Ryan: The Core Rhetorical Challenge Facing Goblinworks


Pathfinder Online

51 to 100 of 169 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Could the descriptor 'PvP' somehow be rebranded to more accurately represent the intended case? 'consequential player interaction'?

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
As one of those usual suspects, you've never read anything that I have written that refers to PvP as murder. You create impressions based on the terms that you use, yes words have power, so when you use a term that has a negative connotation it creates a negative perception.

Nothing personal against you, or the UNC.

I used the term Usual Suspects, specifically to avoid pointing the finger at any one faction. Yours was just the post I chose to quote, because it was there.
I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, that all your PvP will be in-character-driven, and justifiable (as I've said elsewhere, if I wanted a settlement game with zero PvP, I'd be playing Animal Crossing).
Some people don't trust you to stay 'meaningful', and refer to your proposed playstyle as murderhoboing. Then you or another UNC member jump in to correct them, and the cycle continues.

But those threads go on and on, and on. And on, and on, and on.
Post after post, describing death, dying, killing, looting, raiding, stand and deliver, or how to guard against it.
And when they get locked, or die out, or the staff tell the Usual Suspects that they've had their say, so let other posters speak, lo and behold, another thread appears, where the same argument can be thrashed out for another thousand posts.

And to an outside observer, that disproportionate amount of discussion devoted to PvP, as opposed to, say, crafting, farming, building, or trading, creates the impression that this will be a game where there's an assassin hiding behind every bush, and getting done over will be a constant threat. Far more than it's likely to actually be.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
Could the descriptor 'PvP' somehow be rebranded to more accurately represent the intended case? 'consequential player interaction'?

No, because that would imply the "consequences" are meaningful for all and equally applied to all. It would therefore be misleading as well.

GW should be focusing on providing meaningful reasons to engage in PvP. If they do that well, they can then focus on issuing the consequences on those deserving to be punished for going outside of the desired game play.

Don't limit my ability to own and carry a fire arm, punish severally those who misuse fire arms. By limiting me you only ensure that the only two people with fire arms are the police force and the criminal.

The griefer will not care about reputation. He/she will not care if their character sucks, in comparison to a two year old character. He/she will not care if their account gets banned.

The griefer will gladly start a new account and pay another $15.00 to continue playing their chosen play style.

Perhaps the best way to advertise it is "Meaningful Player Vs. Player Interactions". This would incorporate both the reasons for PvP and the rewards for conducting it through the desired methods and for it to be rewarded for being so.

I have said, and this risks going on a tangent (so I'll keep it brief), influence should be awarded for our successes in what ever activities we do. The more successful we are, we might gain enough to do that same actions 1.5 or 2.0 times more. This would require victory conditions to be established. But, as I said, this is for a different thread.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Being wrote:
Could the descriptor 'PvP' somehow be rebranded to more accurately represent the intended case? 'consequential player interaction'?

MedFan Simulator !

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
The griefer will gladly start a new account and pay another $15.00 to continue playing their chosen play style.

Er, yeah, and they will start with a very weak character. I don't see a problem.

And about your comparison with firearms, it's a bad one. As much as I, personally, love your 2nd Amendment, you must realise that it's not a widely accepted argument, even in the US. It's very specific to the US.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravenlute wrote:

Right, okay. GW is marketing from the wrong direction of their product.

So instead of stating 'Open PvP' as a feature why not lead off with 'Settlement Warfare' and then go into how pvp is a natural part of that? Make it all about the settlements in the Kingdom Game and how characters can fight wars against each other in the name of their settlement.

Talk about all the cool war related functions people in a settlement can do. Talk about how different companies within the settlement can go out and raid enemy outposts to weaken their production line. Talk about the trade lines between allied settlements and how you can send bandits after your enemies caravans and steal their shipment of weapons for your own army.

