Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the "this pleases me" might be referring to the "sudden attacks" rather than the speculation that some people are leaving over those sudden attacks.
Warfare is good for the game, even if all of the mechanics are not in yet, because it breaks up the monotony that exists. The War of Towers is a poor substitute, as we have seen, because there was no clamor over it and no fear of it. War brings with it the potential for unmanageable risk, you don't know Helen, where or to what extent it will hit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is the whole point.
Unlike EVE which despite its propoganda as a "hardcore PvP game" is really a big girls blouse of a game with highsec totally safe, cloaking afk in any sec perfectly safe and once docked at a POS or station also perfectly safe and let us not even talk about blusec renter space in SOV which is even safer and more docile than highsec -- whereas there is absolutely nowhere safe from attack in Pathfinder, so long as you are logged in at all you can be attacked.
I have characters in EVE losec (supposedly the most dangerous space) that have maybe been shot at 3 or 4 times in several years. This is not the case in PFO.
* High Sec totally safe unless you are war decc'd, lured into becoming criminal flagged, or suicide ganked is what you meant to say or should have said.
*. Cloaking is not completely safe, you can be scanned down, if you're foolish enough to be afk and believe you are completely safe.
*. Docked at a POS is not perfectly safe, I have a Tech III Industrial hauler kill to prove that. Cyno "Hot Dropped" in and we alpha struck his ass before the pos guns could
take out even one of our tanks. When I'm on my computer I will link the kill mail.
*. Yes the SOV space in 0.0 is safer, only because of its remoteness, but as I mentioned above, we hot dropped into 0.0 space.
*. There are different varieties of low sec. There is low sec in remote, rarely traveled areas and then there is low sec that are a part of a short cut from one empire to another or have faction warfare sites in them.
I doubt you spent those years in low sec without being shot at in one of the later two types I described. If you haven't seen Russians, you're not in low sec.
PFO would be a better game if it mirrored more closely the systems structure of EvE, in my opinion of course.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
*If* we are seeing players leave because of the current war, my guess is that it is because they are lone wolf players who refuse to adapt.
GROUPS of EBA players seem to be faring far better at holding on to their phat lewtz than EBA's lone wolves.
Adaptable players would group more, or do any of a long list of suggestions already listed in other threads.
I realize that in a low population game building big groups isn't easy, but PvP-ers have the same difficulty. If a PvE-er joined the largest powerbloc in the game, I'm not buying that it's harder for them to group up than for a smaller powerbloc of PvPers.
And if a player quits because they refuse to group up and be social in an MMO, then all I can say to them is...
buh bye.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And if a player quits because they refuse to group up and be social in an MMO, then all I can say to them is...
buh bye.
This kind of player would most likely have not resubscribed anyway. Not recognizing the basic concepts of what an Open World PvP Sandbox MMO, or how to survive in one, is just an indicator that PFO or games like it are just not meant for everyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While my satisfaction with the current situation is primarily because the EA which came out "ready to rumble" in terms of taking towers most people have agreed are meaningless at this point they have clearly been given a black eye and a bloody nose in a very meaningful way if Golgotha's raids have resulted in the loss of members for them.
I also believe that in some cases the loss of some parts can can increase the health of the whole. The EA's current ideology is absolutely a rot eating at the whole.
In this very thread I was told by an EA member that their alliance seeking to make "non-consensual PvP" a "fringe element". That's a radical departure from their earlier ideology that talks about "Random Player Killing" or "Killing for the sake of killing" as the issue they sought to make a "fringe element"
Risk vs. Reward is thee defining element of games that successfully sell PvP driven player interaction as the core of their game. In say World of Warcraft PvP doesn't offer better rewards than any other content, it just offers different rewards. If you don't want to participate in PvP you opt out, and the PvP is something you can pick up or leave at any time. It's not really that compelling.
Contrasted with a successful risk vs. reward title like EVE, exposure to PvP is a requirement to get the best resources and create the greatest items. Not just any PvP but non-consensual PvP because absolutely nobody is going to consent to PvP while gathering valuable resources, doing lucrative PVE, or building greatly beneficial structures.
That's what makes it a type of content you can build a game around. PvP can put your group ahead or put your enemies behind, and gathering, crafting etc. gives your soldiers the tools to do it. You aren't fighting over epeen points you're fighting over power.
