Dissapointment Among the Silent


Pathfinder Online

651 to 700 of 712 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

There are about 33 groups that fit those criteria. :)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yelta wrote:
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.

Talk to the keepers - link below :D

Keepers of the Circle.

Keepers of the Circle are emphasizing non-aggression and the PvE "rings" have equal say with the PvP in settlement matters.

Goblin Squad Member

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

What I think is interesting and to add to the above, which I also really hope to see materialize, a porous geographical map of small flashpoints all over the place; is the rise of stable kingdoms which provide internal PvE opportunities (to develop higher quality of course) which increases their attraction for PvE players who want that and security zones provided - which also means these kingdoms have bigger upkeep costs which puts them on the front line of expansionism.

And we all know about the rise and fall of the Roman Empire.

Goblin Squad Member

AvenaOats wrote:


What I think is interesting and to add to the above, which I also really hope to see materialize, a porous geographical map of small flashpoints all over the place; is the rise of stable kingdoms which provide internal PvE opportunities (to develop higher quality of course) which increases their attraction for PvE players who want that and security zones provided - which also means these kingdoms have bigger upkeep costs which puts them on the front line of expansionism.

And we all know about the rise and fall of the Roman Empire.

It would be very interesting indeed to be able to see "hot spots" and maybe read who those involved were.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite of Fidelis wrote:
AvenaOats wrote:


What I think is interesting and to add to the above, which I also really hope to see materialize, a porous geographical map of small flashpoints all over the place; is the rise of stable kingdoms which provide internal PvE opportunities (to develop higher quality of course) which increases their attraction for PvE players who want that and security zones provided - which also means these kingdoms have bigger upkeep costs which puts them on the front line of expansionism.

And we all know about the rise and fall of the Roman Empire.

It would be very interesting indeed to be able to see "hot spots" and maybe read who those involved were.

I think that will be part of each groups' duties to "secure the area" they operate in that they've claimed as well as contested/unclaimed regions.

Tbh, the more that's localized and under the radar, the more smaller groups will pose an effectiveness - which I think is probably good for the game? If borders are porous there's always a chance of a spontaneous encounter and that's where the fireworks show works best?!

Scarab Sages

Valkenr wrote:


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.

From Aragon Settlement thread:

Bluddwolf wrote:

If you are more interested in PVE content, you will find a comfy home with our other three chartered companies:

Grim Maw Clan (TN) - PVE will be Aragon's exclusive crafters. All crafting needs within Aragon, will be made by their highly skilled hands.

Lion Council (TN)- PVE will be Aragon's exclusive merchants, they are a Brazilian based company and are recruiting. All trade to and from Aragon goes through their warehouse.

The Wayfarers of Echo Wood (TN)- PVE / Combat will be Aragon's exploration and Escalation specialists.

Join Settlement: Aragon (CN)

We are PvE too. These biases do not reflect the reality inside our settlement.

Goblin Squad Member

Valkenr wrote:
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.

That is actually not true. I don't have an issue with people who don't like to PvP, or just prefer to focus on PvE (ie crafting or adventuring). What I have been critical of is for those who have asked for nothing but penalties for PvP, PvE only servers, only consensual PvP or outright rejected the game because in some instance they might actually have to put down their harvesting tools and defend their settlement.

Fortunately these have been few and far between. It was no less a negative reception that I gave the one guy who came in here boasting that he was looking to Awox (grief). Care Bears and Griefers are equally detrimental to the game, and should all be told.... Learn to accept PFO as it is or find somewhere else to spend their time.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Asking for PvE servers is dumb.

But : " I have been critical of is for those who have (...) outright rejected the game because in some instance they might actually have to put down their harvesting tools and defend their settlement. "

Well, it is kind of what he's talking about.

Not that I mind heh, I really don't, but it is a reality.

And about PvP penalties well, I won't begin a new flood of arguments and counter arguments, but it is a valid desire, it all depend on your mindset.

MY dream game, it would be a game where there is absolutely no PvP limit, but where PvP, would be as much desirable as IRL war.

I would love a game where attacking people is a BIG sacrifice. Something even evil characters don't want because of the consequences. A game where being killed by a bandit would be a f@@#ing SHOCK, something you weren't prepared for. A game where even a big PvPer doesn't have hundreds of kills.

Goblin Squad Member

Valkenr wrote:
... the UNC doesn't have a great track record interacting with people with aversions to PvP.

