Goblin Squad Member
|
Ladies and Gentlemen,
In another thread I had an idea about a secondary type settlement, which Nihimon pointed out could be a Zero PvP windowed Settlement. I wanted to expound a bit on that idea, and wanted your thoughts as a community about said idea.
The Zero PvP Windowed Settlement would be an option through the same system GW is using for opening and closing said window. Once enacted it would freeze the window longer than when making a normal choice on increasing or decreasing the window.
At Zero PvP Windowed mode you would be limited in not only your DI, but also the ability to join a kingdom. Further more, you would be limited to the 6 hexes around you for expansion. For these limitations, however, there are some bonuses, such as not losing your settlement, PoIs or Outposts to PCs, but they can still be attacked by PvE events (GW wanted to add these at some point). You would also gain support from either Thornekeep, For Inevitable, or Riverwatch in the form of NPC guards/Marshals.
So essentially, these would be VERY small settlements that are supported by Starter Settlements, and allow for the more casual gamers to partake in the Settlement part of the game.
Thoughts?
Also, this idea stemmed from the Disappointment Among the Silent thread. This idea is just in support of alternative game play methods for those that consider themselves casual gamers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ladies and Gentlemen,
In another thread I had an idea about a secondary type settlement, which Nihimon pointed out could be a Zero PvP windowed Settlement. I wanted to expound a bit on that idea, and wanted your thoughts as a community about said idea.
The Zero PvP Windowed Settlement would be an option through the same system GW is using for opening and closing said window. Once enacted it would freeze the window longer than when making a normal choice on increasing or decreasing the window.
At Zero PvP Windowed mode you would be limited in not only your DI, but also the ability to join a kingdom. Further more, you would be limited to the 6 hexes around you for expansion. For these limitations, however, there are some bonuses, such as not losing your settlement, PoIs or Outposts to PCs, but they can still be attacked by PvE events (GW wanted to add these at some point). You would also gain support from either Thornekeep, For Inevitable, or Riverwatch in the form of NPC guards/Marshals.
So essentially, these would be VERY small settlements that are supported by Starter Settlements, and allow for the more casual gamers to partake in the Settlement part of the game.
Thoughts?
Also, this idea stemmed from the Disappointment Among the Silent thread. This idea is just in support of alternative game play methods for those that consider themselves casual gamers.
You have a zero PvP window settlement already, its called the NPC settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...the NPC settlement.I've not heard there'll be much for Aristocrats to do in the NPC Cities, Bluddwolf, though Crafters and Gatherers will probably be fine. That may've been what Cheatle was thinking about.
Also, Outposts do not have a PvP window, and so they can always be raided.
If GW would consider a PC run settlement that can not be PvP enabled, it should be so limited (even below) what an NPC settlement could support that it would not even be desirable.
Also, considering the limited settlement spaces on the map, it is really unfair to those that would want to fully participate in the game, but don't have the space to set up their settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ladies and Gentlemen,
In another thread I had an idea about a secondary type settlement, which Nihimon pointed out could be a Zero PvP windowed Settlement. I wanted to expound a bit on that idea, and wanted your thoughts as a community about said idea.
The Zero PvP Windowed Settlement would be an option through the same system GW is using for opening and closing said window. Once enacted it would freeze the window longer than when making a normal choice on increasing or decreasing the window.
At Zero PvP Windowed mode you would be limited in not only your DI, but also the ability to join a kingdom. Further more, you would be limited to the 6 hexes around you for expansion. For these limitations, however, there are some bonuses, such as not losing your settlement, PoIs or Outposts to PCs, but they can still be attacked by PvE events (GW wanted to add these at some point). You would also gain support from either Thornekeep, For Inevitable, or Riverwatch in the form of NPC guards/Marshals.
So essentially, these would be VERY small settlements that are supported by Starter Settlements, and allow for the more casual gamers to partake in the Settlement part of the game.
Thoughts?
Also, this idea stemmed from the Disappointment Among the Silent thread. This idea is just in support of alternative game play methods for those that consider themselves casual gamers.
I'm trying to come up with something to say about this idea without adding in massive amounts of derision. The first couple times I started typing, it didn't work. All I can say is that I think this is in NO WAY a good idea. A settlement is a big investment. There should be equally big risk along with it. Don't want to lose stuff? Stay in the NPC controlled zones. And leave it at that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, I am talking about those that want to participate in Settlement/PoI running/building.