Ravenlute, I think that's a good stab in the right direction. Maybe it's:

"Open World City vs City: Instead of PvP, PFO features mighty struggles between towns, cities, and even kingdoms. Your pathfinder character, whether a scout, a holy warrior, an explorer, or a combat leader, will take risks and face danger helping your brothers and sisters to build, hold on to, and expand persistent small towns, larger and complex cities, and player-run factions/kingdoms. Because if you don't, there's other people in the River Kingdom who want to conquer you by force, and some who just want to burn the whole place down..."

I dunno exactly, but there's got to be something GW can say that is more accurate than "Improved Murdersim!!!"

Goblin Squad Member

I would respectfully ask those of you who want to argue about griefing definitions to take it to a new thread--this is an important issue, and derailing it to fight about play-styles isn't helping GW bring this product to market.

Thanks :)

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
Could the descriptor 'PvP' somehow be rebranded to more accurately represent the intended case? 'consequential player interaction'?

I see where you are going with this Being, but I think that would be unintelligible to a general gaming audience. And then when you tried to explain it, they would hear "New and Improved Mudersim."

Goblin Squad Member

Just make a $5/month PVE flag, that cannot be toggled off and on, for anti-PVPers to play under. Limit them to tier 2, and see how it goes, money-wise.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:


Don't limit my ability to own and carry a fire arm, punish severally those who misuse fire arms. By limiting me you only ensure that the only two people with fire arms are the police force and the criminal.

Please don't bring RL "equivalents" into threads like these. Not everybody will agree with you and all it serves to do is muddy the waters and derail the thread. We're talking about PvP here, not the right to bear arms.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravenlute wrote:

So instead of stating 'Open PvP' as a feature why not lead off with 'Settlement Warfare' and then go into how pvp is a natural part of that? Make it all about the settlements in the Kingdom Game and how characters can fight wars against each other in the name of their settlement.

Talk about all the cool war related functions people in a settlement can do. Talk about how different companies within the settlement can go out and raid enemy outposts to weaken their production line. Talk about the trade lines between allied settlements and how you can send bandits after your enemies caravans and steal their shipment of weapons for your own army.

This will cause players to view PFO as a kingdom warfare game that has PvP in it, instead of an open world gank fest that has towns in it.

I very much like this. I'm in the "backed the game despite my previous unpleasant experiences with PvP" because the PvP I have enjoyed has been the large-scale sort - and I did enough reading before backing the Kickstarter to understand that settlements are at the heart of PfO's system. "Open world PvP" by itself doesn't really capture the settlement focus, and players like me who might otherwise be great additions to the social game are more likely to hit that phrase and think "Nope! Tired of being ganked every time I log in!"

It also has the effect of playing up the social nature of the game.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TEO Pino wrote:
...make a $5/month PVE flag, that cannot be toggled off and on...

I'm afraid that'd destroy the game, Pino. Too many folks'd just turn on the flag and go their merry way, possibly thinking "hey, I'm playing Pathfinder!"

Settlements'd discover they had no defenders when the attack came. Those Pathfinder-players would find they have no Settlement.

On second thought, it's quite likely we'd have to disallow those flagged players from joining Settlements, as they'd be able to gather materials in the wilderness without risk, thus creating a support-network that couldn't be disrupted. Without Settlements, what would there be for those players to do?

Goblin Squad Member

The way I see it, the infrastructure of large settlements means more niches for more play-styles?

At first combat is going to be major gameplay (out of a limited range and higher exposure to pvp eg sacking, raiding, ambushing etc, political war of the roses!). Overtime more options for more types of gameplay appear.

Proportionally it may still be that there always will be a large part of the community involved actively in PvP, but absolute numbers will or should grow where there's a lot of players who either rarely if ever touch PvP?

So to sell that idea? The City vs City idea is good too.

Goblin Squad Member

Lhan wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:


Don't limit my ability to own and carry a fire arm, punish severally those who misuse fire arms. By limiting me you only ensure that the only two people with fire arms are the police force and the criminal.