I lol'ed

Goblin Squad Member

I'm actually pro-Pvp even while I tend to be a bit of a carebear myself. The game totally appears to be designed that we will need to fight over hexes for resources and I have no issue with that. If it is well implemented I'm sure it will be fun and exciting.

Out and about adventuring or even gathering I expect to run across other people who may be friendly or may not be friendly.

What I don't want is to log in and find my settlement destroyed twice a week or to be murdered while crafting in town. If thats the pvp I crave I will just play Rust. So many times I log in and other players killed me and took over my house ><

If the games PvP turns out to wreck the game for me I will just not play and go back to playing FFXIV. I'm not going to kick and scream if the games design doesn't fit my idea of fun. However I will give as much constructive feedback as I can.

Either way I will give the game a chance, I paid for crowdforger buddy so my sister and I can both play and we are both pretty excited for a new game!

Goblin Squad Member

Yelta wrote:

I'm actually pro-Pvp even while I tend to be a bit of a carebear myself. The game totally appears to be designed that we will need to fight over hexes for resources and I have no issue with that. If it is well implemented I'm sure it will be fun and exciting.

Out and about adventuring or even gathering I expect to run across other people who may be friendly or may not be friendly.

What I don't want is to log in and find my settlement destroyed twice a week or to be murdered while crafting in town. If thats the pvp I crave I will just play Rust. So many times I log in and other players killed me and took over my house ><

If the games PvP turns out to wreck the game for me I will just not play and go back to playing FFXIV. I'm not going to kick and scream if the games design doesn't fit my idea of fun. However I will give as much constructive feedback as I can.

Either way I will give the game a chance, I paid for crowdforger buddy so my sister and I can both play and we are both pretty excited for a new game!

Reputation, if it works as planned, should greatly limit undesired PvP practices. It is unlikely you will be attacked in town unless you have an assassin contract on you. And a Settlement will take weeks to destroy with siege mechanics. Your Settlement will most likely see signs of a siege/war coming long before it actually takes place.

Goblin Squad Member

Black Silver of The Veiled, T7V wrote:


Reputation, if it works as planned, should greatly limit undesired PvP practices. It is unlikely you will be attacked in town unless you have an assassin contract on you. And a Settlement will take weeks to destroy with siege mechanics. Your Settlement will most likely see signs of a siege/war coming long before it actually takes place.

Awesome, thats the kind of PvP I can get behind and participate in. It definitely seems like GW intends to keep things fair and enjoyable to everyone. I was encouraged that they already modified something in the alpha to prevent spawn camping.

Please forgive my ignorance on game systems and such. I'm still playing catchup since I basically forgot about PFO since the kickstarter.

Is there a 'Introduce yourself' thread I should be posing in btw?

Goblin Squad Member

Yelta wrote:
Is there a 'Introduce yourself' thread I should be posing in btw?

There's a few :)

Hello My Name Is: _______

Community Introductions & Roll Call

Forum reader age? (not that I'm going to ask a lady her age)

Goblin Squad Member

(edit before I could even post because Nihimon totally ninja'd me)

And if you want to introduce your character, and talk about whether you'll be doing a lot of Roleplaying in game, there's this

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think there are 2 seperate and legitimate concerns here that could cause PFO will stumble...

1) Will PvP become some dominant in terms of play that EFFECTIVELY it prevents non-PvP characters from pursuing thier interests. For a non-PvP character, PvP is a hazard. It's a hazard that can be mitigated by various methods but not negated entirely. That's cool, it's part of the interesting gameplay choices and interactions that a player is supposed to be faced with in PFO. Even with all precautions taken there is a risk the character will lose resources due to PvP. Again, this is cool, it's part of what will make for interesting gameplay. The risk is there for PvP'ers as well....every time they engage in PvP against another PvP'er someone will lose and suffer the loss of resources. The difference is the PvP'er enjoys the time spent in interaction even if they lost, the non-PvPer doesn't even if they won.

Again this is all good as long as PvP remains a risk that be mitigated to an acceptable level. However, if PvP becomes a certainty that even good mitigations proove ineffective against or are overly burdensome, If they get jumped every time they step foot out the perverbial gate (to use a cliche) then they aren't going to enjoy playing PFO...even if they win in those PvP encounters and don't lose resources...because they will be continualy forced to engage in an aspect of the game they don't enjoy and prevented from engaging in ones they do.

