Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many MMOs with PvP develop a degenerate culture where any character that can be killed is killed. This then drives people who don't like dying pointlessly out of the game, leaving only people who are ok with pointless killing.
I have said from day one that our goal is a game with lots of PvP and little meaningless PvP. Killing newbies "just because" is the ultimate definition of meaningless PvP. We'll just work and work and work, with in game mechanical systems, community management and supervisory authority to keep punishing people who kill meaninglessly, especially if they're meaninglessly killing newbies.
I just don't know how much more plainly I can state this. I'd rather shut down the game and quit than run a simplistic murder simulator for the enjoyment of a tiny fraction of sociopaths.
While people can attack you anywhere for any reason consequences have been set up so that if they do so outside certain conditions it's really going to hurt their character's power, eventually rendering the game nearly unplayable for them.
You should be worried about having robust leaders. You need people with experience in large MMO guilds to be a part of your leadership structure. If you don't have any, recruit them.
You're going to get your asses kicked. Your stuff is going to get torn down. People are going to say mean things about you. Even some of your characters may become unplayable.
We want a game people care enough about winning to engage in robust espionage and sabotage. That's a sign we're succeeding, not failing.
Just wait until the Russians show up.
They'll survive the way such groups always survive, but being bastards. They'll likely carve out some Settlement as far away from well traveled areas as they can get, and then work like mad to develop all the nearby resources and max out the income potential of their territory. Once they have a handle on the economics they'll go into all out military production and field really large, really well equipped armies. Their neighbors will get crushed.
Along the way they'll betray friends, break alliances, double cross those who thought they were fellow travelers and generally leave a wake of pissed off and angry players behind them.
By the way - most people will read this and think "how awful". It would surprise you how many people reading this will think "sign me up!"
Settlement warfare is going to be nasty vicious business, not for the feint of heart. If you want to be successful at it you need to have an extremely competitive attitude and be ready to fight your territory. There will be 33 settlements at the start and over 6000 players. Competition will be hot.
There are feud and war mechanics. If people pay the cost to feud or war dec you they can kill you as much as they want without consequence. They can come and burn down your settlements, and points of interest, and outposts. Don't claim territory unless you are ready to fight, and fight hard for it.
Yes you can play this game without being a hardened killer or even someone who desires much PvP.
If you join this game, join a settlement with low expectations and few enemies you can go out gathering, adventuring, etc. and not expect to get killed nearly as often as you would in comparable titles.
If you claim territory you can expect to need to see to it's defense, and you can expect that to be a difficult task. You can expect to need experienced/competitive minded players to succeed in that task.
If you want PvP you can focus on the territorial control aspect of the game. It's going to offer a lot of content and opportunity for great fights.
This game offers a lot of content to both ranges of the spectrum. Make sure you've chosen the role catered to where you want to be on that spectrum.
ha, JUST WHAT I THINK OF WHEN I THINK OF PATHFINDER.
I wonder what will separate this game from the other games like it? Very disappointing. It will always regress to anarchy if this is the case.
History repeats. In no world are the best fighters in control other than these 'pvp sandbox mmos.' Because of that, the world becomes more like a wasteland than an actual society. And nothing matters but battle specs.
I'd like to see a world where you can discover something and become renown, something other than the newest pvp exploit. Something with equal science/art/battle. And, of course, people may wonder how those first two can be in a game. Well, metaphorically. Reward creativity, reward thought... beyond just what is in battle.
Peace.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
ha, JUST WHAT I THINK OF WHEN I THINK OF PATHFINDER.
I wonder what will separate this game from the other games like it? Very disappointing. It will always regress to anarchy if this is the case.
History repeats. In no world are the best fighters in control other than these 'pvp sandbox mmos.' Because of that, the world becomes more like a wasteland than an actual society. And nothing matters but battle specs.
I'd like to see a world where you can discover something and become renown, something other than the newest pvp exploit. Something with equal science/art/battle. And, of course, people may wonder how those first two can be in a game. Well, metaphorically. Reward creativity, reward thought... beyond just what is in battle.
Peace.
Don't take this thread too much sseeriously.
The lines about Russian players rings true to me. They're very well organized and powerful in Eve Online. I don't know if we'll see a lot of them in PFO, but if we do, they'll be a force to be reckoned with IMO.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
ha, JUST WHAT I THINK OF WHEN I THINK OF PATHFINDER.
The first AP I played. Sounds just like Pathfinder to me.
I wonder what will separate this game from the other games like it? Very disappointing. It will always regress to anarchy if this is the case.
Anarchy in a Chaotic Neutral country dominated by bandits and bordering on a bunch of evil countries intent on extended their sphere of influence? Nah, would never happen!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The lines about Russian players rings true to me. They're very well organized and powerful in Eve Online. I don't know if we'll see a lot of them in PFO, but if we do, they'll be a force to be reckoned with IMO.