The more you go after valuable resources the more valuable you are to rob. The more more wealthy the people you rob the more powerful they tend to be, and the greater the power of the enemies you will make. Risk vs. reward compelling content. Interesting dynamics are made and people have a reason to log on.
Now the older ideology of TEO didn't fight this dynamic. It actually assisted it by dealing with the opposite problem of that no or little non-consensual PvP creates. A lack of non-consensual PvP based on a risk vs. reward progression make it so you are rewarded equally for every level of risk. "Random Player Killing" or "Killing For The Sake of Killing" gives equal risk for all levels of reward. If you examine TEO's founding doctrines that they've since departed from you can see they are aimed at reducing behaviors that give high risk to those who are not seeking high rewards. Basically they're about stabilizing the curve.
It also had a focus on letting people progress up the scale of risk vs. reward at a rate that was comfortable to them, and arming them with the knowledge they needed to progress up that scale.
The current TEO, EA, and a great portion of the community as a whole have basically been exchanging a risk vs. reward system to one in which crafters and PVEers feel a sense of entitlement to the best resources and greatest rewards and want equal protection to newbs and players who play it safe.
A few people may be content to use this game as an extension of the forums but the fact this game has a nearly crisis level low population with more leaving every day and people's free months through the kickstarter haven't even run out yet says the people holding this game back with their repetition of "Well I'm having fun" probably aren't great enough in numbers to pay the bill for this game improving fast enough to keep up with it's competition, which is also constantly improving.
In that regard, this game could use more people serious about Crowdforging a PvP driven title and less people attempting to neuter the systems that could make it a compelling title.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Andius,
I will point out, or at least I hope it is true, that it is also a fringe element that wants to make non consensual PvP a rare and "frowned upon" event.
On the GW forums, which I can't access from work, there is a post by a gatherer that objects to the notion that gatherers should train some form of fast travel as a defense against getting ganked while harvesting.
When presented with the tools to be a harder target, they are rejected, but instead the response is to curtail the threat rather than mitigate it for yourself.
This is classic "entitlement culture" thinking that should be almost universally corrected in its thinking or rejected outright as nit compatible with the game.
You may choose to not train skills that will make you less likely to fall victim to banditry, but then don't complain that you've been victimized by it. Even worse, don't complaint that there is the threat of being victimized from it, when it hasn't happened to you to begin with.
This always reminds me of the change that CCP did to cater to High Sec miners tired of getting suicide ganked (or at least fearful that it could happen). CCP in response reconfigured all ships related to mining (particularly barges). They increased their hull points, armor points and shield points, and increased their number of mid and low slots (in most case) to add more opportunities to have even more defense.
This change was projected to make suicide ganking impossible with 4-6 cruiser class ships, and to require the same number of Battle Cruisers, making suicide ganking a financial loser for the attackers.
It was a sound plan, but for one major flaw in reasoning. The miners took those additional slots and used them to increase their cargo hold or mining yield capabilities, which traded off the new buffs to survivability. The miner's misuse made it possible for Cruiser based gank squads to be effective again.
The miners began to complain once again...
It is refreshing to see newer sandbox MMOs, like Crowfall and certainly Albion Online, going the other direction. That is of course dangerous for PFO because these two games will be PFOs primary competition, and within the same genre of fantasy based avatars as well.
@ Andius,
I will point out, or at least I hope it is true, that it is also a fringe element that wants to make non consensual PvP a rare and "frowned upon" event.
I really wish that were so but the policies this community opposes have me firmly convinced it's greater than 50% of PFO's current player base.
If Crowfall were direct competition to PFO it would be safe to pronounce this game dead already. Where titles like Life is Feudal have a decent edge on PFO, Crowfall is leaps and bounds ahead of it in terms of how sophisticated their operation is, and the experience of the team working for them. Their crowdfunding has also been significantly more successful and the fact they are running the Voxel engine opens up a world of possibilities not accessible to PFO.
The fact that there are almost as many current and former PFO community members using their boards as there are using these boards also could be a major cause for concern.