It's actually irelevant whether they can have an effective PvP build along with an effective PvE (or crafting, etc) build because winning or losing is not what matters, it's how thier playtime is spent. I could sink every shot in basketball....it's not going to get me to join a basketball league if I don't enjoy the sport in the first place.

2) Will focus on PvP cause non-PvP aspects to get short shrift in terms of limited development resources? For those that enjoy non-PvP gameplay... that gameplay doesn't have to be bland, boring or stale if done well and given sufficient resources and attention. However, like any gameplay aspect...if relatively ignored in terms of focus and attention...it will be bland and boring even for those who prefer those aspects of gameplay and no one will want to do it.

I'm convinced it's POSSIBLE for GW to execute well on both those aspects, else I wouldn't be here. I also think they intend to execute well on both those aspects because they understand what it means to thier potential success. However it is a very delicate and difficult balance to strike. It's going to be a constant challenge for them.

Note... I'm not disappointed at all. So far, they are doing exactly what they advertised they would do in the Kickstarter.... and are trying to design a game that I am definately interested in seeing. I am however, cautious... it's a very difficult thing they are attempting and really hasn't been done well by anyone in the past...but I knew that risk going in.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly I kind of wish this thread would die off.

There is no much more to this game than running around killing monsters and players. Their a Grand Strategy aspect to this game that has not been seen in many games before it.

Diplomacy, Trade, Resource Management, Morale, all these are real factors that will be in the hands of players, not the developers.

A competitive environment does not mean a toxic environment. Trust GW to deliver the best game they can with the resources they have.

Goblin Squad Member

Kemedo wrote:
Valkenr wrote:


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.

From Aragon Settlement thread:

Bluddwolf wrote:

If you are more interested in PVE content, you will find a comfy home with our other three chartered companies:

Grim Maw Clan (TN) - PVE will be Aragon's exclusive crafters. All crafting needs within Aragon, will be made by their highly skilled hands.

Lion Council (TN)- PVE will be Aragon's exclusive merchants, they are a Brazilian based company and are recruiting. All trade to and from Aragon goes through their warehouse.

The Wayfarers of Echo Wood (TN)- PVE / Combat will be Aragon's exploration and Escalation specialists.

Join Settlement: Aragon (CN)

We are PvE too. These biases do not reflect the reality inside our settlement.

That is because the bias is on their end.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lord Regent: Deacon Wulf wrote:
Diplomacy, Trade, Resource Management, Morale, all these are real factors that will be in the hands of players, not the developers.

Trying to tread lightly, because I'm acutely aware of the likelihood of easy misunderstanding.

First, I agree with you. The only reason I'm replying is because I think that issue of "Morale" is a very interesting topic that is worth pursuing.

I worry that attacking your enemy's morale (not the Morale Development Index, but the actual morale of the players) is too close to griefing because it has the potential to drive people away from the game. I also worry that, if this view is reasonable, it will inevitably lead to anything that reduces some players' morale being inappropriately tarred as "griefing". It's a very challenging line to walk, and I wonder what other folks think.

I hope that most players maintain high enough spirits that they enjoy the game and continue to log in even when they're Settlement is being burned to the ground. I especially hope that is true of anyone that I personally take a stand against.

Goblin Squad Member

It's an interesting conversation point. Would breaking a war targets will to fight also be included in this line of almost griefing?

I could see someone using overwhelming force to break moral, and I would not see that as being in the same category. Am I far away from your position of are we trending?

*note: I don't mean my organization has overwhelming force, we don't. I am speaking of the tactic, not specific groups*

Goblin Squad Member

I think that's where Ryan's long post on "expect to lose often" comes into play. Some players are going to quit the game the first time they lose a settlement or suffer a major defeat- these are the brittle players that create failure cascades. If you walk into the game with the attitude that success and failure are both temporary and that what matters is continuing to play to the next success, you and your organization will be a lot more resilient.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Lord Regent: Deacon Wulf wrote:
Diplomacy, Trade, Resource Management, Morale, all these are real factors that will be in the hands of players, not the developers.

Trying to tread lightly, because I'm acutely aware of the likelihood of easy misunderstanding.

First, I agree with you. The only reason I'm replying is because I think that issue of "Morale" is a very interesting topic that is worth pursuing.

