Stand and Deliver Discussion


Pathfinder Online

1,351 to 1,400 of 1,727 << first < prev | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Andius wrote:

Full time banditry will never be viable for players looking to compete on a serious level but part time banditry is something everyone can benefit from. So why wouldn't they all do it?

Factions do answer that.

That's a very compelling reason, and I appreciate you bringing my mind back 'round to it.

Although, I'm also having trouble envisioning incentives strong enough to make a Bandit permanently flag themselves to all (or even a subset of) Bandit Hunters (Merchant Guards).

Acting as a privateer for a settlement or company, or even hiring yourselves out to raid PoIs or harry the enemy might be a good reason to be a full time bandit.

Goblin Squad Member

Jiminy wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Andius wrote:

Full time banditry will never be viable for players looking to compete on a serious level but part time banditry is something everyone can benefit from. So why wouldn't they all do it?

Factions do answer that.

That's a very compelling reason, and I appreciate you bringing my mind back 'round to it.

Although, I'm also having trouble envisioning incentives strong enough to make a Bandit permanently flag themselves to all (or even a subset of) Bandit Hunters (Merchant Guards).

Acting as a privateer for a settlement or company, or even hiring yourselves out to raid PoIs or harry the enemy might be a good reason to be a full time bandit.

Those are good reasons.

I will add this. The inventive strong enough to make a Bandit permanently flag themselves to all Bandit Hunters is simple. The Bandit Hunters are permanently fagged to the Bandits as well.

Goblin Squad Member

Jiminy wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Merchants and bandits should have the same risk.
Nah. Bandits should have greater risk for greater reward. Part of their reward is not having to "waste" time doing the actual harvesting and protecting their harvest operations.
Assuming of course, that merchants act in several roles as gatherers, crafters and trader of the items and assuming all bandits do is steal from merchants.

You got it. Those are false assumptions of course. The majority of people in game will be required to gather and craft. Maybe several (5) years down the road the game will have enough crafters and equipment on the market for people to not do it at all.

Goblin Squad Member

Jiminy wrote:
Nevy wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Nevy wrote:
My issue is not with merchants being able to deposit their goods on a regular basis. What I have a problem with is taking risk vs. reward out of the bandit equation by the game recognizing bandits and merchants as enemies. Bandits should be flagged as a criminal when attacking or robbing a merchant, or anyone, for that matter.

By factionalizing the roles GW creates both risk and reward for both bandit and merchant.

Merchants who opt into the faction system, will have access to higher faction based skills that will presumably lead to great efficiency or profit.

Bandits who opt into the faction system, will have access to a greater pool of potential targets, without risk of reputation loss.

Merchants who opt in will have greater access to PC guards that are also members of the faction. These guards would likely be a lot cheaper because the guards will gain faction benefits for defending faction members. Otherwise the merchant would have to hire mercenaries, who are only loyal to the coin and their own self interest.

There will always be more merchants than bandits, and so your shear numbers is also your greatest protection.

Why would merchants need more risk? And why do you think bandits will always have a population disadvantage? Heck, if I can kill merchants who spent hours of their time working for their goods, in less than half the time, I'll become a bandit also! And guess what? So will my mom, and yours too!

It is imperative, I repeat, imperative that bandits have a harder time victimizing merchants than merchants have being victimized by bandits. Goblinworks shares this same sentiment I believe...

You keep saying bandits are the 'victimizers' and that merchants are the 'victims'. When a group of merchants corners a lucrative section of the market and they price gouge and restrict the trade of others (maybe even via bandits) with their massive profits, are they then 'victimizers'? What is their risk in those cases, and what is the reward of those trying to enter that market? Should merchants lose reputation when competing in this aspect of the game?

You're limiting your view of PvP to combat only. The economic and social aspects of the game will be just as important and need to be balanced just as much as combat does.

I am glad to see someone else putting thought into it. We have been trying to point this out for over a year. Crafters, Gatherers, Merchants, and etc will do exactly as you say. It has been the mainstream for all the sandbox games.