I have some experience living in the same low sec system as Russian pirates, and they are no better at PvP than we are, and they are no more cutthroat than we are.
I certainly do hope they do come to PFO, they'll bring that Rissian ruthlessness with them
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Want to make PvP really meaningful? Simple--no respawn. If your character dies, you roll up a new one. Level 1. Then we'll see who wants to live by the sword and who decides to give diplomacy and civility a second thought. Consequence-free PvP is boring.
The consequence free PvP associated with the War of the Towers is only a temporary placeholder, until the other systems are put in place. Let's not make it more than what it is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Want to make PvP really meaningful? Simple--no respawn. If your character dies, you roll up a new one. Level 1. Then we'll see who wants to live by the sword and who decides to give diplomacy and civility a second thought. Consequence-free PvP is boring.
We can name it "Zerg of Disposable Characters Online" given that one maxed vet is supposed to be worth about four newbs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The consequence free PvP associated with the War of the Towers is only a temporary placeholder, until the other systems are put in place. Let's not make it more than what it is.
I wasn't thinking specifically of the WotT phase--I'd like to see this become a permanent game mechanic. My biggest beef with DDO, EVE, WOW, GW2, Rift (to name a few) is that death is merely an inconvenience. It slows you down but has no lasting consequence. If there was no guarantee that you'd be raised, if the raising had to be done by another PC (at appropriate material and experience costs), it would radically alter play style and attitudes towards combat, and would be a genuinely fresh and dramatic addition to the genre.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I wasn't thinking specifically of the WotT phase--I'd like to see this become a permanent game mechanic. My biggest beef with DDO, EVE, WOW, GW2, Rift (to name a few) is that death is merely an inconvenience. It slows you down but has no lasting consequence. If there was no guarantee that you'd be raised, if the raising had to be done by another PC (at appropriate material and experience costs), it would radically alter play style and attitudes towards combat, and would be a genuinely fresh and dramatic addition to the genre.
The consequence free PvP associated with the War of the Towers is only a temporary placeholder, until the other systems are put in place. Let's not make it more than what it is.
Loosing gear seems to be a pretty big consequence. especially right after losing some of the better gear you may have during that important fight where you needed to be at the top of your game (and best gear)
Loosing gear seems to be a pretty big consequence. especially right after losing some of the better gear you may have during that important fight where you needed to be at the top of your game (and best gear)I wasn't thinking specifically of the WotT phase--I'd like to see this become a permanent game mechanic. My biggest beef with DDO, EVE, WOW, GW2, Rift (to name a few) is that death is merely an inconvenience. It slows you down but has no lasting consequence. If there was no guarantee that you'd be raised, if the raising had to be done by another PC (at appropriate material and experience costs), it would radically alter play style and attitudes towards combat, and would be a genuinely fresh and dramatic addition to the genre.
The consequence free PvP associated with the War of the Towers is only a temporary placeholder, until the other systems are put in place. Let's not make it more than what it is.
It's not because what ends up happening is you outfit yourself with gear that's good enough to survive. The people who wear their 'good gear' out are just asking to get ganked. The whole server will team up to gank them and gather like cockroaches to loot them.
It really is a sad thing. 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. Kingdoms, maybe, but that it could change. Why must we start as if the land was just discovered? At that point, it becomes like the beginning of the world, and think about how long it too us to 'forge' decent societies. It's always gonna be sand-castle stomp. Sure, some will get stronger, but the weak will get flushed out very quickly. By weak I mean those not willing to do whatever it takes to get wins (including playing for days at a time.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It really is a sad thing. 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. Kingdoms, maybe, but that it could change. Why must we start as if the land was just discovered? At that point, it becomes like the beginning of the world, and think about how long it too us to 'forge' decent societies. It's always gonna be sand-castle stomp. Sure, some will get stronger, but the weak will get flushed out very quickly. By weak I mean those not willing to do whatever it takes to get wins (including playing for days at a time.)
Why don't you wait for two or three years and then join the game with established settlements.
As for having the strong prosper and the weak falter, that is pretty much a mainstay of a 4X game. If people are willing to put in more time than you to not be weak, there is nothing you can do about it short of finding a P2W game and offsetting time with money.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
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.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The people who wear their 'good gear' out are just asking to get ganked. The whole server will team up to gank them and gather like cockroaches to loot them.Nope.
Hopefully the threading system minimizes that. I still wouldn't say go out in your kick ass T3 gear for some random monster slaying, but yeah, I don't think it will be that much of an issue.
I still think EvE's "Only wear what you can afford to lose" will hold true, though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Haven't the devs said that equipped items are immune to looting and destruction upon character death? If so, why NOT wear your best gear all the time--that's the only way to keep it safe!