After talking to Decius awhile, I have come to the conclusion that anything along these lines, that is player owned, could and would be gamed by other players. Essentially, ran by alts and resources funneled else where.
Decius had a good idea though, where NPC Settlements could be built/upgraded, with a pre-determined plan set out by GW, by PCs. There would still be limits there, like they have now.
Yes please. I don't mind the idea of my caravan being ambushed if I didn't hire enough muscle, but I am not a fan of OPEN pvp. If I had my way pvp would need a toggle on, or a TEF, temp enemy flag, for aggressive behavior.
Caravanning could be one of those actions that give you a TEF for example.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yes, I am talking about those that want to participate in Settlement/PoI running/building.
After talking to Decius awhile, I have come to the conclusion that anything along these lines, that is player owned, could and would be gamed by other players. Essentially, ran by alts and resources funneled else where.
Decius had a good idea though, where NPC Settlements could be built/upgraded, with a pre-determined plan set out by GW, by PCs. There would still be limits there, like they have now.
Ryan had said repeatedly, you can not avoid the PVP system. Allowing players to upgrade NPC settlements and be exempt from the risks of what they built being torn down or taken over is not in line with the basic premise of PFO.
If players want to be exempt from PvP, there are other MMOs they can go play.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The issue here is that settlements run by players with limited/irregular playtime are easily overrun if most players are offline (which can easily be the case also during the pvp window).
The pvp window is there already to adress this: more npc protection in exchange for limitations. Extending the lower limit slightly should not be a huge practical or philosophical problem as long as the limitations are appropriate. The settlement can still be conquered, you just need to kill npc guards instead of the absent players.
There could potentially be some mechanism for defining a tiny settlement or PoI as a satelite of a npc settlement, paying heavy DI tribute in exchange for some npc protection. Above a certain size (2-3 hexes?),
A variant extension could also be to have pvp window remain closed or only half-open if less than a certain number of members are logged on.
I doubt GW want the map to be too static, but they may well want sieges to be meaningful and non-trivial even against a much smaller settlement.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well then all I have to say then, is casuals better be good at organizing their game play during the 4 hour PvP window.
It is unknown how the system will actually work. Does the PvP window actually mean that your settlement can be attacked without any warning? Can siege engines be deployed outside of a declared war? Can your settlement be sacked outside of a feud or war?
Depending on those answers it may not be just casuals that have to be really organized, but everyone will. Or, a settlement might have very little to fear outside of declared wars or feuds.
In the event that "casuals" are needed but don't want to expend the effort, well that is where the settlement management may want to question the usefulness of their citizenship.
Yes, I am talking about those that want to participate in Settlement/PoI running/building.
After talking to Decius awhile, I have come to the conclusion that anything along these lines, that is player owned, could and would be gamed by other players. Essentially, ran by alts and resources funneled else where.
Decius had a good idea though, where NPC Settlements could be built/upgraded, with a pre-determined plan set out by GW, by PCs. There would still be limits there, like they have now.
Ryan had said repeatedly, you can not avoid the PVP system. Allowing players to upgrade NPC settlements and be exempt from the risks of what they built being torn down or taken over is not in line with the basic premise of PFO
If players want to be exempt from PvP, there are other MMOs they can go play.
Guess I am confused. I thought the basic premise of PFO was to bring pathfinder to life in a sandbox MMO... I rarely see pvp in pathfinder, I get the point of having it in PFO to some degree, unless it detracts from bringing the fun of pathfinder to the screen.
Telling people to play some other game also feels counter to the spirit of playing pathfinder. There are solutions, but at this point, in my opinion, there isn't enough real data to see if anything needs tweaking in PFO, but they have said repeatedly a murder sim is not the goal. Only way to guarantee that is for there to be some form of safe guards protecting people from random violence, such as guards, safe zones, or penalties for people who play the evil play style. Not just talking about pvp in this last part, but in the spirit of pathfinder? The only pvp that should happen, most of the time, is good vs evil, or clan vs clan.
Just my opinions, but that is all anyone has around here.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In another thread I had an idea about a secondary type settlement, which Nihimon pointed out could be a Zero PvP windowed Settlement.
I did point out that what Cheatle was describing to me sounded like an option to set the Vulnerability Window to 0, with some added restrictions. I'm not sure it's a viable idea, though, probably for the same reasons Cheatle alluded to above.