Most opposition will say that "Crafters and Merchants are not out killing other players." Yes, that is true. What exactly is it that you lose in PVP? Equipment and gold? Thats about it. Is that not the same thing as robbing people on the market?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Jiminy wrote:
Nevy wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Nevy wrote:
My issue is not with merchants being able to deposit their goods on a regular basis. What I have a problem with is taking risk vs. reward out of the bandit equation by the game recognizing bandits and merchants as enemies. Bandits should be flagged as a criminal when attacking or robbing a merchant, or anyone, for that matter.

By factionalizing the roles GW creates both risk and reward for both bandit and merchant.

Merchants who opt into the faction system, will have access to higher faction based skills that will presumably lead to great efficiency or profit.

Bandits who opt into the faction system, will have access to a greater pool of potential targets, without risk of reputation loss.

Merchants who opt in will have greater access to PC guards that are also members of the faction. These guards would likely be a lot cheaper because the guards will gain faction benefits for defending faction members. Otherwise the merchant would have to hire mercenaries, who are only loyal to the coin and their own self interest.

There will always be more merchants than bandits, and so your shear numbers is also your greatest protection.

Why would merchants need more risk? And why do you think bandits will always have a population disadvantage? Heck, if I can kill merchants who spent hours of their time working for their goods, in less than half the time, I'll become a bandit also! And guess what? So will my mom, and yours too!

It is imperative, I repeat, imperative that bandits have a harder time victimizing merchants than merchants have being victimized by bandits. Goblinworks shares this same sentiment I believe...

You keep saying bandits are the 'victimizers' and that merchants are the 'victims'. When a group of merchants corners a lucrative section of the market and they price gouge and restrict the trade of others (maybe even via bandits) with their massive profits, are they then 'victimizers'? What is...

By what actions are the merchants cornering the market, price gouging, and driving their competitors out of business? I see only two ways- one is buying all of the supply of a given input, which requires that they pay more per unit than anyone else can. The other is to target competitors with frank banditry.

Goblin Squad Member

Decius, go check out Eve. Do some research and you will find plenty of answers to your question.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Suicide ganking is equivalent to banditr in economic terms. Controlling a large enough fraction of the supply to control overall pricing requires either paying more to control it or having some comparative advantage in doing so (such as already being established there).

Goblin Squad Member

As far as I understand it, Decius, that's not the part of EvE Online that Xeen was talking about. Suicide ganking is a separate issue. What Xeen is talking about is the ability for entire corps in EvE to corner the market in specific geographic (cosmographic?) sectors by buying every single unit of a specific good on the market and reselling them for up to five times what they are worth. It is possible to maintain this price gouging if the corp has enough members in different time zones to keep an eye on the market 24/7.

Even in games with more controlled pricing, exploitation is more than possible. The MMO Runescape had this problem for years after their global market, the Grand Exchange (abbreviated to the GE), came out. A quick summary: On the GE, the price of an item was determined by the daily average price of that item. (Maybe it was the weekly value, I can't remember.)Players could not post a price for that item more or less than 5% of the GE price. Over time, if enough players put higher or lower prices for an item, the daily value would change, as would the GE base value.

This had huge exploitation possibilities, arguably even more than the free-for-all PvP area this system replaced (that's a long story), albeit far more subtle. Entire player clans formed for the sole purpose of buying and selling a given item for 5% above daily for several weeks, driving the price up to double or triple what the item itself was worth, then cashing in on the inflated value, repeating with some other item. (These clans were known as "merching" clans or "merchers".) What made the system so effective was that success bred success; the extra money made from the price gouging could be used to make the next price gouging more effective, since you could buy and sell more of a given item at once. Granted, this tactic didn't work very well with extremely high-traffic items or staples used by many players, but that didn't stop some merching clans from trying. Even with a global market, where players didn't have to worry about transporting goods from one market to another, and a quasi-socialist pricing scheme, players STILL found ways to artificially game the market!

Long story short: Yes, merchants absolutely can do some dirty deeds.
Mind you, in both EvE and Runescape, price gouging didn't require the goods to really be transported anywhere to work, meaning that banditry and SAD wouldn't effectively counter them. But that's a discussion for another thread.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Buying high and selling higher isn't price gouging at all. It's taking arbitrage on sellers who want a quick sale below market value and/or buyers who want a quick buy above market value.