Please don't bring RL "equivalents" into threads like these. Not everybody will agree with you and all it serves to do is muddy the waters and derail the thread. We're talking about PvP here, not the right to bear arms.

I was not talking about the right to bear arms, I was using that as an example of how limitations meant to be directed at one party ends up effecting and or affecting the unintended. Then if you add in the fact that the intended target doesn't care about the rules, you end up limiting those that would have followed the rules anyway.

This is related to the OP in that Mbando is trying to get to the heart of false perception one might hold.

A sandbox is night really a sandbox if there are too many limitations on how we play with the sand.

Goblin Squad Member

There is a difference to be noted between making it impossible to do something and introducing a consequence for an action. In my opinion consequences are very much in the spirit of meaningful interactions.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Lhan wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:


Don't limit my ability to own and carry a fire arm, punish severally those who misuse fire arms. By limiting me you only ensure that the only two people with fire arms are the police force and the criminal.

Please don't bring RL "equivalents" into threads like these. Not everybody will agree with you and all it serves to do is muddy the waters and derail the thread. We're talking about PvP here, not the right to bear arms.

I was not talking about the right to bear arms, I was using that as an example of how limitations meant to be directed at one party ends up effecting and or affecting the unintended. Then if you add in the fact that the intended target doesn't care about the rules, you end up limiting those that would have followed the rules anyway.

This is related to the OP in that Mbando is trying to get to the heart of false perception one might hold.

A sandbox is night really a sandbox if there are too many limitations on how we play with the sand.

Not everyone agrees with the line of argument used in your RL precedent. As such it does not add weight to the PvP discussion but merely opens up a further line of debate that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Goblin Squad Member

Lhan wrote:

I was not talking about the right to bear arms, I was using that as an example of how limitations meant to be directed at one party ends up effecting and or affecting the unintended. Then if you add in the fact that the intended target doesn't care about the rules, you end up limiting those that would have followed the rules anyway.

This is related to the OP in that Mbando is trying to get to the heart of false perception one might hold.

A sandbox is night really a sandbox if there are too many limitations on how we play with the sand.

Not everyone agrees with the line of argument used in your RL precedent. As such it does not add weight to the PvP discussion but merely opens up a further line of debate that has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

So then consider the argument without the example, the argument is not changed even if it is "floating".

Limitations meant for one party often end up effecting and or affecting the an unintended party. Then if you consider the probability that the intended target doesn't care about the rules, nor the consequences for breaking them, all you end up with is limiting those that have followed the rules.

Again, back to the OP, perception should be that only rule breakers will be limited and or suffer consequences for not following them.

The outside observer would see a system and or a community that is working to dispense appropriate reasons for, limitations of and consequences because ________. That could never be reasonable mistaken for or labeled as a "Murder Sim".

Goblin Squad Member

Just my 2 cents... I don't follow those general gaming forums so I don't really know how that "PFO will turn into a Murder Sim MMO" thread is really strong, but I have a tendency to think often it's just very few ppl on forums who tend to have very strong opinions but the vast majority doesn't agree and doesn't take the trouble of saying anything.

Anyway, I would summarize my opinion on this by 2 points :

. an MMO player who sees "open-pvp" in a game description knows there's going to be fighting around. Either he likes it, and he's going to EvE if he likes scifi or would wait for PFO if he's more a med-fan enthusiast. Other option, it's not his favorite gameplay and he sticks to theme park MMOs, but anyway he's aware of what's going on.

. I suppose we also have a population of pen and paper Pathfinder RPG gamers who never tried an MMO (does these guys exist really ?) and who are expecting only one thing, it's to live their paper RPG character adventure's online. These guys (and girls) might have a bad surprise if they fall victim to ganking and griefing, but then the guild mechanism and natural tendency of players to regroup would kick in and they would start enjoying the fun by numbers. Or not, and then they could go visit some theme park MMO instead.