I worry that attacking your enemy's morale (not the Morale Development Index, but the actual morale of the players) is too close to griefing because it has the potential to drive people away from the game. I also worry that, if this view is reasonable, it will inevitably lead to anything that reduces some players' morale being inappropriately tarred as "griefing". It's a very challenging line to walk, and I wonder what other folks think.

I hope that most players maintain high enough spirits that they enjoy the game and continue to log in even when they're Settlement is being burned to the ground. I especially hope that is true of anyone that I personally take a stand against.

There are two groups of players. Players that play for the group, and players that play for the game.

Players that play for the group are a concern when it comes to actual morale, because if their morale is lowered, they are more likely to leave the game, than to find another group.

One thing I would consider adding is a limit to how much you can attack a non-war target. I get this idea from killing Decius 50 times (when he was red!) at the Sotterhill spawn point. At 40 kills I was fine, then sometime after that my rep tanked. It would be nice to see a penalty for over-targeting a player or organization, outside of War or amicable PvP agreements.

Goblin Squad Member

-Aet- Charlie wrote:

It's an interesting conversation point. Would breaking a war targets will to fight also be included in this line of almost griefing?

I could see someone using overwhelming force to break moral, and I would not see that as being in the same category. Am I far away from your position of are we trending?

*note: I don't mean my organization has overwhelming force, we don't. I am speaking of the tactic, not specific groups*

I really don't know the answers (about much of anything, truth be told). I spend a lot of time thinking about how to deal with situations effectively while also remaining true to my principles. I'm quite confident I fail at that (on one measure or the other) more often than I succeed, but it occupies a lot of my thought.

I suppose the distinction that's nagging me is the fine line between demoralizing an enemy to the point that they lose the will to defend a particular objective, and demoralizing them to the point that they lose the will to continue playing the game. The former is utterly justified. The latter might even be justified, but it would be extremely unfortunate.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
-Aet- Charlie wrote:

It's an interesting conversation point. Would breaking a war targets will to fight also be included in this line of almost griefing?

I could see someone using overwhelming force to break moral, and I would not see that as being in the same category. Am I far away from your position of are we trending?

*note: I don't mean my organization has overwhelming force, we don't. I am speaking of the tactic, not specific groups*

I really don't know the answers (about much of anything, truth be told). I spend a lot of time thinking about how to deal with situations effectively while also remaining true to my principles. I'm quite confident I fail at that (on one measure or the other) more often than I succeed, but it occupies a lot of my thought.

I suppose the distinction that's nagging me is the fine line between demoralizing an enemy to the point that they lose the will to defend a particular objective, and demoralizing them to the point that they lose the will to continue playing the game. The former is utterly justified. The latter might even be justified, but it would be extremely unfortunate.

Are you talking about crossing that line unintentionally (you wanted to break their will to hold an objective. You were successful but unfortunately also broke their will to play the game) or intentionally?

Is there a difference in your mind, where one is more acceptable than the other?

Goblin Squad Member

Valkenr wrote:
One thing I would consider adding is a limit to how much you can attack a non-war target. I get this idea from killing Decius 50 times (when he was red!) at the Sotterhill spawn point. At 40 kills I was fine, then sometime after that my rep tanked. It would be nice to see a penalty for over-targeting a player or organization, outside of War or amicable PvP agreements.

Isn't that what reputation is for? To deter frequent instances of less meaningful PvP? What other type of penalty would you have in mind?

Goblin Squad Member

Guurzak wrote:
I think that's where Ryan's long post on "expect to lose often" comes into play. Some players are going to quit the game the first time they lose a settlement or suffer a major defeat- these are the brittle players that create failure cascades. If you walk into the game with the attitude that success and failure are both temporary and that what matters is continuing to play to the next success, you and your organization will be a lot more resilient.

No disagreement from me, but my concern is actually about the attacker, not the defender. That is, I'm concerned about being in a position of attacking another group's morale without feeling that my actions are unjust or that I'm driving people away from the game. I expect many "good" groups will face this dilemma. We aren't in control of how other people react, only how we act.

Goblin Squad Member

Valkenr wrote:
One thing I would consider adding is a limit to how much you can attack a non-war target. I get this idea from killing Decius 50 times (when he was red!) at the Sotterhill spawn point. At 40 kills I was fine, then sometime after that my rep tanked. It would be nice to see a penalty for over-targeting a player or organization, outside of War or amicable PvP agreements.

I expect attacks on Morale will not be quantifiable by the systems.

