The Truth About PvP in PFO

[Bluddwolf]

<Kabal> Sunnfire wrote:

How can you ever 'win' when your enemy never actually dies?

You win by killing their will to fight, and you achieve that by destroying their ability to economically support their fight.

Players take a break from or stop PvPing when they can no longer support that activity with the resources, and replacement gear needed to continue.

[<Kabal> Sunnfire]

Agreed.

I was posing the question for exactly that kind of response.

Given that whatever comes of the final game mechanics, it will require one to look at the situation uniquely, it will require people to redefine their tactics and goals to align with the new playing field offered by PFO.

Past experiences and knowledge will always play a part. How much or how valuable a part is yet to be determined.

Which is why I find threads like this ultimately circular arguments. Until you have the ability to actually kick each other in the face and see the results, everyone is just guessing.

And when that day comes I will happily kick anyone and everyone in the face for the sake of 'research'.

[Nihimon]

<Kabal> Sunnfire wrote:

Which is why I find threads like this ultimately circular arguments. Until you have the ability to actually kick each other in the face and see the results, everyone is just guessing.

Bluddwolf wrote:

You win by killing their will to fight...

And of course, demoralization is one way to kill their will to fight. If you can convince them that it's hopeless, that they "don't have what it takes", or that they'll have to do things they personally find repugnant in order to stand a chance, you might even kill their will to fight before they take the field.

This is precisely why I'm so excited about PFO. Ryan has made it clear that the expectations folks bring from other "Open World PvP" games will not be the same path to success in PFO. In fact, for many they will be a path to failure.

[T7V Jazzlvraz]

Bluddwolf wrote:

You win by...

Remember we've seen that the average age of players--as self-reported here on the boards, so take it with as many grains of salt as you need--skews higher than "usual", so one can also win by keeping the battle going longer than they can afford the time to stay on-line fighting it. We've seen several groups deliberately point out, when recruiting, that they have lives, families, children, and such, so being able to out-wait them will, in some cases, work as well.

[Bluddwolf]

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:

Bluddwolf wrote:

You win by...

Remember we've seen that the average age of players--as self-reported here on the boards, so take it with as many grains of salt as you need--skews higher than "usual", so one can also win by keeping the battle going longer than they can afford the time to stay on-line fighting it. We've seen several groups deliberately point out, when recruiting, that they have lives, families, children, and such, so being able to out-wait them will, in some cases, work as well.

This is true, and something I did not consider (RL time constraints). I also believe that the average age of the forum goer, now, is considerably higher than what the server population average age will be in OE. I think it will still be higher than upper teens, but not in the mid to high thirties either.

[Audoucet]

Andius wrote:

The reason military strength is not the determining factor of who rules the world right now is because the groups with all the military strength controlling the world say so.

Or because the ones with the oil, say so. Or the ones with too much annoyance power. Or the ones with money.

[Bluddwolf]

Audoucet wrote:

Andius wrote:

The reason military strength is not the determining factor of who rules the world right now is because the groups with all the military strength controlling the world say so.

Or because the ones with the oil, say so. Or the ones with too much annoyance power. Or the ones with money.

The reason the most powerful military in the world does not control the world is because it does not wish to reduce a major portion of the world to smoldering ash.

In the River Kingdoms, the most powerful military on the server will not have that reluctance.

[T7V Jazzlvraz]

The people-based ash won't stay ash. That's the place where Ryan's permanent changes to the game-space, of necessity, fall apart.

Of course, create ash enough times, and perhaps they will stay ash.

[Audoucet]

Bluddwolf wrote:

The reason the most powerful military in the world does not control the world is because it does not wish to reduce a major portion of the world to smoldering ash.

Well, I agree with you that the Chinese don't have any interest in living in a radioactive world.

I hope that the is some incentives in the game, to simulate the hundreds of reasons that we don't have a unique (new) world order.

[Bringslite of Fidelis]

The truth about PVP in PfO will be similar to the truth that it is in most similar games. Orgs. will expand and contract. The play area will be added to as the population warrants it. Some groups will get ground down and disperse while some will move to new locations. Aggressive groups will run out of momentum if they can't grow in numbers through charisma. Every enemy defeated will pile up and could hold a grudge against those that displaced them.

It will be alright.

