Dissapointment Among the Silent


Pathfinder Online

601 to 650 of 712 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Back on tangent: I agree that the Emerald Lodge is the best settlement for a neutral ground to exist on, but I remain unconvinced that a consensus exists that neutral ground is needed.

I don't know if it is the best candidate. It ranks for me, but thinking about future competing entities I am less convinced we could make a case for them leaving someone so close to a potential lucrative area alone.

I completely agree with your final point. I am a fan of neutral ground in some capacity for new players to learn the game. I am still back and forth on everything else.

Goblin Squad Member

That's pretty cynical, Kemedo. Not every proposal is politically motivated; some suggestions really are made purely for the good of the game as a whole. I'm alert to the possibility that any move might be political, but that's a long way from assuming that they all are.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If I could chose a neutral terrain, I sould point out at Thornkeep, or any other NPC city and allow it to be partial controled by heavy PvE players.

Goblin Squad Member

The difficulty, Kemedo, is that NPC cities, by design, will only ever have minimal services.

Scarab Sages

Guurzak wrote:
That's pretty cynical, Kemedo. Not every proposal is politically motivated; some suggestions really are made purely for the good of the game as a whole. I'm alert to the possibility that any move might be political, but that's a long way from assuming that they all are.

Could be, or could be suspicious, or simply not naive. I can't tell.

Goblin Squad Member

I wouldn't say they are the best, K is probably the best neutral location. Emerald Lodge is the most desirable to be neutral, as it is the closest to the Emerald Spire, but controlling the Emerald Spire could be very lucrative.

Not saying they are going to do this, but EoX could potentially lock down the Emerald Spire if they also controlled the Emerald lodge.

Truly neutral ground is found in the NPC settlements.

Goblin Squad Member

Kemedo wrote:
"What do Nihimon and his political allies win by suggesting EL immunity?"

I understand it might interfere with Golgotha's plans, and wouldn't blame them for being against the idea. And yeah, I'd probably be suspicious of anyone suggesting a Settlement right next door to mine should be "hands off".

Honestly, it just seemed like the obvious choice.

Goblin Squad Member

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
The difficulty, Kemedo, is that NPC cities, by design, will only ever have minimal services.

That is partly the reason why they make a good choice for "neutral ground". An NPC settlement is not in competition with PC settlements for training, trade or conquest.

Scarab Sages

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
The difficulty, Kemedo, is that NPC cities, by design, will only ever have minimal services.

This is a problem, but we can't have all in PFO, while they are neutrals, they have virtual access to any settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
An NPC settlement is not in competition with PC settlements for training, trade or conquest.

Nor for viability, once again by design, for players wanting to do...pretty much anything.

Goblin Squad Member

I keep forgetting Thod's from the UK, and many members of Emerald Lodge are European, of various nationalities; not sure that aids discussion, but there it is.

I think I found the first Lodger comment on the topic-at-hand:

moon madness wrote:

The best way to view our settlement is as a safe haven, equiper,re supplier to all the adventures who brave the spire.

We have no intention of trying to control access to the spire and indeed would ask all our neighbours to assist us in making sure such a thing doesn't happen.
That way the super dungeon stays open and available to all .

So we have at least one bit of input from them :-).

Goblin Squad Member

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
An NPC settlement is not in competition with PC settlements for training, trade or conquest.
Nor for viability, once again by design, for players wanting to do...pretty much anything.

Viability for what, having a neutral ground? You don't need maximum training or crafting for that.

Like I wrote earlier, which was deleted for some reason, what is being suggested in that one player run settlement is to be exempted from all of the struggles and limitations that all others have to deal with.

What entitles that settlement the settlement "I win button"? It would by default end up with the highest tier crafting and training and an ideal location as a THE trade hub, due to the proposed "hands off" status.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
An NPC settlement is not in competition with PC settlements for training, trade or conquest.
Nor for viability, once again by design, for players wanting to do...pretty much anything.

Viability for what, having a neutral ground? You don't need maximum training or crafting for that.

Like I wrote earlier, which was deleted for some reason, what is being suggested in that one player run settlement is to be exempted from all of the struggles and limitations that all others have to deal with.

What entitles that settlement the settlement "I win button"? It would by default end up with the highest tier crafting and training and an ideal location as a THE trade hub, due to the proposed "hands off" status.