Goblin Squad Member

-Aet- Charlie wrote:

Are you talking about crossing that line unintentionally (you wanted to break their will to hold an objective. You were successful but unfortunately also broke their will to play the game) or intentionally?

Is there a difference in your mind, where one is more acceptable than the other?

I'm less concerned about the actual result than about the self-perceptions of those who do the attacking. Folks who hold themselves to high standards (even if they consistently fail to live up to them) will struggle with the question, "how much is too much?"

I've learned that I process difficult problems more easily if I can bounce them off other people. Sometimes, just trying to express the problem clearly presents the solution - not that that's happened here yet :)

Goblin Squad Member

Morale is why shock and awe is effective against a standing armed force/nation. Effective groups will be using methods to demoralize their enemy. Is it good or evil to do so? Neither. No nation has ever benefited from a prolonged conflict (to paraphrase the war sage). If everyone has failed such that war/fighting becomes necessary it's best to end it quickly.

Also: Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across.

Goblin Squad Member

Merkaile of Fidelis wrote:
Is it good or evil to do so? Neither.

I couldn't agree more. Nothing is evil in itself but the spirit in which it is done.

But the rationalizations that justify such things in the real world are largely absent in an MMO. It may be critically important for me to capture a particular Settlement, but it's also critically important for me to encourage the players on the other side to continue playing, and to have fun doing so.

Merkaile of Fidelis wrote:
Also: Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across.

At first blush, that sounds like the perfect response. I'll have to let it percolate for a while, but it elegantly addresses the exact problem that concerned me.

Goblin Squad Member

I think a more prevalent question is if the effect is the same for both intentions, is there even a difference and if not, how will those actions be received by those not involved?

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Lord Regent: Deacon Wulf wrote:
Diplomacy, Trade, Resource Management, Morale, all these are real factors that will be in the hands of players, not the developers.

Trying to tread lightly, because I'm acutely aware of the likelihood of easy misunderstanding.

First, I agree with you. The only reason I'm replying is because I think that issue of "Morale" is a very interesting topic that is worth pursuing.

I worry that attacking your enemy's morale (not the Morale Development Index, but the actual morale of the players) is too close to griefing because it has the potential to drive people away from the game. I also worry that, if this view is reasonable, it will inevitably lead to anything that reduces some players' morale being inappropriately tarred as "griefing". It's a very challenging line to walk, and I wonder what other folks think.

I hope that most players maintain high enough spirits that they enjoy the game and continue to log in even when they're Settlement is being burned to the ground. I especially hope that is true of anyone that I personally take a stand against.

Hehe. I like this....

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
I couldn't agree more. Nothing is evil in itself but the spirit in which it is done.

Not to be a nit-picker (and sorry if only using this one part of the quote takes it out of context), but this statement isn't true in Galorion. There are MANY actions that are "evil". Why? Because the Gods say so. Assassinations, Necromancy, and many other spells are considered "Evil".

Edit: just to clarify, after reading this myself. little may be evil as a PLAYER, but only as a CHARACTER. Easy to mix the two up when speaking about character actions

Edit2: messed up the quoting. somehow deleted the end quote so whole message was one :S


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Disappointmet Among the Silent.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Welp, read over your post again, and I think I may have been half blind reading it the first time. because I think this part of your post (which I took out of the first quote I did, doing exactly what I didn't want to do) hints at exactly what I said in my post.

Nihimon wrote:


But the rationalizations that justify such things in the real world are largely absent in an MMO.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Lord Regent: Deacon Wulf wrote:
Diplomacy, Trade, Resource Management, Morale, all these are real factors that will be in the hands of players, not the developers.

Trying to tread lightly, because I'm acutely aware of the likelihood of easy misunderstanding.

First, I agree with you. The only reason I'm replying is because I think that issue of "Morale" is a very interesting topic that is worth pursuing.

I worry that attacking your enemy's morale (not the Morale Development Index, but the actual morale of the players) is too close to griefing because it has the potential to drive people away from the game. I also worry that, if this view is reasonable, it will inevitably lead to anything that reduces some players' morale being inappropriately tarred as "griefing". It's a very challenging line to walk, and I wonder what other folks think.

I hope that most players maintain high enough spirits that they enjoy the game and continue to log in even when they're Settlement is being burned to the ground. I especially hope that is true of anyone that I personally take a stand against.

I think this is a very fine line and an area of concern for me as well. For me....