[Snorter]

Bluddwolf wrote:

You win by...

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:

Remember we've seen that the average age of players--as self-reported here on the boards, so take it with as many grains of salt as you need--skews higher than "usual", so one can also win by keeping the battle going longer than they can afford the time to stay on-line fighting it. We've seen several groups deliberately point out, when recruiting, that they have lives, families, children, and such, so being able to out-wait them will, in some cases, work as well.

I think that factor is a major reason for the distaste many have with open PvP, and want it somehow restricted, or the consequences lessened.

If I'm logged on, and some a*!+@%% wants to rumble, then so be it. It's not necessarily an even fight, but both players can leverage all their attention and resources to it.

If you come home from an annoying day, sit down at the PC to unwind, and are greeted by a screen in flames, and a sarcastic message from that a$*#%@#, "I burnt your house, d00d, what kept you, l00ser?".
Well. That's a whole different scenario.

[Guurzak]

One thing Shadowbane did right was the Bane mechanic. In order to siege an enemy city you had to place a bane outside their walls with a 72 hour timer on it. The defenders could move the time forward by up to 24 hours so that the battle would start at their preferred time. No property damage could take place until the bane went live. So, you would never log onto a burning city without at least 48 hours notice.

The reinforce mode mechanic in Eve accomplishes much the same purpose.

[Bringslite of Fidelis]

Guurzak wrote:

One thing Shadowbane did right was the Bane mechanic. In order to siege an enemy city you had to place a bane outside their walls with a 72 hour timer on it. The defenders could move the time forward by up to 24 hours so that the battle would start at their preferred time. No property damage could take place until the bane went live. So, you would never log onto a burning city without at least 48 hours notice.

The reinforce mode mechanic in Eve accomplishes much the same purpose.

I have mixed feelings about that. I plan to play LG and in an essentially non aggressive (conquest) way, so that is fine by me.

There is a part of me though that wants to give as little warning as I have to (concerning the where and the when) before I bring justice for provocation.

[Guurzak]

If bringing justice means slaughtering on an individual, caravan, or outpost scale, by all means. Maybe even PoIs. I would argue that if you're bringing justice on a scale of entire settlements burning, that needs some overt preparation and ramp up time.

[Shaibes]

I agree with Guurzak. You can ambush a caravan, you can lightning raid an outpost. Any serious land attack on a large settlement, though, should be obvious to the defenders and will take a while to position and organize.

[Bringslite of Fidelis]

Guurzak wrote:

If bringing justice means slaughtering on an individual, caravan, or outpost scale, by all means. Maybe even PoIs. I would argue that if you're bringing justice on a scale of entire settlements burning, that needs some overt preparation and ramp up time.

That is a good point.

If sieging an actual settlement goes as vaguely described, Declare War?, take POI, build siege camp, commence... There could be lead time (beyond the PVP window), beyond all that, built into the War Dec. I am not sure that I would like to see a lot of lead time built into a Feud Dec. That may come back to bite me, but I think it will be better to handle smaller matters with less needed lead warning time.

[named Greg]

Bringslite of Fidelis wrote:

There is a part of me though that wants to give as little warning as I have to (concerning the where and the when) before I bring justice for provocation.

I'm telling you, Sir Bringslite, you could be every happy in The Named Company.

[named Greg]

Bringslite of Fidelis wrote:

I am not sure that I would like to see a lot of lead time built into a Feud Dec.

Feuding neighbors got you down?

Join The Named Company while staying in your preferred settlement. We will take PvP to the level the gods intend, bearding the bandits in their own dens.

[Bringslite of Fidelis]

Thank you Sir Greg. Your concept is very attractive. There is no denying that. :)

There is a war coming and this is the time for the consolidation and the gathering of like minded forces. We are only to be allowed one Company per character during the War of the Towers. I am very sure that all of my time will be needed for that one character during those turbulent times. The good of my Fellowship at Ozem's Vigil must take precedence.

If you and yours would like to speak with us about an arraignment, we would be most delighted. There are many ways to cooperate. We who see the world the same should be gathering together, at least for these coming trials.

[named Greg]

The system will only manage one company per person during the tower wars. The best thing about The Named Company is that we will exist only in the heart and mind.