I have always thought we could do a better job welcoming people to the community who were concerned about "Open World PvP" turning PFO into a murder simulator. Those are valid concerns, which is why Ryan addresses them directly in the Features link on the Goblinworks site.
However, I think your best bet, if you're one of these people, is to find a group like The Seventh Veil that has been utterly consistent in wanting you to join us, without insisting that you have to step out of your comfort zone to PvP if we're at war. If we're right, you'll eventually want to on your own, and we're happy to give you the time and space to discover that (or not) for yourself.
The Empyrean Order and The Seventh Veil both have a strong interest in providing a safe place for newcomers to acclimate to PvP at their own pace, and we've managed to secure an area that is really ideal for that purpose. If you look at the Land Rush Map, you'll see a section of Croplands in the southeast corner of the map that is only accessible (until they expand the map) by two choke points - one controlled by TEO, and the other by T7V. I think this area may prove to be a great place for the very players Cheatle is trying to serve in his OP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the casuals want to be darn near completely safe what needs to happen is a non-political group needs to claim a settlement and open it up to them, then work very hard at getting all the other groups to not war/dec them and as many as possible to come to their defense if they are addressed.
The primary example of this is NEW Academy. You join NEW Academy and at the end of your stay they graduate you, and other companies come in and recruit you.
NEW trained anyone. Bandits, merchants, murderers, guardians etc. it was not their job to question what you did with what you learned. Simply to teach you. So the vast majority of groups left them be and many groups viewed anyone who attacked them as complete scum / would war dec any group that attacked NEW.
If a similar group came in, claimed some low value territory, and started fostering positive relationships with all other factions regardless of alignment and ideals they could earn enough friends to keep the few who would go after them at bay.
If they wanted to set themselves up as a permanent residency for casuals rather than strictly an academy then they could adopt a set of laws to ensure their membership doesn't tick anyone off.
It could take a lot of administrative work, but if done right they would have to put almost no effort into the defense of their holding. Others would do that for them. They just need to be sure they offer services they make them valuable to all other groups.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have always thought we could do a better job welcoming people to the community who were concerned about "Open World PvP" turning PFO into a murder simulator. Those are valid concerns, which is why Ryan addresses them directly in the Features link on the Goblinworks site.
However, I think your best bet, if you're one of these people, is to find a group like The Seventh Veil that has been utterly consistent in wanting you to join us, without insisting that you have to step out of your comfort zone to PvP if we're at war. If we're right, you'll eventually want to on your own, and we're happy to give you the time and space to discover that (or not) for yourself.
The Empyrean Order and The Seventh Veil both have a strong interest in providing a safe place for newcomers to acclimate to PvP at their own pace, and we've managed to secure an area that is really ideal for that purpose. If you look at the Land Rush Map, you'll see a section of Croplands in the southeast corner of the map that is only accessible (until they expand the map) by two choke points - one controlled by TEO, and the other by T7V. I think this area may prove to be a great place for the very players Cheatle is trying to serve in his OP.
So this is nothing more than a recruitment ploy based on the false promise that a casual, non PvP oriented player will find a welcoming home with you, but without the acknowledgement that you (Nihimon) are a polarizing figure that will probably generate quite a few feuds and wars. This makes your promise to them even more nefarious.
These players would actually be far safer joining a PvP focused company, certainly one that is at least 80:20 (PvP : PvE) because there is little need for the 20% to pick up the slack.
Aragon will not really need our casual crafter types to pitch in, unless they wanted to. My job, along with the other leaders of Aragon, is to make them want to pitch in. Our responsibility is to also accept that "pitching in" has many different forms and have equal value.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the casuals want to be darn near completely safe what needs to happen is a non-political group needs to claim a settlement and open it up to them, then work very hard at getting all the other groups to not war/dec them and as many as possible to come to their defense if they are addressed.
The primary example of this is NEW Academy. You join NEW Academy and at the end of your stay they graduate you, and other companies come in and recruit you.
NEW trained anyone. Bandits, merchants, murderers, guardians etc. it was not their job to question what you did with what you learned. Simply to teach you. So the vast majority of groups left them be and many groups viewed anyone who attacked them as complete scum / would war dec any group that attacked NEW.
If a similar group came in, claimed some low value territory, and started fostering positive relationships with all other factions regardless of alignment and ideals they could earn enough friends to keep the few who would go after them at bay.