Acceptable = Attack your enemies physical assets such as; Settlement, POI's, Trade Caravans, Resource Gathering Operations, Patrols, Active and Passive Defences, Etc..

Unacceptable = Purposefully doing whatever you think will most annoy, irritate and disrupt thier play time in order to destroy thier game experience. Example: Using a ALTs to suicide gank them while they are quietly sitting at a table chatting/rping with a freind in some INN in an NPC starter town, creating a string of throwaway ALTS to screen/message SPAM them such that they are driven off in game chat channels because they constantly have to keep adding your new characters to thier ignore list.

The former is acceptable. You are breaking the enemies faith in the strength and capabilities of thier organization to be successfull. If they take the game too seriously, they MAY get upset as a result...but that's completely on them.... they could also be having a ball playing in a desperate and doomed effort for a lost cause. You are harming the organization and it's assets, how that effects the individuals enjoyment of the game is upto them.

The latter is, IMO, out and out griefing. You are trying to harm the organization by making it's individual players play time miserable...such that they don't want to play the game at all.

In some instances it may end up being a very fine line...but I think the old cliche of the golden rule is likely a good guide here... how would you feel about someone doing this to you. If you are not ok with that happening...don't do it.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the biggest challenge in a game like this is that an objective has to be, to some level, "Make things un-fun for your enemy." That makes it hard to avoid things like sore winners and sore losers. In bad cases, the winner is happy and the loser is miserable. That goes against what many people regard as the point of games: Keep things friendly outside of play and just enjoy yourself.

From solely the standpoint of someone who plays games non-competitively, to have fun, that paradox—the contradiction between "play" and "win"—is my second-biggest concern about PFO's future.

I like PvP, but I like friendly PvP. Whether I'll have the stomach to work in EVE-style PvP is just something I'll have to wait to find out.

Goblin Squad Member

Gol Tigari is right. If my god tells me that such and such is evil and forbidden, who am I to argue, even when those evils could be used to further the cause of good? Why is poison evil? Why is commanding the undead evil? Because Sarenrae says so.

Why, I know a certain commerce-minded cleric who has been arguing for years that the undead are an underserved community and potentially lucrative market demographic. But no. Despite his best and most persuasive efforts, he is still forbidden from trading with vampires. I think he remains stubbornly unconvinced in his heart, but then he is a gnome, and apparently they see things from unconventional perspectives.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Okay, so alignment in Golarion is a liiiittle bit...stupid.

Poison isn't evil.
Controlling undead is evil.
Mind control isn't evil.
Casting a spell with the Evil descriptor is evil.

All makes sense so far, right?

Cannibalism is evil. Even if you come from a culture that, say, consumes its dead to show respect, like the distinctly non-evil lizardfolk.

A guy can march around, enjoying the slaughter, spreading war and destruction, wrecking beautiful things, helping the cause of evil...and be Chaotic Neutral. His name is Gorum.

We're not gonna get into it, but suffice to say that this is an issue people sometimes like to argue about. A lot of people would object to my objections (or to the things I claim "make sense").

Point being, don't look at alignment too close. Odds are there'll be at least one thing you find moronic and lame.

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
...this is an issue people sometimes like to argue about.

One wonders how many things Paizo's put into its products with the specific intent to give their fans things to argue about.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
I've learned that I process difficult problems more easily if I can bounce them off other people. Sometimes, just trying to express the problem clearly presents the solution - not that that's happened here yet :)

Rubber duck debugging is wonderful thing.

Scarab Sages

"Cannibalism is evil."

There are indeed cultures that is not. Culture is a subjective value after all.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I tell you what, the first time I spend all day working to get some resource only to lose it before I can get to a bank because of PVP, I will stop playing. Sharing this misery by doing it to others doesn't seem like fun, either.

It's the same feeling you get when you clear 20 levels of Diablo and die, then realize you forgot to hit save. It stops being fun real quick.

I understand this can and will occur in PFO. I'm not asking that it doesn't. I'm just having the same conversation with myself that I've had along along this process: Is this something I will want to spend time and money doing?


Yeah, I agree, Kemedo. I think it's one of Golarion's lamer rules.

"Hey, my paladin is starving to death and he needs to go and save the world, so his cleric friend sacrificed himself so the paladin would be able to survive. Deity goes 'Ew, gross, I told you to save the world and stuff, but that is icky!' and paladin loses his powers. World burns."