A smart producer in an environment where his wares are being resold at a 5x multiplier to what he believes is fair should up his price to 4.5x fair (undercutting the attempted gouging by 10%). Either the gouged is now buying high and selling only a little higher, cutting their profits to the bone (especially since they STILL need to buy the entire supply in order to sell anything), or they need to cut their prices to compete with the gatherers, or they need to start cutting the supply side of the competition (for example, by suicide ganking ice miners).

Goblin Squad Member

Buying high and selling higher is price gouging. In fact you went on to call it that in the rest of your post.

So you understand that Merchants/traders/crafters can and will earn massive rewards with little or no risk right? You pointed to exactly that in your post. 10% is not cutting profits to the bone in fact its the exact opposite when you own the rest of that market.

Suicide ganking does not play into this one bit.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Heck, I did that on WoW. There were a few selling stranglekelp for under market value, so I bought it all out and sold it for twice the price. One of the guys I was buying from ended up doing direct COD mail to me. Economics at work!

Goblin Squad Member

Moves like that on the market (buying everything and reselling exorbitant) only usually work for a short time. If you can't control how much new product can be harvested behind your effort, who sells it and where, and you run out of funds to buy up everything then you are taking a big risk.

I know that it happens in EVE. I have seen it and done it in other games (big difference in marketing there). I am curious to see how it will be possible in a game like PfO. My inclination is that it will be of limited use. It's primary function being to chase other "buyer merchants" from your local markets, which is also a limited value operation.

When it comes down to me being able to just dig more rocks and price them under your monopoly model price, I don't really care because I am still getting above average for my stuff. That is whether you buy me out or a user/consumer grabs my lower priced product.

Goblin Squad Member

OMG!!! I cannot believe you guys would rip people off like that.

GRIEFERS!!!

You bring other peoples game play down and their fun down by taking from them.

Now I know exactly what you are, and how you will be in game. You are a menace and need to be kicked from the game right now.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Yup, by paying the price someone wants for their goods then reselling it to others willing to pay more you're totally ruining someone's experience. Totally identical to murdering someone and taking their stuff.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:

Moves like that on the market (buying everything and reselling exorbitant) only usually work for a short time. If you can't control how much new product can be harvested behind your effort, who sells it and where, and you run out of funds to buy up everything then you are taking a big risk.

I know that it happens in EVE. I have seen it and done it in other games (big difference in marketing there). I am curious to see how it will be possible in a game like PfO. My inclination is that it will be of limited use. It's primary function being to chase other "buyer merchants" from your local markets, which is also a limited value operation.

When it comes down to me being able to just dig more rocks and price them under your monopoly model price, I don't really care because I am still getting above average for my stuff. That is whether you buy me out or a user/consumer grabs my lower priced product.

It has been told to us that the market system will be similar to Eve's. Which is good, because it has great functionality.

I ran the PVP wing of an alliance that was ran by a market guy. He had trillions in his wallet just by playing the market. No joke, He transfered it all into a corp wallet that I could only look at. 4 trillion and change. His main character never left Jita 4-4 station. He had an alt he would bring on ops, but only a few knew who it was.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
Yup, by paying the price someone wants for their goods then reselling it to others willing to pay more you're totally ruining someone's experience. Totally identical to murdering someone and taking their stuff.

I am glad you agree

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Bringslite wrote:

Moves like that on the market (buying everything and reselling exorbitant) only usually work for a short time. If you can't control how much new product can be harvested behind your effort, who sells it and where, and you run out of funds to buy up everything then you are taking a big risk.

I know that it happens in EVE. I have seen it and done it in other games (big difference in marketing there). I am curious to see how it will be possible in a game like PfO. My inclination is that it will be of limited use. It's primary function being to chase other "buyer merchants" from your local markets, which is also a limited value operation.

When it comes down to me being able to just dig more rocks and price them under your monopoly model price, I don't really care because I am still getting above average for my stuff. That is whether you buy me out or a user/consumer grabs my lower priced product.

It has been told to us that the market system will be similar to Eve's. Which is good, because it has great functionality.

I ran the PVP wing of an alliance that was ran by a market guy. He had trillions in his wallet just by playing the market. No joke, He transfered it all into a corp wallet that I could only look at. 4 trillion and change. His main character never left Jita 4-4 station. He had an alt he would bring on ops, but only a few knew who it was.