If they wanted to set themselves up as a permanent residency for casuals rather than strictly an academy then they could adopt a set of laws to ensure their membership doesn't tick anyone off.
It could take a lot of administrative work, but if done right they would have to put almost no effort into the defense of their holding. Others would do that for them. They just need to be sure they offer services they make them valuable to all other groups.
I think the best bet here is Thod's Friends then, they are setting themselves up as a very neutral group, and being in the center of the map helps too.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Cheatle,
Though I know there are players who desire what you describe, I don't think offering game mechanics that remove you from one of the main realities of the game setting is productive for the game as a whole. The options seem to be:
1. Stay in NPC guarded areas such as starter towns. I had very fun, productive characters who never left their NPC city in Ultima Online.
2. Do as Bludd suggests - join a strong settlement that can better guarantee your safety and more passive life style (note, I played a pacifist character for over 5 years in UO, so no negative connotation meant).
3. Do as Andius suggests, though it will be very difficult to convince all settlements of a Switzerland-like settlement's value such that no one will target it. It would have to offer the community something valuable enough that all groups would view it as PFO sanctuary. My community center on UO was seen as such a place by most, but the occasional "red" murderer would still stalk the crossroads where it was located. This should be a highly anomalous, if not unique situation, possible only through the extremely dedicated work and diplomacy of its members, rather than something every settlement can simply choose via settlement management controls, and thereby making themselves impervious to the open-world PvP setting they chose to play in.
Some suggested I create something like this in PFO for the Guide Program, but I would rather see new players leave starter towns ready to face the world as it is, rather than live for extended periods in an artificially safe settlement, especially when all the other settlements in the world are do not exist that way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I fully support the idea of player owned safe zones protected by the proactive and reactive actions of players.
You want your caravan to arrive safely, guard it.
You want your border to be safe, patrol it.
You want that choke point to remain closed, defend it.
You want that choke point to be opened, breach it.
You want the resources that outpost produces, raid it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Guess I am confused. I thought the basic premise of PFO was to bring pathfinder to life in a sandbox MMO... I rarely see pvp in pathfinder, I get the point of having it in PFO to some degree, unless it detracts from bringing the fun of pathfinder to the screen.
Do you often see more than one group at cross purposes in tabletop? How do you imagine it would work out if, in order to progress in the adventure you had to have a particular item. And at the same time another group also had to have that particular item, of which there is no other. You might negotiate. You might seek to secure it and vanish with it. But if the other group arrived before you, can you not imagine the option of taking what you need just as you would were the item held by a hostile wandering monster? So if you can imagine that, don't you suppose it might be a good idea to have all the details about how that should work out fairly before you ever get to that point? In PFO you may well be able to negotiate your way, but would it be right, in the spirit of Pathfinder, if you could NOT take what you need by force or trickery? If you follow my reasoning then you should see why PvP is a necessity. And where you can have two parties quarreling or out-and-out fighting it isn't a far step to imagine armies in conflict. All that has to be worked out. There are few rules for massed conflict in tabletop but it is a very complex system that must be reducible to a mathematical model to work in a computer program. Small wonder it is such a focus for the development staff. That dos not mean we have to use it. But should we need to for any reason then it would be better were the mechanics already thought through.
Telling people to play some other game also feels counter to the spirit of playing pathfinder.
Yeah. Bludd apparently considers it honest to be, ah, let's call it 'blunt'.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Isn't the pvp window already a risk/reward system. So the premise would be for a non-pvp oriented group to turn their pvp window to minimum, claim only land to keep settlement meters at balance and find a large patron settlement that can benefit from that behavior to offer protection. Of course, this is not a permanent solution as it shouldn't be, but I hope it will still be a fairly viable option and often seen in game.
Here there are seeds of conflict...
|
I think a safe middleground is to allow newly made Settlements within range of a NPC controlled area (Adjacent or can be connected to be adjacent) whereby the new settlement will function as support for the NPC city it is nearby, has limited DI, and players would be able to build it up to t2 buildings.
The settlement couldn't set its own laws, pvp window, and also receives some fraction of the DI they would normally get, as the rest is sucked up by the NPC city.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I just read the first few and skimmed the rest but I wanted to add this before I head to bed. Concerning the "Aristocrat" role in PFO, I would expect to see them as settlement manager types, where the skills they are focused on would improve and expand the settlement. So, things like improving efficiency of buildings like the smithy and training facilities, and also maybe even the size of the settlement or something. The issue with a "no PVP window settlement" is there would definitely be a cap to these skills. I would think that there would not have much of anything to do in this type of settlement for an aristocrat.