But honestly, I don't think that 2nd population really exists. I think the vast majority of ppl who will try PFO will be from the first kind of gamers, knowing that some of them might wish to have a theme park WoW repainted in PF colors with no PvP. But given the consistent way that Ryan, GW and Paizo have always described PFO, there won't be any surprise.

Seeya,
Moonbird

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
I was not talking about the right to bear arms, I was using that as an example of how limitations meant to be directed at one party ends up effecting and or affecting the unintended.

You were using a controversial political argument as if it were a fact. Out of bounds: ten yard penalty.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

lol, massively website and community are the most biased mainstream themeparky stuff u can find on web, trying to share pathfinder vision with them is as easy as convincing an medieval inquisitor that earth is a globe.

Goblin Squad Member

Kabal362 wrote:
as easy as convincing an medieval inquisitor that earth is a globe.

Screenshot or its a lie!

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

Moonbird wrote:
I suppose we also have a population of pen and paper Pathfinder RPG gamers who never tried an MMO (does these guys exist really ?)

They do (hi!).

I've no problem with PvP, just that I want it to be 'meaningful'.
And my definition of that, is that it should be in-character, and for reasons that relate to events in-game, rather than utterly random, or as a result of personal dislikes between the players (as opposed to characters).

I'm going in, expecting to have to fight things; I couldn't care less if the things I'm fighting are run by a server's AI, or by another player.
Just make the opposition interesting.
Random fights with random strangers, for random (or no) reasons, aren't interesting.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
You were using a controversial political argument as if it were a fact. Out of bounds: ten yard penalty.

I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but what he stated is a fact.

He didn't state anything about the effects of firearms in society, which is where the controversy is. He stated that limiting their use to prevent criminal access prevents access to those who were following the rules to begin with.

You can be on whatever side of the political argument you want, but that is a fact. Every limitation put on firearms to prevent them from being available for crimes also prevents them from being available for legal purposes.

That said, I think that the general nature of the internet is being ignored when reading peoples view points, especially those posted on other sites. The internet is not the place to go for good reviews. It's where people go to rant and gripe and criticize. Anonymity makes it easy to go spew forth whatever vile crap happens to be on the tip of their tongue.

Reviews and perceptions put forth are far more likely to be negative than positive on the internet. Why? Those that are happy with what's going on do more productive things.

When things are operating well, you rarely get reviews and feedback. When things are operating poorly, the mailbox fills with hate and rabid frothing spittle leaks out.

It doesn't matter how GW portrayed the game, someone is going to hate it. Those people that hate it will be far more vocal than the people excited about it.

I wouldn't read much into what's being said around the internet until after the game comes out and people are actually reviewing it.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Moonbird wrote:

I suppose we also have a population of pen and paper Pathfinder RPG gamers who never tried an MMO (does these guys exist really ?) and who are expecting only one thing, it's to live their paper RPG character adventure's online. These guys (and girls) might have a bad surprise if they fall victim to ganking and griefing, but then the guild mechanism and natural tendency of players to regroup would kick in and they would start enjoying the fun by numbers. Or not, and then they could go visit some theme park MMO instead.

But honestly, I don't think that 2nd population really exists.

Hello! 30+ years of tabletop RPGs here, never stepped into an online game until three hours of EVE as a test a week or two ago. If I'd noticed the PvP being a key aspect, I'd not have bothered.

It's become clear to me that I'm getting into something that is not what I expected. I'm going to have to hope it works out for me, but there's a very real possibility it will be the bitter dose of reality that ends the experiment. C'est la vie.

On the plus side, I continue to enjoy the landrush, and may well get my money's worth out of that alone, thereby reducing some of the burn.

It would help if you people would at least laugh at my jokes once in a while.

Goblin Squad Member

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:
I'm going to have to hope it works out for me...

Everything works out for Canadians, have no worry.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Crash_00 wrote:
Being wrote:
You were using a controversial political argument as if it were a fact. Out of bounds: ten yard penalty.