Only a limited subset of items carried, which have been protected by expending a limited resource called "threads", are protected. And the more valuable the gear, the more threads it will require to protect.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Haven't the devs said that equipped items are immune to looting and destruction upon character death? If so, why NOT wear your best gear all the time--that's the only way to keep it safe!
Threaded items are immune to looting and destruction. You cannot thread unequipped items, so all threaded items are equipped, but not all equipped items are necessarily threaded.
Higher-tier items require more threads, and that requirement grows faster than your character's threading capability. So, at low levels, you may well be able to thread everything you have equipped (assuming you're not equipping overlevel gear), but at high levels you will not be able to thread a full suit of T3 even with the max possible threading capacity.
So you'll have to make a choice between equipping some lower tier equipment and walking around in fully threaded T2 but losing access to your highest-tier keywords, or, equipping in T3 and fighting at full effectiveness but losing a lot of expensive gear if you die.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Haven't the devs said that equipped items are immune to looting and destruction upon character death? If so, why NOT wear your best gear all the time--that's the only way to keep it safe!
You will be able to "thread" your best gear to yourself so that it can't be looted. It will take damage from defeat though. The more powerful the gear, the less pieces you will be able to "thread".
Hi, im casual and suck at pvp, dont die to me of ill be a ghost haunting ur mind forever. thx
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think gear will only be important if they can find that happy place with resources. I find it hard to believe that large companies and alliances won't have some kind of stock pile, making replacing equipment just an inconvenience and not so much a severe consequence.
And then when they go into battle against another large company or alliance they will both be depleting their reserves fielding the large armies they need to fight eachother. The alliance that performs better will deplete theirs more slowly. If the war drags out they'll start targeting the people who are gathering the resources to replenish that gear.
Resource loss from battles is great. It turns war from a purely military conflict to an economic conflict as well. PvE/Crafting oriented players should be celebrating that fact because it provides a meaningful place for you.
It really is a sad thing. 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. Kingdoms, maybe, but that it could change. Why must we start as if the land was just discovered? At that point, it becomes like the beginning of the world, and think about how long it too us to 'forge' decent societies. It's always gonna be sand-castle stomp. Sure, some will get stronger, but the weak will get flushed out very quickly. By weak I mean those not willing to do whatever it takes to get wins (including playing for days at a time.)Why don't you wait for two or three years and then join the game with established settlements.
As for having the strong prosper and the weak falter, that is pretty much a mainstay of a 4X game. If people are willing to put in more time than you to not be weak, there is nothing you can do about it short of finding a P2W game and offsetting time with money.
Well, my point on that was that combat strength does not = power. It almost never has in history. Maybe back when dudes were hitting each other with clubs. It's a dynamic thing.
As for the wait part as well as the 'something on the map', I was speaking more of something that would be harder to change. Would it be less of a sandbox if it was a generated world that could, then, be changed? To me, no...
I mean, what is the ultimate goal of a sandbox game? Not for the player, but for the game itself. Larger wars? I always thought it would be something that seemed like a real world. I don't think even when the settlements are established it would be like a real world.
I guess people go into games with different wishes and wants. It's all good tho.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It really is a sad thing. 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. Kingdoms, maybe, but that it could change. Why must we start as if the land was just discovered? At that point, it becomes like the beginning of the world, and think about how long it too us to 'forge' decent societies. It's always gonna be sand-castle stomp. Sure, some will get stronger, but the weak will get flushed out very quickly. By weak I mean those not willing to do whatever it takes to get wins (including playing for days at a time.)Why don't you wait for two or three years and then join the game with established settlements.
As for having the strong prosper and the weak falter, that is pretty much a mainstay of a 4X game. If people are willing to put in more time than you to not be weak, there is nothing you can do about it short of finding a P2W game and offsetting time with money.
Well, my point on that was that combat strength does not = power. It almost never has in history. Maybe back when dudes were hitting each other with clubs. It's a dynamic thing.
As for the wait part as well as the 'something on the map', I was speaking more of something that would be harder to change. Would it be less of a sandbox if it was a generated world that could, then, be changed? To me, no...
I mean, what is the ultimate goal of a sandbox game? Not for the player, but for the game itself. Larger wars? I always thought it would be something that seemed like a real world. I don't think even when the settlements are established it would be like a real world.
I guess people go into games with different wishes and wants. It's all good tho.
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.
There is still a lot of violence in some regions of the world but having certain groups with the power to blow the earth up nine times over if they so choose makes everyone seem to get along better.
Back when matters where decided with bows and swords things were a bit more bloody.
Of course, Vatican City wouldn't have wielded half the influence it did if it'd relied upon its own army. In fact, it probably wouldn't have wielded much of anything.