PFO is not a zero-sum game. Someone else "winning" does not mean you are losing. In any RPG, there are episodic victories and defeats, but in the long run they're the same--just pages in an evolving story.

Scarab Sages

Jazz once I posted an IdeaScale by suggesting contend for PvE players to skip the Settlements politics, but seems was not a good idea.

https://pathfinderonlinecrowdforging.ideascale.com/a/dtd/Rent-buildings-In- NPC-Cities-Hexes/38744-30320

Now it fits with the lack on conted for them in a neutral enviroment.

Goblin Squad Member

Shaibes wrote:
PFO is not a zero-sum game. Someone else "winning" does not mean you are losing.

PFO is designed to have limed resources that will push settlements towards conflict. Ryan had even said in one post, that the Devs may manipulate the resource nodes in order to prevent a settlement from becoming self sufficient, and thus thrusting the settlement into potential conflict.

The very settlement hexes that the 33 Land Rush settlements hold are a resource that the OE companies entering will covet.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
Kemedo wrote:
"What do Nihimon and his political allies win by suggesting EL immunity?"

I understand it might interfere with Golgotha's plans, and wouldn't blame them for being against the idea. And yeah, I'd probably be suspicious of anyone suggesting a Settlement right next door to mine should be "hands off".

Honestly, it just seemed like the obvious choice.

I've never declared my intent towards Emerald Lodge. In fact, having a buffer state along my southern border would only be beneficial.(If a true neutral settlement existed and actively prohibited manipulation from all sides). But the fact remains that Golgotha will not "give" anything that is not earned. Our diplomatic doors are still open, and will remain so until the "rams have touched the wall", so to say. Our philosophy is that if trade is not passing over the borders, then soldiers will.

Golgotha does not hide its intentions. We are a Military Powerhouse, We are Evil, but most of all We are Lawful and Reputable. If you fear Golgotha, worry over being a target of its conquest, or worry about confrontation... Then you have not taken the basic steps to communicate with us diplomatically. Golgotha will bring peace, but you have the opportunity to be on the ground floor of that peace by assuring your settlement works with, not against, Golgotha.

Goblin Squad Member

Lord Regent: Deacon Wulf wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
I understand it might interfere with Golgotha's plans...
I've never declared my intent towards Emerald Lodge.

Thus, the "might".

I feel funny talking about them when they're not in the room, but I got the impression Emerald Lodge wasn't really interested in becoming a massive Settlement. If their "neutral ground" only extended to the Settlement itself and the 6 immediately surrounding hexes, I don't see how that would be an "I win" button - it certainly wouldn't make them the de facto crafting and trade hub of the entire map.

Goblin Squad Member

@Nihimon
I've given relative support towards the idea, so it caught me off guard.

On other notes:
If the Emerald Lodge were to try and become a neutral zone diplomatically and not de facto, it would at the very minimum be entertained as discussions moved forward. Other settlements would not receive that right.

Goblin Squad Member

I agree a buffer state would be good.

Also, the intention that I had in pushing EL as a neutral state was a combination of thoughts. First, they have said themselves they wish to be neutral and provide a place for everyone to re-equip/supply for delving into the Emerald Spire. Second, I believe the Emerald Spire will be a major PvE pull for a lot of people, inside and outside of the game, and potentially a major content and revenue source for GW. This factors lead me to believe that if they were a neutral ground, and by extension the ES being neutral, EVERYONE, new, old, enemies, friends, whatever would have access to the ES.

One of the original ideas for Brighthaven was to place it at V, and become a major hub for those wanting to check out the Spire and go dungeon delving. Eventually that was ruled out, because of several factors, but I see EL as an extension of that idea. A safe place for people to come, check out the game, check out the ES, and have some what of a buffer to the outside.

We all know, even if they do become neutral, they are still going to have to deal with a lot of BS, as well as being raided and other fringe activities. If they do make a case for the EL being neutral, I have no doubts that Brighthaven would back them in their endeavor.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:

PFO is designed to have limed resources that will push settlements towards conflict. Ryan had even said in one post, that the Devs may manipulate the resource nodes in order to prevent a settlement from becoming self sufficient, and thus thrusting the settlement into potential conflict.

The very settlement hexes that the 33 Land Rush settlements hold are a resource that the OE companies entering will covet.