So please explain how he is ruining the game experience for other players.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
He had trillions in his wallet just by playing the market.

Sounds like my brother's experience. I just wanted to fly, appreciate the pretty art, and plan out my character's development, while he jumped right into the market-game.

In about 60 days, he'd said he'd "figured out the system", and began making money so fast that boredom set in pretty quickly; he couldn't find anything he was interested in spending his money on, so it just kept multiplying itself.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Bringslite wrote:

Moves like that on the market (buying everything and reselling exorbitant) only usually work for a short time. If you can't control how much new product can be harvested behind your effort, who sells it and where, and you run out of funds to buy up everything then you are taking a big risk.

I know that it happens in EVE. I have seen it and done it in other games (big difference in marketing there). I am curious to see how it will be possible in a game like PfO. My inclination is that it will be of limited use. It's primary function being to chase other "buyer merchants" from your local markets, which is also a limited value operation.

When it comes down to me being able to just dig more rocks and price them under your monopoly model price, I don't really care because I am still getting above average for my stuff. That is whether you buy me out or a user/consumer grabs my lower priced product.

It has been told to us that the market system will be similar to Eve's. Which is good, because it has great functionality.

I ran the PVP wing of an alliance that was ran by a market guy. He had trillions in his wallet just by playing the market. No joke, He transfered it all into a corp wallet that I could only look at. 4 trillion and change. His main character never left Jita 4-4 station. He had an alt he would bring on ops, but only a few knew who it was.

So please explain how he is ruining the game experience for other players.

Because those other players had to grind more nonsense to buy the things they wanted to use. You play the market game and jack the prices, it causes more work for everyone else.

Please explain to me how that is not ruining the game experience for other players?

Goblin Squad Member

Jazzlvraz wrote:
Xeen wrote:
He had trillions in his wallet just by playing the market.

Sounds like my brother's experience. I just wanted to fly, appreciate the pretty art, and plan out my character's development, while he jumped right into the market-game.

In about 60 days, he'd said he'd "figured out the system", and began making money so fast that boredom set in pretty quickly; he couldn't find anything he was interested in spending his money on, so it just kept multiplying itself.

Yeah, I talked to several guys that did just that. They enjoyed the market so thats what they did. Eventually they fund others to do all the other work. LOL

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Because those other players can just harvest the resources themselves if it gets more cost efficient. I'm failing to see how people are being forced to interact with this guy.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
Because those other players can just harvest the resources themselves if it gets more cost efficient. I'm failing to see how people are being forced to interact with this guy.

You wont be forced to interact with bandits either.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

So if bandits come up to me and SAD me, I can just ignore them and carry on without risk? Sweet.

Goblin Squad Member

Who is forcing you to leave town in the first place?

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Ah, so you're saying that this guy on the market is causing a direct, noticeable, negative impact in the mind of an individual player when they look at the markets. And since the market is where the majority of the game takes place, their experience is being ruined.

Goblin Squad Member

No, I am saying that the game play of a PVPer ruins someones game as much as a marketeer does. Which is none.

If you dont want to play the market game, then gather and craft your stuff.

If you dont want to play the PVP game, then stay away from any pvp areas.

And if you say a marketeer does not ruin peoples games but a pvper does, you are a hypocrite.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I guess I'm a hypocrite in your eyes, because I see a distinct difference between someone playing the markets and someone stabbing you in the face and taking your stuff. On EVE there's definitely a feeling of risk when I go out to lowsec space. Going on the market to buy stuff? Nope. Not in the slightest. Your argument appears to be there is no difference. I disagree.

Goblin Squad Member

You felt risk while going into low sec space? Good, you will not feel any while playing the markets... but you can sure make more ISK on the market.

Kinda throws risk vs reward right out the window doesnt it?

Also, I never said anything about risk. I said can ruin the game play.

If the market prices are jacked... then those who do not craft or gather will have to grind other things to buy their stuff. Grinding to me is ruining my game play. Which is all anyone is really doing when they gather or craft.

And if you gather to craft all your stuff, then that will be all you do. Which kinda ruins your game if you have any intention of doing something else.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

Man, if you don't like grinding, you shouldn't play MMOs. At least that's your argument.

Goblin Squad Member

And if you do not like PVP maybe you should go back to WOW. At least that's your argument.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

I didn't complain about PvP. You complained about Market PvP being griefing.