I don't agree with a lot of what he says, but what he stated is a fact.

In your belief system. I distrust faith-based medicine too. It doesn't exist and cannot be a fact. You have a hypothesis to base your logical premise upon.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
In your belief system. I distrust faith-based medicine too. It doesn't exist and cannot be a fact. You have a hypothesis to base your logical premise upon.

It's not a belief. It's proven with simple logic, hence fact.

Action X is legal.

If you make action x illegal, then everyone that uses action x is now a criminal.

Whether or not action x could be used to commit crimes has no bearing on this fact. The fact is that action x was legal and not a crime, then changed to be a crime thus making it effect everyone (criminal or not) that used action x by either forcing them not to use action x or forcing them to commit a crime by using action x.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The hypothetical (IF) scenario is not the case, therefore your political argument is not grounded in fact.

Given the array of potential hypothetical premises, logic can be shown to 'prove' almost anything. Yet those are only useful for demonstrating either how logic works, or perhaps for fooling people to think something true that hasn't a basis in what really exists.

Goblin Squad Member

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
TEO Pino wrote:
...make a $5/month PVE flag, that cannot be toggled off and on...

I'm afraid that'd destroy the game, Pino. Too many folks'd just turn on the flag and go their merry way, possibly thinking "hey, I'm playing Pathfinder!"

Settlements'd discover they had no defenders when the attack came. Those Pathfinder-players would find they have no Settlement.

On second thought, it's quite likely we'd have to disallow those flagged players from joining Settlements, as they'd be able to gather materials in the wilderness without risk, thus creating a support-network that couldn't be disrupted. Without Settlements, what would there be for those players to do?

That's the whole point, to let them play the game without the murder they fear, while allowing them no meaningful impact.

Lone gatherers don't get squat. If they build a poi, it's defenseless. No settlement would want them, they could make their own but, it too would be defenseless. They could not retaliate if there was a siege , BUT they would try the game. They'd play, and see what kind of culture we made. They'd learn PFO was not EVE in the woods, or any Murder simulator.
This is a way to get people in the water, in spite of the occasional shark fin.

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
The hypothetical (IF) scenario is not the case, therefore your political argument is not fact.

Sure it is.

It used to be that you could buy a fully automatic firearm made that year perfectly legally.

Now you can't. The NFA has restricted it to only weapons made prior its 1986 date, effectively cutting off the supply of new automatic weapons.

Buying a newly made automatic weapon was legal.

Buying a newly made automatic weapons was made illegal, now people have to either not buy newly made automatic weapons or commit a crime buying newly made automatic weapons.

Or you can look at other cases of it, like trying to buy an AR-15 in Maryland now. Buying silencer in the states that have now banned them.

The controversy of these matters has never been on whether or not it has an effect on the unintended, it has always been whether or not that effect is worth the gain. Less risk of the intended targets being able to make use of them.

That's pretty much the same thing that was pointed out here. Is the effect on normal players worth the gain of reducing grief. Most of us feel that it is overwhelmingly worth the gain, he wasn't. Hence why it's controversial to him.

There is absolutely no doubt that the reputation system will have an effect on non-griefers and people that don't play solely for chaotic evil lulz.

People will game the system on both sides, some will exploit it to get their griefing on in ways the devs hadn't thought of, some will try to use it as an extra shield to hide behind.

It comes down to the numbers. If his example had a fault, it's that the typical PvP community is more toxic, volatile, and overly hostile than the gun owning community in the US. That makes the numbers more favorable to restriction. More people want it.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yet people who are neither criminals nor police officers have automatic weapons, and I know this to be a fact. Therefore it is not a fact that only police or criminals have automatic weapons. Therefore your premise is an hypothesis and the argument based thereon is not a fact.

If you want to be sloppy in your thinking that is your business, but don't expect to easily use your sloppy reasoning among intelligent and self-disciplined people.