Do you mean that the game will be and must be engineered to produce a perpetual state of conflict ? Because that would contradict something we talked about a few weeks ago, on the subject of the possibility to "win" the game with complete domination of the map.

Goblin Squad Member

I would want to know a lot more about the services that EL has to offer, and that includes training.

If caravans of vast wealth are flowing in and out of EL, and Thod wants to have any iron clad security from us, we have contracts for such a thing. We would even provide the escort.

But let's not act as though they are entitled to anything that anyone else could not earn themselves. What they do for Pathfinder Society or PF TT means jack diddly squat in the River Kingdoms of PFO, in my view. What matters is what they can do for us in this game.

;-)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Regent: Deacon Wulf wrote:

@Nihimon

I've given relative support towards the idea, so it caught me off guard.

Yeah, brevity might not be my best course of action when discussing matters of Golgotha.

I was trying to convey that I recognized you were in a special situation with respect to Emerald Lodge by virtue of proximity, and should therefore be afforded special consideration if you objected to them becoming "neutral ground".

History's hard to get over, it seems. In some cases, I don't want to; in others, I do...

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:

I would want to know a lot more about the services that EL has to offer, and that includes training.

If caravans of vast wealth are flowing in and out of EL, and Thod wants to have any iron clad security from us, we have contracts for such a thing. We would even provide the escort.

But let's not act as though they are entitled to anything that anyone else could not earn themselves. What they do for Pathfinder Society or PF TT means jack diddly squat in the River Kingdoms of PFO, in my view. What matters is what they can do for us in this game.

;-)

I don't think that anybody is saying that they are entitled to anything, Only that they would be a good candidate for this kind of situation, and that it would be cool, if it happened.

Obviously, The community will never be united on something. You could propose to cure cancer IRL if nobody killed anybody for 24 hours IG, some people would do it anyway. It doesn't mean that a general consensus can't exist. If every major Alliances decided to do so and to enforce it, then why not. If people don't agree, well, risk/reward.

Goblin Squad Member

I cant wait to see what Theodum makes of all this negotiating , without Thod even being interested in the political firestorm of staying out of politics by being declared neutral.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

From my perspective PFO is going to have to strike a good balance between alot of different activities if it wants to be truely successfull. PvP is going to be a major aspect of the game. However, it is important that it does not become such a dominant aspect of gameplay that it crowds out the other aspects of gameply. If it does, IMO, then what you are going to see happen is a positive feedback loop where eventualy the only players logging in to play will be the ones doing so to PvP. If that is the case, then it better hope that the PvP it offers is qualitatevly better then the hordes of other PvP focused online games out there, or it will be drowned out in a sea of competition.

For fantasy based MMO's, it's not all that hard for PFO to come up with PvP that is competitive.... because most of them frankly do very poor quality PvP... at least the ones so far available. However, it won't just be competing against fantasy MMO's in that instance... it'll be competeing against all online games...from MMO-Like games like PS2 to pure match based games like the WoT or FPS like the Battlefield series....and even those in the fantasy-medeival arenas like Mount and Blade or Chivalry, etc.

It's also important to note that PFO's biggest selling points, persistance and sandbox, won't be particulary important selling points to the majority of players who will be PvP Focused. The reason why is that those gameplay elements only have an interesting effect on the strategic aspects of gameplay. However, the only people who really get to interact with the strategic aspects of gameplay in interesting ways will be the decision makers...the Guild Leaders and Millitary Strategists.... and those likely will encompass less then 1 percent of the player base. The rest of the player base, the 99 percent of rank and file grunts won't get to interact in an interesting and meaningfull manner with those strategic gameplay elements. For them it's going to be functionaly identical in terms of thier gameplay whether a guild leader tells them to fight Y opponent on X piece of dirt or whether a FPS scenario/map designer tells them to fight Y opponent on X piece of dirt. In fact, the non-persistant game probably has advantages in that arena since if you are getting clobbered there it lasts 30-60 minutes and then you get a fresh start not weeks, months or maybe never to recover from a drubbing.

This is not to downplay the importance of PvP... it's a critical aspect of gameplay for PFO. One I expect to participate in both voluntarly and involuntarly during part of my playtime in PFO.