Just my 2cp on the subject. I really hope that PFO launches into EE and people quickly realize that, while it is a settlement v settlement game centered around conflict, there is a place for all, but the most "vile and undesired", play styles and characters. Everyone CAN play a role and contribute and have fun, no matter their time available in game, desired class/role, or their desire to participate in or avoid PVP. I think if that happens, many of these concerns and fears people have will be resolved and this game will not only succeed, but be the enjoyment of many people for many years. I think it is largely GW job to deliver a game where this is possible, and for us the community to promote the "positive gameplay" environment and the importance of each role and each player.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Telling people to play some other game also feels counter to the spirit of playing pathfinder.Yeah. Bludd apparently considers it honest to be, ah, let's call it 'blunt'.
I consider being honest, being honest. Being blunt about it is just delivery.
If I am playing a game of chess with another person and they say they want to play it with the rules of checkers, I'd say, "Well then let's play checkers". What I don't do is change the rules of chess to suit his desire to play checkers.
Why are some of you so willing to cater to expectation that you know are unreasonable based on what GW has said about PFO.
Just to be preemptive, there will be no lightsabers, laser pistols or playable Wookies in PFO. There may be other games that will allow you to have or do those things.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just my 2cp on the subject. I really hope that PFO launches into EE and people quickly realize that, while it is a settlement v settlement game centered around conflict, there is a place for all...
[emphasis mine] Is this really a good encapsulation of PFO? I want absolutely nothing to do with settlements or associated guilds/factions. As I said in the Disappointment among the Silent thread, the politicking that is prevalent and pervasive is extremely distasteful to me, and only reduces my desire to play PFO, coupled with my desire to enjoy PFO distinctly without interaction with settlements as siege/political entities and the trappings of guild/factions. I have no desire to be a soldier or mercenary for a "cause", and let's face it, no "cause" in PFO is going to have a very moral or ethical edge.
Please note I see many of you that are obviously spokespeople are genuinely passionate and I applaud that passion, just not the expression of that passion.
Has someone posited the possibility of a settlement-less, transient/nomadic grouping that might promote the interests of those uninterested in guilds and settlements and their endless internecine and pointless squabbling? Like an anarchist/anarcho-syndicalist Black Rose group. They could offer carpet and cups of tea to all, and provide solace and succour for those tired of, or to victims of said internecine rivalry. I understand a "grouping" is still a guild/faction by another name, but still...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just to be preemptive, there will be no lightsabers, laser pistols or playable Wookies in PFO. There may be other games that will allow you to have or do those things.
I'm not sure about this. If Numerian content makes its way in, we may in fact see laser pistols. It's canon and close to the river kingdoms.
As far as the rest of the thread, I think there are just a good number of people that supported PFO knowing that PVP would be involved, but hoping that it wouldn't be so prevalent. Being outspoken about that desire isn't a bad thing, especially in a crowd-forged game. I think if 100% of GW's customers wanted the game to just be a way more advanced version of Minecraft and involved little to no PVP they'd certainly consider it. I know there are a lot of people that would prefer that game to the one that's being made. There will undoubtedly be compromises from original intentions based on what's crowdforged so I'd encourage anyone to speak their mind in hopes of influencing the outcome of the game.
This idea probably isn't one of them, but if there are compromises to be had for those that want to avoid as much PVP as possible then I'd love to see them and I'm sure GW would too. Admittedly, I know of no such compromises myself.
I also know that there are a large number of people that prefer the PVP aspects over anything else in the game, and others (like myself) that think the PVP will certainly be more meaningful because of the mixed crowd. For me it won't be the possibility of getting treasure or watching numbers go up that will make the PVP more fun, it'll be the fact that in most cases for me it'll have a purpose that positively affects other players in the game.
Also, somewhat off-topic, but message boards are hardly ever a good measure of the community in a game and I hate to see people get discouraged by them. Others may disagree with this, but I think early enrollment will certainly change a lot of players' outlook on the community for better or worse. The people posting here are a loud, but relatively small, portion of the community.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Has someone posited the possibility of a settlement-less, transient/nomadic grouping that might promote the interests of those uninterested in guilds and settlements and their endless internecine and pointless squabbling? Like an anarchist/anarcho-syndicalist Black Rose group. They could offer carpet and cups of tea to all, and provide solace and succour for those tired of, or to victims of said internecine rivalry. I understand a "grouping" is still a guild/faction by another name, but still...