May we leave your personal political beliefs aside now?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Snorter wrote:
Moonbird wrote:
I suppose we also have a population of pen and paper Pathfinder RPG gamers who never tried an MMO (does these guys exist really ?)

They do (hi!).

I've no problem with PvP, just that I want it to be 'meaningful'.
And my definition of that, is that it should be in-character, and for reasons that relate to events in-game, rather than utterly random, or as a result of personal dislikes between the players (as opposed to characters).

I'm going in, expecting to have to fight things; I couldn't care less if the things I'm fighting are run by a server's AI, or by another player.
Just make the opposition interesting.
Random fights with random strangers, for random (or no) reasons, aren't interesting.

I'm with the Snorter here! He expressed it succinctly.

I'm an avid pen and paper RPG gamer and always will be. I'm 53 years old and since 1976, I am still GMing a regular game (Pathfinder for the last few years) with 4-8 players from ages 15 to 50 (Nerd Alert, I know). I've been involved with some MMOs over the years, but they tend to become uninterested quickly due to the lack of RP. Personally, if there's no RP, its very boring and my heart won't be in it.

I think the problem is that there's a huge group of players out there that don't understand the concept of "In-Character". This is where as a community, we need to educate, promote and reward the use of this concept while at the same time chastise and punish those who are engaging in frivolous PKing. If we do this as a community and set some Acceptable Community Standards (ASC) early and most of the players abide and uphold them, then we should be able to effect positive change. I believe this is a culture problem and is only going to be solved by the community, not game mechanics.
meat of this topic

But back to the topic - Appropriate Community Messaging

By billing PFO as an "Open-World PvP Sandbox", it is attempting to describe PFO in terms related to other games. I truly believe that GW is building something much bigger than this description and as such should not use such limiting buzz words and descriptors to market it. These are words describing it to other gamers. Pick words that describe it to the world. Don't let the existing games box us in.

Goblin Squad Member

In a multi-group RP environment with conflicting interests it would be a sham were there no mechanics for settling quarrels the old fashioned way. War is the last resort of diplomacy after all. Problem is that is also about the most complicated thing people do and what has to be coded into the world, so that is where so much focus is.

Chess is PvP, fwiw.

Goblin Squad Member

Snorter wrote:
Moonbird wrote:
I suppose we also have a population of pen and paper Pathfinder RPG gamers who never tried an MMO (does these guys exist really ?)

They do (hi!).

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:


Hello! 30+ years of tabletop RPGs here, never stepped into an online game until three hours of EVE as a test a week or two ago. If I'd noticed the PvP being a key aspect, I'd not have bothered.

Hi there :-)) I don't doubt you guys exist, it's just that I don't think the numbers are that great compared to the general gamer population. And I also remember that these are Pathfinder's boards, where ppl lurking around are mostly and first of all pen and paper RPG players (me too, btw, for over 30 years). What's nice about that, it's that you're going to discover a whole new aspect of gaming with lots and lots of fun and passion in it :-)

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:


It's become clear to me that I'm getting into something that is not what I expected. I'm going to have to hope it works out for me, but there's a very real possibility it will be the bitter dose of reality that ends the experiment. C'est la vie.

I started with Shadowbane 12 years ago and never stopped… and kept playing P&P RPGs too. One thing I'd say about that is that MMO's are really really great (and addictive), but you can't expect the same pleasures than what you get from P&P RPGs. As an example, I never was able to really role-play in an MMO: it's hard to forget I have a computer screen in front my nose for very long… whereas around a table with friends or during a live role-play game… the immersion is much much deeper.

Seeya soon in the River Kingdoms,
Moonbird

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Moonbird wrote:
...it's hard to forget I have a computer screen in front my nose for very long… whereas around a table with friends or during a live role-play game… the immersion is much much deeper.

I sincerely hope we may be able to change that one day.

Imagine a MMRPG done rightly...

Goblin Squad Member

Urlord wrote:


I'm with the Snorter here! He expressed it succinctly.