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
So please explain how he is ruining the game experience for other players.

I had a bad feeling as soon as I saw this... :)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sitting in town and "grinding" the town's market for profit is just as tedious as any other grinding and often less lucrative then harvesting. The only thing you risk is boredom forcing you to cut the margin too close and making nothing or losing. There is plenty of risk if you have to move your cheap purchased stuff to other markets. You almost certainly will.

Gathering is high risk and expensive in the situation that has been painted. Loss of goods, investment in protection and time.

Bandits have said that they will run with the minimal gear needed to get the job done. They are their own guards. They pick and choose their targets. Their only risk (that we know of) is a possible criminal flag and possibly losing their stolen goods if they fail to stash it quick enough. They have risk, but it comes with a very low investment. The skills they may need are no cheaper for their counterparts (as far as we know).

When you buy from the market whether the cost is high, medium, or low You have the choice. You can take your coin to other markets if you like. Where is the choice for the bandit's target?

Any time you have a role that is predatory, that chooses who and when to strike (outside of regular PVP), that role has a distinct advantage. Let's not pretend that well guarded caravans will be the "first choice" target. If it isn't POI or outposts, it will be harvesters and foolish small time merchants. I have no sympathy for foolish merchants. Harvesters will be pretty much out of luck and have few options. We will have to see if that is how banditry shapes up.

I am not saying that any role supported is a "griefer" role. I am all in favor of some risk. Don't expect players minding their business to like banditry. Expect it to be nerfed if it gets so lucrative that it kills the other roles from playability. Please don't paint bandits and merchants as both "bad guys", though. It just ain't so.

Edited for clarity

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I still don't think there will be much trouble after a few years in game. If it is too easy for the merchant/harvester/traveler, they will fix it. If it is too easy for the bandit, they will fix it. By then they will know how to tweak things real well.

If GW stays on top of providing fun for everyone, we have little to worry about.

Goblin Squad Member

Basically this debate is over, until well after EE has begun. We will have a few months to see how the factionalization of merchants vs bandits will play out.

If at that point GW still feels that they need to put the SAD in they will. The same goes for the other systems that go beyond the basic combat system.

To be perfectly frank, I don't believe GW has the staff or the funds to create very complex systems. They have said as much in the recent interviews, especially Ryan.

We are going to have good graphics, good game play and an overall good MMO.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Basically this debate is over...

"Shut up," he explained.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Xeen wrote:

Buying high and selling higher is price gouging. In fact you went on to call it that in the rest of your post.

So you understand that Merchants/traders/crafters can and will earn massive rewards with little or no risk right? You pointed to exactly that in your post. 10% is not cutting profits to the bone in fact its the exact opposite when you own the rest of that market.

Suicide ganking does not play into this one bit.

What 'rest of the market'? If your profit is based on your ability to buy literally all of the Iron within an easy transportation distance so that you can sell it for 1000/ton, then expect to buy all of the iron in that radius that people are willing to mine if they get 900/ton for it- and if you can sell that much at that price, then that's closer to the market price than whatever it was before.

What you seem to think is that there will be widespread cases where there is iron for sale at a small fraction of the fair market value. Why do you think that situation will be common enough to create a niche that will be highly populated?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Xeen wrote:

You felt risk while going into low sec space? Good, you will not feel any while playing the markets... but you can sure make more ISK on the market.

Kinda throws risk vs reward right out the window doesnt it?

Consider the case of someone who tries market manipulation and fails to keep prices high enough to unload his inventory; he paid over FMV for each unit of the commodity he tried to manipulate, and is able to sell little of it for more than he paid.

Now he has a large amount of a commodity that he can either sell quickly (below value) and take a greater loss, or try to sell at value (slowly) and eat the opportunity cost of the capital he has invested in it.

That's at least as much risk as "I might lose some equipment", which is the baseline risk for bandits.

And consider the low-risk merchant, who simply looks for people who want to make either a quick sale or purchase or a long-term high-volume deal and charges them a small premium off of the market value, but who has either outstanding contracts or inventory when a major event changes market conditions- he, too, has a larger exposure than someone who is concerned only with the instrumental value of gear on hand.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Basically this debate is over...