Still, I think the lack of persistence of campaigns will help PFO out in terms of setting itself apart. But if they focus more on their post KS crowdfunding I could see them bringing in enough money to create a game that will eclipse all other fantasy sandboxes in the same way I don't care about any futuristic / space based title being worked on other than Star Citizen.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On the GW forums, which I can't access from work, there is a post by a gatherer that objects to the notion that gatherers should train some form of fast travel as a defense against getting ganked while harvesting.
False, I am objecting at the idea that there is a single cantrip that is significantly better than any other.
Giving only 1 option is the problem, not having to train speed skills.|
Goblin Squad Member
|
On the GW forums, which I can't access from work, there is a post by a gatherer that objects to the notion that gatherers should train some form of fast travel as a defense against getting ganked while harvesting.
False, I am objecting at the idea that there is a single cantrip that is significantly better than any other.
Giving only 1 option is the problem, not having to train speed skills.
I don't believe it was you, unless you have as different name at GW forums.
But the argument was not about not having to train one speed option, it was about having to train anything not within their character concept.
The issue is, if your character concept is as a gatherer, and you want to be the best you can at it... Then speed for the purposes of escape is needed. Energized Field not only gives the speed boost, but also resistance boost to yourself and everyone grouped as well. Unless they nerfed it, it is a no brainer.
But, as I said, you have a choice to not train it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This is running far afield from the issue of territory, which is why I brought my other comment (attached to Andius') to the other thread.
Back to EBA and its territorial claims, it appears that while there may be an internal understanding of what its outer perimeter is, the rules of entry are up to the individual settlements. IE. Brighthaven may grant safe passage, but Phaeros does not have to honor that. That then becomes Brihgthaven's responsibility to ensure that safe passage, otherwise its abilities or its word will come into question.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While my satisfaction with the current situation is primarily because the EA which came out "ready to rumble" in terms of taking towers most people have agreed are meaningless at this point they have clearly been given a black eye and a bloody nose in a very meaningful way if Golgotha's raids have resulted in the loss of members for them.
I don't know about TEO or Keeper's Pass, but because of Golgotha we at Phaeros (T7V) have seen in an increase in new recruits.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While my satisfaction with the current situation is primarily because the EA which came out "ready to rumble" in terms of taking towers most people have agreed are meaningless at this point they have clearly been given a black eye and a bloody nose in a very meaningful way if Golgotha's raids have resulted in the loss of members for them.I don't know about TEO or Keeper's Pass, but because of Golgotha we at Phaeros (T7V) have seen in an increase in new recruits.
Keepers Pass does not actively recruit in General Chat at the moment though at some point we may start (we currently find that new members that approach us as opposed to recruited ones tend to be more aware of what we are about, more interested and more keen and more committed) however we do seem to be seeing an increase in numbers recently. Keepers membership increases week by week.
The recent hostilities if anything have increased the dedication of existing members to the settlement and improved recruitment. The comments about both PvP and PvE players leaving the game were more about disgruntled "out of settlement" and newer players and TBH most of those that were going to leave left before the recent hostilities started.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If is it Andius commenting or not does not matter. At this point there are more non-PvP players because the PvP is minimally supported. THat is about to change.
Meanwhile EBA has, in this thread, announced that they claim large stretch that they do not need for defense. It is a mere grab because to the power they have, not the desire to prevent RPK. Can we then assume that any place out of this claim, they are fair game, if we are fair game inside?
I have been told that is not the topic of this thread. That discussion of EBA claim of a quarter or more of the initial map is not subject of this thread and I should go somewhere else (unspecified) to discuss this. Next I know, the thread police will be tracking my alts with bounties.
The maps includes hexes that are 8 away from any EBA settlement. And there are hexes two way form other settlements, weaker settlements One is three hexes by crow flies or seven by overland from your settlement and two from another settlement. This is a grab based upon power and size. It is based upon the thought that there will never be large PvP crowds. If that is the case this game concept fails. The game from the outset has been PvP
Yes you have the power. And it is right at proper that others apply pressure to change that. WIth the attitude my alts have received in EBA, with this attitude of control, with this idea that the far lower left is security concern of the EBA is just laughable. I am glad I did not stay there. Go take care of your PvP afeared players. with outposts and raids, the game should have more room for physical and economic PvP.