I'm an avid pen and paper RPG gamer and always will be. I'm 53 years old and since 1976, I am still GMing a regular game (Pathfinder for the last few years) with 4-8 players from ages 15 to 50 (Nerd Alert, I know). I've been involved with some MMOs over the years, but they tend to become uninterested quickly due to the lack of RP. Personally, if there's no RP, its very boring and my heart won't be in it.

I think the problem is that there's a huge group of players out there that don't understand the concept of "In-Character".

Hi there, Urlord !

Sorry I missed your answer while I was typing mine a few minutes earlier.

I might be sort of (don't remember the expression in english: disappointed ? in french I would say "déçu du voyage") but I haven't seen much lasting RP in MMOs since I started with Shadowbane. Usually the best I've seen was on dedicated RP servers where specific rulesets enforced RP in one way or another. Now my point of view is kind of skewed, since as I said earlier I have trouble immersing myself in some kind of RP med-fan in front of my computer screen and I'm aware I might have missed great RP games somewhere in cyberspace.

I don't think one can expect much more than the usual exaggerated traits (like elves vs dwarves, or the stalwart paladin). RP in MMOs (IMO) is more about building a community in-game and having an active role in it that others would depend on (like crafters, engineers, combatants, fortress builders), and holding your guild's beliefs and alliances (thus war!). RP as we live it around a table is hard to get in MMO's, and even more in a sandbox open-pvp MMO. P&P RPG is very scripted (by the adventure and the GM) and is more akin to PvE: you character builds his story and gathers his assets and riches and xp etc, and no one is going to come barging in destroying everything *unless* it's part of the scenario or campaign your GM has (lovingly) cooked for you.

Seeya in the River Kingdoms,
Moonbird

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:

Yet people who are neither criminals nor police officers have automatic weapons, and I know this to be a fact. Therefore it is not a fact that only police or criminals have automatic weapons. Therefore your premise is an hypothesis and the argument based thereon is not a fact.

If you want to be sloppy in your thinking that is your business, but don't expect to easily use your sloppy reasoning among intelligent and self-disciplined people.

May we leave your personal political beliefs aside now?

Not "newly made" automatic weapons as I stated, unless you consider things from 1986 "newly made." If they are owning "newly made" automatic weapons, they are criminals or government employees.

Ignoring what people state does not make those statements sloppy, it simply shows that you can't follow everything being said.

It also has nothing to do with politics, but is, again, simple logic that has a direct mirror in what you were trying to shoot down.

If you wish to leave the facts alone, sure, you can. That doesn't change the fact that they are facts.

Scarab Sages Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Being wrote:
Moonbird wrote:
...it's hard to forget I have a computer screen in front my nose for very long… whereas around a table with friends or during a live role-play game… the immersion is much much deeper.

I sincerely hope we may be able to change that one day.

Imagine a MMRPG done rightly...

Enter the Omni and Occulus. Those should help your immersion factor :D

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Crash_00 wrote:
Ignoring what people state does not make those statements sloppy, it simply shows that you can't follow everything being said.

Ignoring the difference between fact and hypothesis is intellectually sloppy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zodd Zerker wrote:
Kabal362 wrote:
as easy as convincing an medieval inquisitor that earth is a globe.
Screenshot or its a lie!

We take for granted too willingly that the Round Earth Theory is correct. Wake up, sheeple!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Being wrote:
Crash_00 wrote:
Ignoring what people state does not make those statements sloppy, it simply shows that you can't follow everything being said.
Ignoring the difference between fact and hypothesis is intellectually sloppy.

As sloppy as you guys getting drawn into a semantical argument that's skidding on the curbs of Off-Topic Debate Avenue?

Goblin Squad Member

Being wrote:
Ignoring the difference between fact and hypothesis is intellectually sloppy.

Yes, you're being very sloppy. Instead of actually debating you're attempting to deflect by ignoring basic logic and standard reasoning practices.