The Named will take no role in the Tower wars, but will continue to protect the River Kingdom folk from the depredations of the unscrupulous, always.

[Bringslite of Fidelis]

named Greg wrote:

The system will only manage one company per person during the tower wars. The best thing about The Named Company is that we will exist only in the heart and mind.

The Named will take no role in the Tower wars, but will continue to protect the River Kingdom folk from the depredations of the unscrupulous, always.

I am certain that there will be plenty of that to keep us all busy during and after. There will be nothing but work-work-work for you!

Completely understand your view here and much respect for the concept. There will be time afterwards to look at things again.

Ozem's will have a warm hearth waiting and comfortable rest for you and yours so long as you are fighting the good fight. You don't have to sign on for that.

[named Greg]

Bringslite of Fidelis wrote:

There will be nothing but work-work-work for you!

One may always hope!

[Being]

Guurzak wrote:

celestialiar wrote:

I have a different concept of a sandbox and part of it depends on not starting at zero. I think there should be something on the land.

The whole point of the land rush and EE phases is to create the "something on the land" organically. Sign up on day one of OE and you'll have exactly the non-zero starting point you're looking for.

Is this true? Have I conflated a thought? I was under the impression that at some point there will be a catastrophic event that will wipe out the towers and we then could begin building up essentially from scratch and a pair of two by fours.

[Dario]

Wiping out the towers and wiping out the settlements are not the same thing. My understanding was the it would be the former, not the latter.

Edit to add: Also, I was under the impression there would be a period of growth with more complete settlement development mechanics after the Towerfall, but before OE.

[TEO Alexander Damocles]

Being wrote:

Guurzak wrote:

celestialiar wrote:

I have a different concept of a sandbox and part of it depends on not starting at zero. I think there should be something on the land.

The whole point of the land rush and EE phases is to create the "something on the land" organically. Sign up on day one of OE and you'll have exactly the non-zero starting point you're looking for.

Is this true? Have I conflated a thought? I was under the impression that at some point there will be a catastrophic event that will wipe out the towers and we then could begin building up essentially from scratch and a pair of two by fours.

Levels the towers, wipes out the protosettlement building, and leaves us with the basic settlement structure and a few DI boosting buildings based on how many towers we held.

[Caldeathe Baequiannia]

Dario wrote:

Wiping out the towers and wiping out the settlements are not the same thing. My understanding was the it would be the former, not the latter.

Edit to add: Also, I was under the impression there would be a period of growth with more complete settlement development mechanics after the Towerfall, but before OE.

That is my understanding. Tower Wars will last until settlement construction mechanics are ready to deploy (expected around 6 months into EE). At that point, the towers will vanish, and the settlements will be re-specced to near zero, with the only difference between any of the 33 being some DI positive constructions that will be parceled out based on the average of the towers the settlement controlled through the land rush. That will be sometime in mid-EE, and the settlements will then have an undefined period to grow before OE.

[Crash_00]

The phase is basically this:

EE - EE Week 2: War of the Towers - EE Some Point: Cataclysmic Event - EE After Some Point: Full Settlement Building - OE

Prior to the Cataclysmic Event, the settlements will be basic settlements with limited ability to control what is going on with them. There won't really be any way to add to them or manage much about them.

The Cataclysmic Event wipes those starter settlements off the board, and allows us to rebuild our settlement from nearly scratch with the new settlement controls that have been developed.

Essentially the starter settlements are being put in before the controls for settlements are done being developed so that we have settlements day 1 of Early enrollment.

[DeciusBrutus]

Bluddwolf wrote:

<Kabal> Sunnfire wrote:

How can you ever 'win' when your enemy never actually dies?

You win by killing their will to fight, and you achieve that by destroying their ability to economically support their fight.

Players take a break from or stop PvPing when they can no longer support that activity with the resources, and replacement gear needed to continue.

Both of those objectives can be acheived by political means.

[Bluddwolf]

DeciusBrutus wrote:

Bluddwolf wrote:

<Kabal> Sunnfire wrote:

How can you ever 'win' when your enemy never actually dies?

You win by killing their will to fight, and you achieve that by destroying their ability to economically support their fight.

Players take a break from or stop PvPing when they can no longer support that activity with the resources, and replacement gear needed to continue.