However, if PFO really wants to do well...it's going to have to hit on all cylinders in the non-PvP aspects of gameplay as well. If it ends up just focusing on PvP and then calling it a day...it won't bode well for PFO's future. The thing that has me cautiously optomistic there is I'm fairly certain Ryan and company are well aware of that.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite of Fidelis wrote:
Happy Birthday, Xeen! :)

Thanks!!

Goblin Squad Member

Audoucet wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

PFO is designed to have limed resources that will push settlements towards conflict. Ryan had even said in one post, that the Devs may manipulate the resource nodes in order to prevent a settlement from becoming self sufficient, and thus thrusting the settlement into potential conflict.

The very settlement hexes that the 33 Land Rush settlements hold are a resource that the OE companies entering will covet.

Do you mean that the game will be and must be engineered to produce a perpetual state of conflict ? Because that would contradict something we talked about a few weeks ago, on the subject of the possibility to "win" the game with complete domination of the map.

Complete domination of the map is possible, but unlikely. But, domination does not have to be exclusively military conquest. There could be political, economic, military and even social domination of the map.

Yes, the system is being set up for there to be perpetual conflict, in many different forms. Again, economic, military, political and even social forms of conflict. Conflict is what is going to sell this game. The broader scale that conflict will be, the more it will sell. Settlement vs Settlement and Formation combat are what will differentiate PFO from the other MMOs.


Bluddwolf wrote:
Settlement vs Settlement and Formation combat are what will differentiate PFO from the other MMOs.

This much is assuredly true.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Bluddwolf wrote:
Complete domination of the map is possible, but unlikely. But, domination does not have to be exclusively military conquest. There could be political, economic, military and even social domination of the map.

I agree, which is why I don't see why it is a community couldn't have a consensus about a neutral settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:

From my perspective PFO is going to have to strike a good balance between alot of different activities if it wants to be truely successfull. PvP is going to be a major aspect of the game. However, it is important that it does not become such a dominant aspect of gameplay that it crowds out the other aspects of gameply. If it does, IMO, then what you are going to see happen is a positive feedback loop where eventualy the only players logging in to play will be the ones doing so to PvP. If that is the case, then it better hope that the PvP it offers is qualitatevly better then the hordes of other PvP focused online games out there, or it will be drowned out in a sea of competition.

If PvP dominates the game will fluctuate.

while (online == true)
{
PvP dominates, PvE gets frustrating, PvE leaves
PvP bored, no PvE to target, PvP leaves
PvE prospers and grows, PvP starts to grow
}

I suspect the game will be in a constant flux like this, and the magnitude is based on how GW balances PvP in the system.

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Settlement vs Settlement and Formation combat are what will differentiate PFO from the other MMOs.
This much is assuredly true.

I'm not the biggest PvP fan in the world (no, Shaibes, really?), but I am very excited and eager to see PC formation combat. It has the potential to be beyond cool.

Goblin Squad Member

Valkenr wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:

From my perspective PFO is going to have to strike a good balance between alot of different activities if it wants to be truely successfull. PvP is going to be a major aspect of the game. However, it is important that it does not become such a dominant aspect of gameplay that it crowds out the other aspects of gameply. If it does, IMO, then what you are going to see happen is a positive feedback loop where eventualy the only players logging in to play will be the ones doing so to PvP. If that is the case, then it better hope that the PvP it offers is qualitatevly better then the hordes of other PvP focused online games out there, or it will be drowned out in a sea of competition.

If PvP dominates the game will fluctuate.

while (online == true)
{
PvP dominates, PvE gets frustrating, PvE leaves
PvP bored, no PvE to target, PvP leaves
PvE prospers and grows, PvP starts to grow
}

I suspect the game will be in a constant flux like this, and the magnitude is based on how GW balances PvP in the system.

Maybe PVE'ers need to learn to PVP, Since PVP'ers do PVE.

Simple fact in a game like this, you cannot have one without the other.

PVP'ers must PVE to be able to PVP. PVE'ers must PVP in order to PVE.

Goblin Squad Member

I expect most of the folks who try PFO will end up enjoying PvP in it, and I think that's because the overall experience of PvP in PFO will be significantly different than it is in most "Open World PvP" games.