There have been such ideas in the past. There is the bottom line that every character is a member of some settlement. It can (so far) be an NPC settlement if you wish.
Your "Black Rose" could work within those parameters. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Has someone posited the possibility of a settlement-less, transient/nomadic grouping that might promote the interests of those uninterested in guilds and settlements and their endless internecine and pointless squabbling? Like an anarchist/anarcho-syndicalist Black Rose group. They could offer carpet and cups of tea to all, and provide solace and succour for those tired of, or to victims of said internecine rivalry. I understand a "grouping" is still a guild/faction by another name, but still...
I had hoped for this very thing in the past (see: Brethren of the Wild Lands) however PFO has increasingly moved in the direction of centering human interactions on settlements and even to some extent on kingdoms (groups of settlements).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A transient settlement, even with a lower DI, would be very interesting though. Something gypsy/roma-like in design that requires you to move occasionally or suffer some sort of penalty. Maybe letting you setup in outposts, but never PoI or normal settlement spots so there's always some danger involved.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has someone posited the possibility of a settlement-less, transient/nomadic grouping that might promote the interests of those uninterested in guilds and settlements and their endless internecine and pointless squabbling? Like an anarchist/anarcho-syndicalist Black Rose group. They could offer carpet and cups of tea to all, and provide solace and succour for those tired of, or to victims of said internecine rivalry. I understand a "grouping" is still a guild/faction by another name, but still...
I'm sure you could create a nomadic band of PCs, travelling the countryside, and pledging no allegiance to any local ruler.
But how did that work out for such groups in real life?
To be viewed with suspicion, blamed for increases in local crime wherever they pass through, and considered eligible targets for genocide?
And why should players expect it to work out better in game, than it did in real life?
Unless your nomadic band is prepared to learn the skills and use them pitilessly, to defend itself with superior force, it will be destroyed, and if you're playing the game that way, then congratulations, you've just become the Mongol Horde.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has someone posited the possibility of a settlement-less, transient/nomadic grouping that might promote the interests of those uninterested in guilds and settlements and their endless internecine and pointless squabbling? Like an anarchist/anarcho-syndicalist Black Rose group. They could offer carpet and cups of tea to all, and provide solace and succour for those tired of, or to victims of said internecine rivalry. I understand a "grouping" is still a guild/faction by another name, but still...
That's basically the plan behind Outsiders except that as we are roaming about we'll likely found settlements to provide skill upkeep and give members who want to settle down a starting point.
As to a 'zero PVP window'... the blog on PvP windows actually said that was an option all along;
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
All good replies, thanks Bluddwolf, Bringslite and Magistry for taking the time to consider my query. I didn't think it was at all a new concept, and in line with what Snorter points out, I did consider it would require some hardcore fortification/serious firepower else all you have done is gather in the wilderness with all your treasure waiting to be groupganked.
Something a little more "informal association/coalition" and "coalesce and melt away again" is more my speed. But really, until I'm in the game I'm only theorycrafting here...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Guess I am confused. I thought the basic premise of PFO was to bring pathfinder to life in a sandbox MMO... I rarely see pvp in pathfinder, I get the point of having it in PFO to some degree, unless it detracts from bringing the fun of pathfinder to the screen.
It's always there; you just don't recognise or define it as PvP, because it's your PCs vs NPCs, run by a GM.
Those NPCs are still rival groups, with conflicting goals, that your PCs either have to overcome or defend themselves against, to achieve some goal set by themselves or a scenario.
Most published adventures contain multiple groups of rival NPCs, but the players rarely give them any respect, because they're dismissed as 'just' NPCs.
This does them a disservice, because they ought to be run with the same ruthlessness and cunning, as if a player were behind every one.*
Imagine a game, where the GM took a hands-off approach to the progression of events, and acted as neutral arbiter of game mechanic resolution, passing the decision-making of all NPCs to a co-GM, or rival group of players?
Would that make the events in game any more PvP, less PvP, or be irrelevant?