But I'm no historian.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The early stages of pathfinder will be the most interesting.
Like all PvP sandboxes it will eventually devolve into a couple of big player powerblocks controlling almost all resources with a large renter community paying for the privilege of safety and then a whole batch of "leet PvPers" who basically behave like small gangs of highschool bullies. The big powerblocks will occasionally stage battles to keep the members happy and as a side-effect provide good recruiting publicity for the game but ti will be mainly staged.
Longterm the people in charge end up being the players with a combination of lots of online time and/or ready access to real money.
Sad but true ... nevertheless we have a good few years before that happens so make the best of it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It had the power to control the military might of the European nations. If those nations had any point decided they all wanted to ignore the Vatican it would have lost most it's power and if they decided turn on it, it would have been in a world of hurt.
The idea of a smaller group controlling multiple larger military powers through getting them to sign on board to their ideals is 100% viable in PFO by the way.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We won't be able to tell until we get in game but I'm guessing Pax. Pax has a strong balance of numbers, experience, and mentality.
While TEO may have more players and UNC may have a higher percentage of experienced PvPers I think it's the balance of those two factors that will put Pax on top in terms of the power to take and hold territory.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Brother knows the truth.
You underestimate the forces I have arrayed, my friends.
It is a mistake you shall not have the opportunity to resmurf.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait what.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Smurf.
Oh thank God.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Brother Zeal and Andius,
I believe you mean the Empire of Xeilias. Pax Gaming Community as a whole is not invested in PFO, so to keep referring to the fraction of members who are as "Pax" rather than as "EoX" is somewhat misleading (the use of the term, not you personally). At the moment, the majority of the two Xeilian settlements are made predominantly, but not exclusively, of Pax members. However, as the Imperial Ambassador, I can assure you that Pax membership is not required for membership in the Empire of Xeilias. That is true for single characters up to whole settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are many factors in PvP power. They are: numbers, experience, equipment and mentality (not listed by importance).
Numbers is the obvious equalizer or game changer depending on which side if the balance you find your group on.
There are some here on these boards, encouraged by Dev statements, that Zergs won't work. Poppycock, Zergs always work if the group using them cares nothing about efficiency of human resource distribution, and only cares about victory.
If a group is willing to spend 100 naked noobs vs. 6 well armed and experienced PvP veterans, the Zerg will win every time. If that is not he case the mathematics behind the game's combat system is woefully broken.
Experience is mostly meta. A group of players familiar with working as an organized unit will usually out perform an Ad Hoc group. These organized groups also usually have better communications and planning than less organized groupings.
Equipment, here is where the skill and activity of the supporting cast really makes a difference. The most developed settlements, with higher a population and skilled crafters, will have an edge over those groups that do not have that level of support.
Mentality.... Those who love to fight, just for the sake of fighting, will have an advantage over those who have to concoct some rationale for fighting. Aggression trumps reason in most cases. It is usually the best policy to assume that your enemy wants nothing less than everything you have, they want your utter destruction. Then you have one choice, fight them until you have no one left standing or they have been completely destroyed.
Diplomacy is the hope of the weak and the throwing away of total victory by the strong. Diplomacy is only used effectively by two or more equal powers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Master Hobs,
I believe Sun Tzu agrees with you ;)
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
“To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
“Supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
“Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Master Hobs,
I believe Sun Tzu agrees with you ;)
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War“To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War“Supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War“Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
I was waiting for my boy Sun Tzu to make an appearance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I was waiting for my boy Sun Tzu to make an appearance.Master Hobs,
I believe Sun Tzu agrees with you ;)
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War“To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War“Supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War“Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Sun Tzu wasn't playing an Open World PvP MMO with no permanent death. This is not to say that there is no applications of his philosophy to war fighting in games, but you have to consider This is a Game!, and his philosophy would be dramatically different in that context.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Agreed. But I knew he would come up sooner or later.
There is plenty of opportunity for all various war philosophies and experience to play a part in PFO combat.
Especially as its not even done yet, so really nobody knows what specifically will apply.
I know that unlimited death certainly throws a wrench in the works, we see it in live action all the time.
How can you ever 'win' when your enemy never actually dies?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I must add here that Sun Tzu was not a Chaotic Barbarian of Aragon, but a L-Awfulalist Thinker...
Try to quote Conan next time plz... :)
“Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing.”
― Robert E. Howard
“Barbarianism is the natural state of mankind. Civilization is unnatural. It is the whim of circumstance. And barbarianism must ultimately triumph”
― Robert E. Howard
“The more I see of what you call civilization, the more highly I think of what you call savagery!”
- King Kull
The real diplomacy:
“Lift that scimitar against me, you Hyrkanian pig and I'll gut you where you stand!”
- Conan