Goblin Squad Member

Shaibes wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Settlement vs Settlement and Formation combat are what will differentiate PFO from the other MMOs.
This much is assuredly true.
I'm not the biggest PvP fan in the world (no, Shaibes, really?), but I am very excited and eager to see PC formation combat. It has the potential to be beyond cool.

The other potential area where PFO can truly shine is in the area of conflict over limited resources. Sure EVE had this too, just lock down a system with NBSI and you can farm the system.

The conflict over resources here in PFO has many more points of entry (not meaning geographic access) for players to participate in it. Sure you can control a hex and use an NBSI policy to lock it down. Or you can raid your rival's outposts in the dead of night, stealing their resources. You can attack their caravans and SAD or just loot them. Or you can beat them in the market game, and squeeze them out.

Again, sure you could do this in EVE or some of the other MMOs out there, but I think PFO will find itself in a position to do it better.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Xeen wrote:

Maybe PVE'ers need to learn to PVP, Since PVP'ers do PVE.

Simple fact in a game like this, you cannot have one without the other.

PVP'ers must PVE to be able to PVP. PVE'ers must PVP in order to PVE.

We are not anymore a society where "competition" is sacred that's just the way it is. More and more people are feeling uncomfortable in a competitive environment. I don't say it's cool, but saying "Maybe PVE'ers need to learn to PVP" is useless, since it isn't a problem of learning but a problem of unwillingness to participate in this kind of interactions, whatever we think about it. you can't force people to like something.

So Valk's 'While' will stay true anyway.

And er : "Since PVP'ers do PVE." yeah er, not necessarily true... Far from it... Geez, when I was leading in WoW, a significant portion of PvP players, well seriously, I wanted to punch them in the face sometimes.

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Settlement vs Settlement and Formation combat are what will differentiate PFO from the other MMOs.
This much is assuredly true.

While this is true, I'm not sure it will be a distinction with much meaingfull difference for most of the player base.

Settlement vs Settlement combat is clearly a very interesting and cool gameplay element..... for those making the decisions about which settlement to attack and when and how to attack them. However, that what?.... maybe 1 percent of the player base?

For the other 99 percent of those PvP-ing who are told when to salute and how high to jump.... functionaly it doesn't make much interesting difference to thier gameplay.

As far as formation combat.... we know so little about how it's really going to work that I think it's difficult to draw much of any conclusion there (even whether GW will really end up getting it to work)... it could end up being a very cool differentiator or it could end up being something that is fun and interesting to the formation leader and makes combat even more boring to the other guys in the formation.

For the game to do well, it's going to have to offer fun and interesting gameplay for the folks willing to play the privates...not just the folks who get to play captain. Otherwise you'll end up only with folks who want to play captain and nobody willing to play private... it's not hard to guess how that would work out.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Audoucet wrote:
Xeen wrote:

Maybe PVE'ers need to learn to PVP, Since PVP'ers do PVE.

Simple fact in a game like this, you cannot have one without the other.

PVP'ers must PVE to be able to PVP. PVE'ers must PVP in order to PVE.

We are not anymore a society where "competition" is sacred that's just the way it is. More and more people are feeling uncomfortable in a competitive environment. I don't say it's cool, but saying "Maybe PVE'ers need to learn to PVP" is useless, since it isn't a problem of learning but a problem of unwillingness to participate in this kind of interactions, whatever we think about it. you can't force people to like something.

So Valk's 'While' will stay true anyway.

And er : "Since PVP'ers do PVE." yeah er, not necessarily true... Far from it... Geez, when I was leading in WoW, a significant portion of PvP players, well seriously, I wanted to punch them in the face sometimes.

That is because in WOW, PVP'ers do not lose anything. If they are killed in combat, they can go back to their corpse (it was this way the one time I saw the game). Granted there was corpse camping, but not all the time.

In PFO, there will be loss. People will pick up what is left after you die. You will not get it back. Therefore you must PVE, unless of course you are a master at PVP and can stay alive.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Valkenr wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:

From my perspective PFO is going to have to strike a good balance between alot of different activities if it wants to be truely successfull. PvP is going to be a major aspect of the game. However, it is important that it does not become such a dominant aspect of gameplay that it crowds out the other aspects of gameply. If it does, IMO, then what you are going to see happen is a positive feedback loop where eventualy the only players logging in to play will be the ones doing so to PvP. If that is the case, then it better hope that the PvP it offers is qualitatevly better then the hordes of other PvP focused online games out there, or it will be drowned out in a sea of competition.