If the reputation system causes rep loss for unmeaningful PvP, and player y loses rep after unmeaninful pvp, is it just a hypothesis that he lost that rep due to the reputation system's rules?

Goblin Squad Member

Kabal362 wrote:
lol, massively website and community are the most biased mainstream themeparky stuff u can find on web, trying to share pathfinder vision with them is as easy as convincing an medieval inquisitor that earth is a globe.

It is not a globe.


Yhora-gwar wrote:
Kabal362 wrote:
lol, massively website and community are the most biased mainstream themeparky stuff u can find on web, trying to share pathfinder vision with them is as easy as convincing an medieval inquisitor that earth is a globe.
It is not a globe.

http://ryanvbrennan.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/21.jpg

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Moonbird wrote:

Just my 2 cents... I don't follow those general gaming forums so I don't really know how that "PFO will turn into a Murder Sim MMO" thread is really strong, but I have a tendency to think often it's just very few ppl on forums who tend to have very strong opinions but the vast majority doesn't agree and doesn't take the trouble of saying anything.

Anyway, I would summarize my opinion on this by 2 points :

. an MMO player who sees "open-pvp" in a game description knows there's going to be fighting around. Either he likes it, and he's going to EvE if he likes scifi or would wait for PFO if he's more a med-fan enthusiast. Other option, it's not his favorite gameplay and he sticks to theme park MMOs, but anyway he's aware of what's going on.

. I suppose we also have a population of pen and paper Pathfinder RPG gamers who never tried an MMO (does these guys exist really ?) and who are expecting only one thing, it's to live their paper RPG character adventure's online. These guys (and girls) might have a bad surprise if they fall victim to ganking and griefing, but then the guild mechanism and natural tendency of players to regroup would kick in and they would start enjoying the fun by numbers. Or not, and then they could go visit some theme park MMO instead.

But honestly, I don't think that 2nd population really exists. I think the vast majority of ppl who will try PFO will be from the first kind of gamers, knowing that some of them might wish to have a theme park WoW repainted in PF colors with no PvP. But given the consistent way that Ryan, GW and Paizo have always described PFO, there won't be any surprise.

Seeya,
Moonbird

Don't forget the 75% of EvE players never putting one foot outside of high security territory.

Goblin Squad Member

Audoucet wrote:
Don't forget the 75% of EvE players never putting one foot outside of high security territory.

Didn't someone publish an article pointing out that that figure's usefulness is limited by its counting characters, not players? To use it properly, we need to control for folks who keep safe alts in high-sec, while also playing elsewhere.

Goblin Squad Member

TEO Pino wrote:
Just make a $5/month PVE flag, that cannot be toggled off and on, for anti-PVPers to play under. Limit them to tier 2, and see how it goes, money-wise.

No more banditry, every group will just use pve flagged alt accounts to move items.

No more siege warfare, every group will just use pve flagged alts to bring in supplies, smuggle valuables out.

No more need for stealth, just use a pve flagged alt to scout enemy territory.

The list goes on and on of ways to exploit this to defeat the entire purpose of PFO.

This would be a really really bad idea.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

At least this game isn't Sword Art Online.

Think about the PR nightmare that would be.

Goblin Squad Member

Audoucet wrote:
Don't forget the 75% of EvE players never putting one foot outside of high security territory.

Don't forget that statistic, even if true, has no meaning regardless of how you are looking to use it.

Does this mean the 75% do not PvP?
Does this mean the 75% don't commit crimes?
Does this mean the 75% are not Griefers?
Does this mean the 75% are not alts of pvpers in low or null sec?

I can't forget something that hasn't been established as fact.

Goblin Squad Member

TEO HTRajan wrote:

At least this game isn't Sword Art Online.

Think about the PR nightmare that would be.

Being fully immersed into the MMORPG would be cool, but not to the point that you die for real if your character is killed. And of course the whole not able to log out thing.

51 to 100 of 169 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Ryan: The Core Rhetorical Challenge Facing Goblinworks All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.