does PvP so well that all the folks I know who "don't play PvP games" end up really enjoying PFO. I think one of the most difficult things to overcome is going to be the mindset of folks who think there's really nothing wrong with the PvP in most other PvP games. I want PFO to be to EVE what WoW was to EQ; that's not going to happen if PFO develops a reputation as "just another gankfest".
I read this as: EQ was a successful theme park game and WoW built upon its concepts to make a massively successful theme park game. Likewise, EVE is a very successful sandbox game (with PvP - which is an inherent requirement for successful, long term, sandbox games), and Nihimon hoped that likewise, PFO would build upon EVEs concepts to make an even more powerful game. (I think making a fantasy sandbox that was 10-20% as popular as EVE might be success.)
Then I read Bluddwolf's piece, suggesting that what PFO needs is even better PvP. I think he has it somewhat off. To encourage people who would otherwise avoid PvP to play PFO - and perhaps to subtly discourage those who might seek PVP for its own sake, PFO PVP might be pretty simple, vanilla and accessible. I imagine there is some optimum point, between pure vanilla and pure adrenalin, to maximize the game population.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
. We are like polar opposites, it's interesting to be honest! In fact, I can't think of one core function we agree upon. We should get married.
I think you will find that we are not as polar opposite as you believe. You have not run into a group or individual who is bent on your destruction, your company's destruction and your settlement's destruction.
My predation is focused on just taking some of your wealth, by force if need be. Others want to dominate you and they will try to destroy anything or anyone that gets in their way. These are the min-maxer Dominance players.
Then you will have the full fledged Griefers. They are just out to ruin your day, but they tend to be few in number and hopefully GW will be able to keep them largely in check.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If Wow was a PvP improvement over EQ (which I never played) then EQs PvP must have really sucked. Wows PvP was nothing more than meaningless arena care bear PvP, no player looting and the most you suffered was a repair bill.
I certainly hope PFO has a better PvP system than Eve, but that is a pretty tall order. The key will be to have as low an entry level or lower and I think that is certainly doable. The combat itself should be more dynamic, not just tab targeting + auto facing. The use of keywords and other enhancers should also add greater diversity and skill combinations that should really advance the system beyond other PvP based MMOs.
I think you missed my point.
WoW was an improvement over EQ not because it had better PvP, but because it did all the little things that surround a Theme Park core much better.
PFO needs to improve on EVE not by making the PvP better, but by doing all the little things that surround a PvP core much better. Most importantly, by giving players a reason not to kill everyone they see.
WoW attracted a lot of folks who didn't want to play EQ for a variety of reasons. I want PFO to attract a lot of folks who don't want to play EVE (or many other "PvP games") for a variety of reasons.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If Wow was a PvP improvement over EQ (which I never played) then EQs PvP must have really sucked. Wows PvP was nothing more than meaningless arena care bear PvP, no player looting and the most you suffered was a repair bill.
I certainly hope PFO has a better PvP system than Eve, but that is a pretty tall order. The key will be to have as low an entry level or lower and I think that is certainly doable. The combat itself should be more dynamic, not just tab targeting + auto facing. The use of keywords and other enhancers should also add greater diversity and skill combinations that should really advance the system beyond other PvP based MMOs.
I think you missed my point.
WoW was an improvement over EQ not because it had better PvP, but because it did all the little things that surround a Theme Park core much better.
I thought his response was very telling though. PvP might be the reason for every mechanic in a game; PvP is always the core of player interaction.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
When the more organized and aggressive organizations come to PFO, they will be focused on just one thing... Dominance. They will find settlements with misconceptions about the nature of PvP, ripe for the picking, because some people lack a basic understanding of what type of game play Settlement vs Settlement PvP will bring.
They will have every reason to kill anyone not in their own player grouping, and it won't matter what those victims were doing at the time. Every merchant, gatherer, explorer, bandit, warrior, will be seen as a potential recruit or if unwilling to join, a taker of the growing power's opportunity and someone to be killed.
These players aren't looking to play Sim City. They want to win the board, as unlikely as it will be, there motivation will remain that. If there are 15 settlements they will want to defeat and take over the other 14. If there are 200, they will have their sights on 200! They will never stop trying.
Edit, I was more abrasive then I should have been.