If PvP dominates the game will fluctuate.

while (online == true)
{
PvP dominates, PvE gets frustrating, PvE leaves
PvP bored, no PvE to target, PvP leaves
PvE prospers and grows, PvP starts to grow
}

I suspect the game will be in a constant flux like this, and the magnitude is based on how GW balances PvP in the system.

Maybe PVE'ers need to learn to PVP, Since PVP'ers do PVE.

Simple fact in a game like this, you cannot have one without the other.

PVP'ers must PVE to be able to PVP. PVE'ers must PVP in order to PVE.

Xeen, I don't think most people here (alright there are some) expect that they'll be able to go through PFO without encountering PvP.

Though I have more interest in PvE and RP in PFO.... I certainly expect to participate in PvP... both when I'm planning and want to do so... and when I'm not planning and don't want to do so.

That wasn't the point of my post. The point of my post was that different people enjoy doing different things... and PFO is going to need people who have alot of different interests to be successfull.
If PvP ends up the only interesting gameplay aspect because GW have focused so much attention on it and everything else feels dull and tacked on...or if PvP becomes so all pervasive that it prevents people from experiencing the other aspects they enjoy....then the only people logging are people who's only interest is to PvP...and only when they want to PvP....in which case PFO had better hope it's PvP blows every other PvP focused game out of the water... and that's a tall order.

You aren't going to get people to spend thier time and money on an entertainment product that doesn't allow them to do the things that are entertaining for them.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Settlement vs Settlement and Formation combat are what will differentiate PFO from the other MMOs.
This much is assuredly true.

While this is true, I'm not sure it will be a distinction with much meaingfull difference for most of the player base.

Settlement vs Settlement combat is clearly a very interesting and cool gameplay element..... for those making the decisions about which settlement to attack and when and how to attack them. However, that what?.... maybe 1 percent of the player base?

For the other 99 percent of those PvP-ing who are told when to salute and how high to jump.... functionaly it doesn't make much interesting difference to thier gameplay.

I disagree. Having played EVE for many years and never once being in a position of any particular influence, I can tell you that even if you don't have agency over the decision itself, being a part of the large scale battles for territory is a thrilling thing. You DO care about the war you are fighting, even if you didn't choose to fight it. It is very easy to get invested in this type of conflict, the reasons for it, the propaganda, and that investment is hard to get outside of Alliance/Settlement level maneuvering.

Ignoring the fact that Settlement warfare will be one of the few drivers of really large scale battles, while being disconnected from the decision does mean that my gameplay is mechanically no different, there is a difference, and that difference is in WHY I am playing.

Scarab Sages Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Some MMO groups excel at making the rank and file aware of their impact on the grand scale.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:


Maybe PVE'ers need to learn to PVP, Since PVP'ers do PVE.

Simple fact in a game like this, you cannot have one without the other.

PVP'ers must PVE to be able to PVP. PVE'ers must PVP in order to PVE.

This seems to be an idea unique to the UNC that they keep trying to shove down everyones throats.

Someone who focuses entirely on a PvE build will have a high output.
Someone who focuses entirely on a PvP build will have a high effectiveness.
Someone who focuses on PvP and PvE will have shortcomings in both areas.

Yes PvPers can PvE, but if GW is doing their job there won't be a build that is equally effective and competitive with pure PvP and PvE builds.

Imagine there are 1000 units/hr of PvP threat, 1000 units/hr of PvE resources, and 100 allied players in a hex.

If 50 players can dissipate 20 units/hour of PvP threat each, and the other 50 can collect 20 units/hour of PvE resources, they cover the output of the zone.

You can also have every player dissipate 10 units/hr of each to the same end.

Protection is a commodity to be traded, just like everything else.

In practice, a collection of diverse specialists is better than a bunch of generalists.

Goblin Squad Member

I don't think it is wise to instigate in a thread already moderated once...

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

Big thanks to Gurzaak for alerting me to this thread - will start one to give some more info.

Edit: Give me a moment to formulate something - should be in the next 30-40 minutes - don't think it works in 2 lines

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Valkenr wrote:
Xeen wrote:


Maybe PVE'ers need to learn to PVP, Since PVP'ers do PVE.