"Shut up," he explained.

Not at all, you all can keep on talking about it all you like. I believe it has already been a settled issue. Factionalized unless testing shows that to not be a good idea.

I believe the bottom line is this: it is more cost effective to creature these factions. It also allows GW to create this conflict earlier, SAD being a much more complex system.

BTW, "exclaimed" was the word you were probably looking to use. ;-)

Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
I didn't complain about PvP. You complained about Market PvP being griefing.

Actually I didnt. I could care less about market pvp. In fact, I could care less about anything anyone decides to do in the game... except scam and actual griefing... not the made up griefing you would define. All I was doing is pointing out the hypocritical yammering that goes on here.

When you say combat PVP is bad because it affects people and market pvp is fine because it does not affect people. That is either being naive or hypocritical.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
What 'rest of the market'?

I am not quite sure why I have to explain part of your own argument. Read some of your previous posts.

What does yellow taste like? I can tell you its not sunshine flavored.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:

I still don't think there will be much trouble after a few years in game. If it is too easy for the merchant/harvester/traveler, they will fix it. If it is too easy for the bandit, they will fix it. By then they will know how to tweak things real well.

If GW stays on top of providing fun for everyone, we have little to worry about.

You are right of course.

As per your previous post... Neither role is griefing. I just dont understand how anyone can make the argument that price gouging is not affecting other players. The choice that the bandits target has is recruiting guards. If a target makes himself "not a choice" then he will have made the right choice.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Basically this debate is over...
"Shut up," he explained.
BTW, "exclaimed" was the word you were probably looking to use. ;-)

No. "Explained" was the word I wanted. It's a bit of a shibboleth, really.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Xeen

I will agree that pretty much everything that we do will affect some other character in game. Price gouging will almost certainly affect someone's plans to buy something from that market at the regular average price they are used to. Bandit predation will have effects also on many things. Starting with the victim and including the goods the and what the bandit does with them. This will cause ripples that spread.

We will all affect each other.

There seems to just be this struggle. We all know that if bandits are going to be a supported and encouraged role, they have to be playable. They certainly won't be much fun if they are too much like "real world" bandits that really suck and suffer and live on the edge of starvation. They have to be like fictional bandits with a presence and a role and not always miserable. That is pretty plain, or no one will bother.

The disconnect seems to be partly in that anti bandits don't want bandits too strong and encouraged. While bandits (of course) would like every game advantage that they can get. I certainly can't blame you for that. We just aren't going to agree on what is fair and equal.

I also agree (partly) with Bluddwolf. This is a new game now with the factions thing. Any debate is pretty much speculation based until we know more. Yet that is the case with most every topic here.

Those that don't plan to play bandits have to wrap our heads around the fact that you will be there. We will have to play harder and plan better and profits will be much more difficult. That is the "merchant" point of view. Lone or small groups will be the real prey (harvesters and travelers and just explorers). My view is that I don't want them to suffer too much. Partly because I will play those roles occasionally, but mostly because I have a feeling that they will quit if they can't adapt and the game will lose.

That is what I have seen in most open PVP games. It always devolves into a medium or (usually) small population of wolves. This game won't have a large "safe zone" so even those that try open PVP will have no where to just play and enjoy a different way. This game may not be for them. Fine. I just hope that there are enough PVP players (or tolerant victims) that the game doesn't fold.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bringslite wrote:
Lone or small groups will be the real prey (harvesters and travelers and just explorers). My view is that I don't want them to suffer too much. Partly because I will play those roles occasionally, but mostly because I have a feeling that they will quit if they can't adapt and the game will lose.

Yeah, I think that's the key. In order for PFO to be really successful long-term, it can't be all-hardcore-PvP all-the-time. It has to have room for more casual players who aren't really interested in PvP - even if we all hope they eventually embrace PvP. To me, this is one of the greatest potential results of PFO's design choices - that PvP will become mainstream.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
Lone or small groups will be the real prey (harvesters and travelers and just explorers). My view is that I don't want them to suffer too much. Partly because I will play those roles occasionally, but mostly because I have a feeling that they will quit if they can't adapt and the game will lose.
Yeah, I think that's the key. In order for PFO to be really successful long-term, it can't be all-hardcore-PvP all-the-time. It has to have room for more casual players who aren't really interested in PvP - even if we all hope they eventually embrace PvP. To me, this is one of the greatest potential results of PFO's design choices - that PvP will become mainstream.