But this isn't the place. >.>


1 person marked this as a favorite.
<Kabal> Kryzbyn wrote:

I tell you what, the first time I spend all day working t oget some resource only to lose it before I can get to a bank because of PVP, I will stop playing.

It's the same feeling you get when you clear 20 levels of Diablo and die, then realize you forgot to hit save. It stops being fun real quick.

I understand this can and will occur in PFO. I'm not asking that it doesn't. I'm just having the same conversation with myself that I've had along along this process: Is this something I will want to spend time and money doing?

Kryzbyn, here's some advice: Do shorter trips. Sure, it's slightly less efficient, but fun's what really matters. If you don't want to lose a day's work to PvP, avoid ever holding a day's work on your person. ;P

Scarab Sages

<Kabal> Kryzbyn wrote:
I tell you what, the first time I spend all day working to get some resource only to lose it before I can get to a bank because of PVP, I will stop playing. Sharing this misery by doing it to others doesn't seem like fun, either.

I guess this could be fun. I had awesomeness time playing Minecraft at Survival mode (where once you die, you drop all the item plus lost all the experience), because after you die the firsts times, you realise nothing things are not permament, and you should be sure to safe them before losing it is so expensive.

So, you take additional tasks to trying to minimize the death issues, and work around the difficulties. Per exemple, I never ever explore using diamond tools nor leaving my "castle" without minimal survival equipment (a door, a bed, torchs, food, map) and by having another copy of those itens stored at house. Once I clena up caves and fill it with torches, I can go back, get my diamond axe and pick the sweet rares cubes.

Minecraft is the new Lego.

TL;DR: The fact you can lost everything, change the way you play the game.

Goblin Squad Member

Kemedo wrote:


TL;DR: The fact you can lost everything, change the way you play the game.

I think then it may be me just adjusting my thinking. I used to get so pissed in Minecraft and then again in Rust when I would die and lose everything but once I realized how the game mechanics worked I adapted. I built strong attack proof homes and limited my resource gathering trips to how much I was willing to lose if I got killed on my way back home.

My home not being safe scares me. In Rust people break in and kill my sleeping body and ransack all my chests. Thats rough when you log in naked with a rock as a weapon. Then you have to have 2 or 3 backup houses just so you arent naked and unarmed for longer than necessary.

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
<Kabal> Kryzbyn wrote:

I tell you what, the first time I spend all day working t oget some resource only to lose it before I can get to a bank because of PVP, I will stop playing.

It's the same feeling you get when you clear 20 levels of Diablo and die, then realize you forgot to hit save. It stops being fun real quick.

I understand this can and will occur in PFO. I'm not asking that it doesn't. I'm just having the same conversation with myself that I've had along along this process: Is this something I will want to spend time and money doing?

Kryzbyn, here's some advice: Do shorter trips. Sure, it's slightly less efficient, but fun's what really matters. If you don't want to lose a day's work to PvP, avoid ever holding a day's work on your person. ;P

I think the encumbrance system is going to take care of that aspect of it, but that might be missing the point.

I realize my views aren't representative of Goblinworks', but I really want lots and lots of players who normally don't care for PvP to come and play PFO, and for PFO to be a fun game for them even when they do experience the PvP in it. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that to happen by telling them how they should approach PvP; I think the game itself and the community have to proactively welcome them.

I think the game systems we already have will do a fantastic job of helping folks who are concerned about PvP feel more comfortable about it in PFO. Reputation, in my opinion, works not just because it encourages the attackers to find appropriate targets, but also because it gives the defenders a sense that justice, swift and true, is unavoidable. I also think Encumbrance will serve very well to train players not to have so much on them that the loss of it is devastating.

The community response to those folks is also going to be important. That's the main reason I'm so easily riled when new folks are treated with disdain... and that's all I have to say about that.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

Yeah, I agree, Kemedo. I think it's one of Golarion's lamer rules.

"Hey, my paladin is starving to death and he needs to go and save the world, so his cleric friend sacrificed himself so the paladin would be able to survive. Deity goes 'Ew, gross, I told you to save the world and stuff, but that is icky!' and paladin loses his powers. World burns."

But this isn't the place. >.>

Er... Worst exemple ever. :p


Right, I forgot that paladins actually do have a "no gross stuff" rule in their codes. Boy, paladins are weeeird.

Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Right, I forgot that paladins actually do have a "no gross stuff" rule in their codes. Boy, paladins are weeeird.

We do the weird stuff!

651 to 700 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.