Simple fact in a game like this, you cannot have one without the other.

PVP'ers must PVE to be able to PVP. PVE'ers must PVP in order to PVE.

This seems to be an idea unique to the UNC that they keep trying to shove down everyones throats.

Actually I'm going to surprise you both, and probably many others, and disagree with Xeen on his points.

You can PvE without having to do PvP. You can PvP without having to do PvE. Both are connected, but not directly so. It is the game that can not survive without both.

Now, will a settlement benefit if everyone can PvP at a basic level, yes, and they should. If a settlement needs everyone to PvE at a basic level, should the pvpers.... Yes they should. Settlements not only need both , but they may have times when "all hands" need to do both.

Now I don't know about shoving these ideas down anyone's throats, I think that it is initially trying to open people's eyes to what we feel are the realities of open world PvP MMOs.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:


Now, will a settlement benefit if everyone can PvP at a basic level, yes, and they should. If a settlement needs everyone to PvE at a basic level, should the pvpers.... Yes they should. Settlements not only need both , but they may have times when "all hands" need to do both.

Sorry to lump the whole company in, but you have to admit that the UNC doesn't have a great track record interacting with people with aversions to PvP.

There is a basic level that everyone has to follow if they are going to last in the game: Turn and attack your attacker. No build with be 0% effective against other players.

Goblin Squad Member

Valkenr wrote:
Xeen wrote:


Maybe PVE'ers need to learn to PVP, Since PVP'ers do PVE.

Simple fact in a game like this, you cannot have one without the other.

PVP'ers must PVE to be able to PVP. PVE'ers must PVP in order to PVE.

This seems to be an idea unique to the UNC that they keep trying to shove down everyones throats.

Someone who focuses entirely on a PvE build will have a high output.
Someone who focuses entirely on a PvP build will have a high effectiveness.
Someone who focuses on PvP and PvE will have shortcomings in both areas.

Yes PvPers can PvE, but if GW is doing their job there won't be a build that is equally effective and competitive with pure PvP and PvE builds.

Imagine there are 1000 units/hr of PvP threat, 1000 units/hr of PvE resources, and 100 allied players in a hex.

If 50 players can dissipate 20 units/hour of PvP threat each, and the other 50 can collect 20 units/hour of PvE resources, they cover the output of the zone.

You can also have every player dissipate 10 units/hr of each to the same end.

Protection is a commodity to be traded, just like everything else.

In practice, a collection of diverse specialists is better than a bunch of generalists.

The EVE lesson is that a collection of specialised ALTs, even if you stop training the mining/gathering ones once they are sufficiently competent, is far more useful than a single one-size-fits-all rainbow character.

There seems to be an underlying aversion to multi-characters and alts in the forum. Probably because both TT D&D and Hollywood fantasy movies promote the amazing one man hero saves the world idiom - but in reality the chosen XP system for pathfinder makes alts not just optimal but essential. This seems to even be acknowledged by the devs with the destiny twin.

Goblin Squad Member

GrumpyMel wrote:

Xeen, I don't think most people here (alright there are some) expect that they'll be able to go through PFO without encountering PvP.

I suspect that is true, Steelwing and others have told them that PvE players would be slaves to PvP

Aragon, at least seeks PvE to form the production side of their economy.

But this is after some of the PvE crowd have left.

In separate thread, I hope Thod and others can re-interest them.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think most of the PvE people like myself just hope there is a way of playing wherein our PvE gains wont be trampled by weekly PvP raids ><;;

Goblin Squad Member

Yelta wrote:
I think most of the PvE people like myself just hope there is a way of playing wherein our PvE gains wont be trampled by weekly PvP raids ><;;

You either have to stay near the starter towns, or find a place that can offer you protection in exchange for some of your PvE gains.

Goblin Squad Member

Valkenr wrote:

You either have to stay near the starter towns, or find a place that can offer you protection in exchange for some of your PvE gains.

I hope to find a group where they will take my crafting, gathering and PvE spoils in trade for a certain amount of protection. I'm a team player and will certainly cooperate in pvp if needed but I am not a pvper at heart so that might be the one thing that drives me away from this game.

Honestly I am betting I can find a group who will want my Cleric heals and value my innate desire to gather resources enough to protect me.

601 to 650 of 712 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / Dissapointment Among the Silent All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.