Bolding modified to highlight my focus.

A game can provide that "room" either by having a huge amount of space, like EVE, where the ruleset provides significant protection from PvP combat. Or, like PFO seems to be attempting, it might provide the same "room" by having a ruleset across the entire gamespace that provide some amount of protections everywhere.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Bringslite,

I think you are looking at the changes the wrong way. I see the SAD and Factionalization as steering the banditry away from the solo harvester and small time merchant, and towards more valuable targets.

Speaking for myself, I'd rather take on a moderate risk for a high reward, than a low risk for a low or even moderate reward.

Even if I miscalculate and lose, I'd rather get killed trying to rob 20,000 gold than get killed trying to rob a much lower amount. The adventurous side of me would even accept greeting killed fir a greater reward, than succeeding for a very minor reward. Time spent well is a commodity that is its own reward. Time spent earning very little, can never be recovered.

Mind you, I said moderate risk for high reward. I'm not hoping for even or for lopsided against my favor. Although if very high risk and high reward happens by some means, that would be awesome.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
I see the SAD and Factionalization as steering the banditry away from the solo harvester and small time merchant, and towards more valuable targets.

I see it the same way.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

@ Bringslite,

I think you are looking at the changes the wrong way. I see the SAD and Factionalization as steering the banditry away from the solo harvester and small time merchant, and towards more valuable targets.

Speaking for myself, I'd rather take on a moderate risk for a high reward, than a low risk for a low or even moderate reward.

Even if I miscalculate and lose, I'd rather get killed trying to rob 20,000 gold than get killed trying to rob a much lower amount. The adventurous side of me would even accept greeting killed fir a greater reward, than succeeding for a very minor reward. Time spent well is a commodity that is its own reward. Time spent earning very little, can never be recovered.

Mind you, I said moderate risk for high reward. I'm not hoping for even or for lopsided against my favor. Although if very high risk and high reward happens by some means, that would be awesome.

I think that if they do it "right" (whatever that is) you may be correct. Those smaller targets may be the ones that cause the rep penalties. After a year though, UNC will be a drop in the bucket (just an assumption) and there will be many, many more players out there that care less about the game's (and their character's) health than I am confident that you and your guys do. I am for the "factions" and plan to join if there are even meager benefits. I had always planned to go as protected and with as careful planning as I can anyway. This will be a bonus.

It doesn't seem, from your current approach, that UNC will be a major blight on the game. You will be a worthy adversary. GW has made comments that they realize who will be the targets of most robbers and killers. I just want to keep it in the forefront, as much as I can.

Not sure why I keep beating this horse (I am ready and accepting of PVP and conflict), except that I know that the major market isn't ready unless they see that it really is a different type of open PVP game. I do remember that GW doesn't want or need the whole pie, so my concerns are probably moot. Would love to see some things to do without always having to be on guard for attack, though. If not for myself, then for a lot of other people that I know are interested in PfO.

The whole equation of the interaction will be different here for a pretty good reason. Smaller play area than these other games.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bringslite wrote:
... I am ready and accepting of PVP and conflict... I know that the major market isn't ready unless they see that it really is a different type of open PVP game.

This is what's most important to me.

I think the players who generally avoid PvP games need to be able to play and explore in PFO without constantly getting killed. I'd hope their experience getting randomly killed is more like the experience they'd have had running across an undercon in EverQuest - it's unexpected but rare enough that it becomes memorable, and teaches them to be more wary.

I don't want players to feel like they can freely explore the entire map without having to worry about being attacked by other players, but my hope is that most of the time they'd be "warned off" before being summarily executed for wandering into the wrong area.

I don't want players to feel like they can freely transport valuable cargo halfway across the map, but I do want players to be able to harvest in the hexes around their Settlement without having to worry that every stranger they see is likely to attack them.

I love the fact that PFO will have non-consensual PvP. For many years (long before I ever heard of PFO), I've believed this is a necessary element in my "perfect" MMO. I just think that there need to be reasons not to kill everyone you see.

1,351 to 1,400 of 1,727 << first < prev | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Stand and Deliver Discussion All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.