If say, Nualia & Co in 'Burnt Offerings' were to be passed to different players, and told 'A group of murdering burglars have killed your allies and now invaded your home. Do everything in your power to wreck their efforts. I'll act as referee between the two groups.', would that lead to any significantly different events, than if it were played out as written between one GM running the NPCs and five players on the same side?
Should it lead to different results?
If you believe it should, why?
*In practice, even with a GM who tries to run them to their full capability, the combined load of running the game sometimes means the GM makes mistakes, doesn't spot an encounter-winning tactic until after he's packed up for the night (D'oh!).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Has someone posited the possibility of a settlement-less, transient/nomadic grouping that might promote the interests of those uninterested in guilds and settlements and their endless internecine and pointless squabbling? Like an anarchist/anarcho-syndicalist Black Rose group. They could offer carpet and cups of tea to all, and provide solace and succour for those tired of, or to victims of said internecine rivalry. I understand a "grouping" is still a guild/faction by another name, but still...
This made me think of the Tinkers or Tuatha'an in the Wheel of Time series. They are a nomadic people that follow the way of the Leaf (pacifist)and are usually left to their ways in an otherwise very politically turbulent and war-driven world.
I would love it if such a thing could organically grow in PFO, without Goblinworks having to implement all sorts of mechanics to achieve (or protect) this.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Given Pharasma's attention upon us, the Way of the Leaf is feasible here, in a way. It'd be quite difficult to accumulate any worldly goods, as they'll be routinely stolen, but one can always refuse to give hostile players the pleasure of combat, by doing no more than refusing to participate.
There've been several folks who've brought up the idea of exploring in no more than rags, to avoid item-loss and damage to threaded items. One'll need to dodge monsters, of course, but may have little, other than travel-progress, to fear from other people.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Essentially everyone will be able to make an impact, if you are casual there are plenty of things that you can assign your character to do offline.
The real issue is while you are online what will you do.
I think starting out, it really won't be that big of an issue. We will end up being so spread out, that you will have to travel 15 mins to half an hour to go searching for other groups to kill. When it becomes a greater issue, is when player density increases, which we might not see an effect until we have reached the 10k mark, unless they continue to expand EE Map towards the OE Map.
Most of the points raised, even by myself good all be moot, by the time it becomes a real issue.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If your unchartered company's members are high rep and not strongly associated with any NPC factions, you're pretty much immune to PVP other than murderhobos, unless someone specifically feuds you- in which case you can just move to a different part of the map. This is probably doable, albeit, with the sacrifice that you would not be able to leverage advanced training from player settlements (even if you can buy the training your NPC home won't offer the needed support.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I like the the reason for the idea, but I think the NPC settlements should be the site of this sort of thing. I don't know that we want "additional" support for this idea.
With that said, with the current idea of the mechanics, I think you will naturally have areas/settlements that are a bit less dangerous which will provide folks who want that a place to exist.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Guess I am confused. I thought the basic premise of PFO was to bring pathfinder to life in a sandbox MMO... I rarely see pvp in pathfinder, I get the point of having it in PFO to some degree, unless it detracts from bringing the fun of pathfinder to the screen.It's always there; you just don't recognise or define it as PvP, because it's your PCs vs NPCs, run by a GM.
Those NPCs are still rival groups, with conflicting goals, that your PCs either have to overcome or defend themselves against, to achieve some goal set by themselves or a scenario.
Most published adventures contain multiple groups of rival NPCs, but the players rarely give them any respect, because they're dismissed as 'just' NPCs.
This does them a disservice, because they ought to be run with the same ruthlessness and cunning, as if a player were behind every one.*Imagine a game, where the GM took a hands-off approach to the progression of events, and acted as neutral arbiter of game mechanic resolution, passing the decision-making of all NPCs to a co-GM, or rival group of players?
Would that make the events in game any more PvP, less PvP, or be irrelevant?If say, Nualia & Co in 'Burnt Offerings' were to be passed to different players, and told 'A group of murdering burglars have killed your allies and now invaded your home. Do everything in your power to wreck their efforts. I'll act as referee between the two groups.', would that lead to any significantly different events, than if it were played out as written between one GM running the NPCs and five players on the same side?
Should it lead to different results?
If you believe it should, why?*In practice, even with a GM who tries to run them to their full capability, the combined load of running the game sometimes means the GM makes mistakes, doesn't spot an encounter-winning tactic until after he's packed up for the night (D'oh!).
Well said, Snorter. I think you are dead on. This is exactly the right response to this type of comment.