Both of those objectives can be acheived by political means.

But it is so much more fun to loot and kill your way to victory.

[TEO Alexander Damocles]

Bluddwolf wrote:

DeciusBrutus wrote:

Bluddwolf wrote:

<Kabal> Sunnfire wrote:

How can you ever 'win' when your enemy never actually dies?

You win by killing their will to fight, and you achieve that by destroying their ability to economically support their fight.

Players take a break from or stop PvPing when they can no longer support that activity with the resources, and replacement gear needed to continue.

Both of those objectives can be acheived by political means.

But it is so much more fun to loot and kill your way to victory.

To some. For others, political maneuvering can be just as fun. And if you can win without expending your resources, well, then you've won and by a better margin than by military conquest.

[-Aet- Charlie]

Some people will enjoy the political intrigue, to the exclusion of war. Others will enjoy war to the exclusion of politics. Others will fall somewhere in the middle.

Overall it should be interesting and a better game for it.

[Nihimon]

I believe it is still unknown whether folks will be able to go out and begin constructing their non-Land Rush Settlements at the same time as the "real" Land Rush Settlements are introduced after the Great Catastrophe. My hope is that they will.

[Bluddwolf]

Diplomacy will never "Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women."

[Audoucet]

Bluddwolf wrote:

Diplomacy will never "Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women."

But now the rains weep o'er his hall, with no one there to hear. Yes now the rains weep o'er his hall, and not a soul to hear.

The Twins' dining hall, 299AC.

[Kobold Catgirl]

Diplomacy, however, will crush your friendships, see your friends driving away from your house, and probably make especially sensitive people of either gender cry.

[TEO Alexander Damocles]

Bluddwolf wrote:

Diplomacy will never "Crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentations of their women."

Sure it will. Alienate a faction. Cut off their support. Watch their economy wither and die, and their dispossessed and unhappy residents throw their leaders out.

Convince another faction to wipe an enemy out for you. All of the crushing and driving, none of the wartime expenditures.

Or better yet, turn an enemy into an ally, thus increasing both your forces against a potential greater enemy. Mutual gain, no losses.

All of these are entirely acceptable to me.

[Andius the Afflicted]

I'm sure many of you here have played Total War games. Managing your military properly in this kind on environment is very similar. You need a standing army or else you leave yourself open to attack.

Keeping a standing army in fighting shape takes an investment. In this case an investment of time. If you leave that standing army sitting around doing nothing, you are wasting that investment.

If you instead use it to push out your borders and expand your influence you gain power and wealth. (This actually applies perfectly to PFO since we know outposts will generate wealth.)

And the big factor I haven't yet seen mentioned. PvPers like to PvP. If you want good PvPers on your side you must provide them with enough PvP to satisfy their appetite for violence. If you do not they will either leave your faction, or get bored with the game and leave.

However just like Total War if you maintain too many wars that are too bloody for too long it will ravage your economy and you will fall.

It is a trick of maintaining balance. Pacifist factions will fail, and factions that involve themselves in too many wars too often will fail. The most powerful factions will constantly maintain a moderate amount of conflict with spikes of action when they make major pushes.

To remove yourselves from all conflict is as great of a failure as drawing in more conflict than you can handle.

[-Aet- Charlie]

Andius the Afflicted wrote:

And the big factor I haven't yet seen mentioned. PvPers like to PvP. If you want good PvPers on your side you must provide them with enough PvP to satisfy their appetite for violence. If you do not they will either leave your faction, or get bored with the game and leave.

This is an extremely true thing in other games. I expect similar in PfO.

[Guurzak]

Being wrote:

Guurzak wrote:

celestialiar wrote:

I have a different concept of a sandbox and part of it depends on not starting at zero. I think there should be something on the land.

The whole point of the land rush and EE phases is to create the "something on the land" organically. Sign up on day one of OE and you'll have exactly the non-zero starting point you're looking for.

Is this true? Have I conflated a thought? I was under the impression that at some point there will be a catastrophic event that will wipe out the towers and we then could begin building up essentially from scratch and a pair of two by fours.

Yes, you are correct. But that will be somewhere in the middle of EE. BY the time OE opens up, the building from scratch phase will be over for the initial settlements, so entrants at that point will have the non-zero start you mentioned.