PvP and the existing community


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 424 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Last night on PFU comms I had noted that the community (as a whole) wasn't interested in PvP.

People started giving me advice on how we might attract the community to PvP.

Other speakers took the conversation in other directions before I had a chance to respond, so I wanted to respond here.

I'm not sure if I speak for other PvPers, but I'm no longer even interested in getting the existing community into PvP. I tried for 2 months because it seemed like INFORMED crowdforging was going to be vital to having a good game in 2016.

Sooner or later GW will make PvP relevant. When that day comes there will likely be about 5 dozen people with enough PvP experience to be called veterans. Everyone else will have to sink or swim.

I'm happy to give interested people advice on PvP, and I and my mates still put effort into getting NEW players interested in PvP.

But I'm not trying to convince the existing community anymore; I'm leaving it to GoblinWorks to make PvP relevant enough that ignoring it will be at one's own peril.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

So what you're saying is...

You can't start a fire without a spark, but this gun's for hire, even if we're just dancing in the dark.

Goblin Squad Member

7 people marked this as a favorite.

While I might be missing the conversation's full context, as someone who is interested in PvP I will say that I'm not interested in PvP that doesn't actually accomplish anything. There is nothing interesting or competitive in the game yet for me to engage with PvP wise so I spend my time doing other things in preparation for when there are PvP activities for me to do. Kinda sucks, but I'm keeping busy none the less, if I totally get bored I might have a problem. We'll see how long that takes.

Some practice certainly won't hurt, but I'm not gonna go randomly attack someone under the guise of 'practice' when theirs no mechanical reason to do so and it will only cost me meta political points. I'll do that with my buddies in an open PvP hex (As long as Rep isn't bugging out again...).

Goblin Squad Member

The hardest part, in my opinion, won't be people knowing their attacks, the conditions they can capitalise on, or using expendables. It will be using these in the most effective manner as part of a team. It will be the squads that have practised these things together, and have developed cohesive strategies that will dominate. And it will be a shock and discouraging for those doing group pvp for the first time.

Goblin Squad Member

6 people marked this as a favorite.

While I applaud your sediment, Savage Grace, the PvP aspect of the game isn't there yet for me to enjoy PvP so I eschew it when I can. Let me speak as one of your 'target' audience.

One on one bandit style ganking isn't my thing, hence I don't participate in that and despite assertions by the PvPers, it doesn't contribute meaningful content to the game IMO and I consider it a poor training tool to learn PvP except within a narrow spectrum of doing one on one battles.

I reject the notion of attacking characters to force the community to the realization that this is a PvP game and to force players to adapt.

Really?

I got jumped by two known Golgothans two days ago. At the time, it was my Level 4 Wizard with T1 + 0 gear. I got jumped by two Golgothans in T2+ gear, which I can recognize as T2+ gear. I lasted all of two seconds as expected.

Just what was I supposed to learn from that?

Get better equipment? Yeah, I didn't need that lesson in brutality to know that this game is about equipment and getting it as soon as one can.

That two on one is bad? Yeah, didn't need to get ganked in two seconds flat to learn that. Any fool knows that 2 on 1 is a bad situation, especially when the two are better equipment, better trained and better tactically situated (ie attacking from surprise)

Learn to PvP? Yeah, that two seconds of me being essentially stun locked into ineffectiveness was a valuable lesson. I essentially couldn't do a damn thing until I was downed, so that two second 'learning' window to PvP. Yeah, valuable. <rolls eyes>

Learn about conditionals? Already knew that. Totally irrelevant in the situation above. Zero time to shake off negative conditionals. Full to dead in two seconds. Just what was I supposed to learn?

What did I take away from experience? That there is a bunch of goons in T2+ armor ganking newbies and low level characters in the six hexes around Marchmont. There is a segment of the PvP crowd that consider that 'meaningful' PvP and that is the problem right there. Those situations become very negative to the community. Since when does two Level 9+ with full T2+ gear attacking by surprise a relatively new 4th level character 'meaningful' in by any metric?

It wasn't meaningful for me in any way. Any 'lessons' about PvP I either knew already or the context of the situation make any 'lesson' totally pointless. There was NO 'meaning' to this PvP at all. It would have been more meaningful for the two goons to square off with each other.

Let me sum it up if the above wasn't clear. They kicked a puppy. Pure and simple. And most people don't like puppy kickers, whether in real life or in a game.

Personally, I joined this game knowing the risks. I don't care if I lost inventory. Part of the game. I lost durability on T1+0 eqipment. Totally inconsequential. I am not anti-PvP per se but lets just say that the my experience from the other night was not positive to me in any way and wholly negative in my view to a part of the community that I consider 'puppy kickers'.

I am understanding of your desires for meaningful PvP and I am all for that. In due time, perhaps, I will walk into your tavern somewhere and call you out for a old fashion one on one PvP on a equal footing. Now, that is meaningful to me.

Golgotha, their ilk and other pro-PvPers need to up their game because IMO, they are going about it all wrong. Several treads have come up on the Goblinworks and Paizo boards about the size and power of EBA, who have made no bones about being against negative PvP. How the size and power of EBA may be a danger to the game for PvP.

How about this - STOP DOING EBA'S RECRUITING FOR THEM!

Every meaningless and negative PvP experience is a potential recruit for EBA. EBA doesn't need to recruit, the PvPers are doing it for them and the PvPers are blind to this.

Now I did engage in a meaningful PvP the other night with another character of mine. A relatively large scale engagement with nearly 30 people total for combatants. Meaningful? Hell, Yes! Did I die? Yes. Did I care? No. Could I enjoy this? YES, but...

The game isn't there yet. My frustration was trying to target the enemy. The experienced PvPers run around like over caffeinated squirrels hopped and jump around like gazelles. Like someone doped up rabid squirrels, put them in the box, kicked around the box and them dumped the squirrels on the ground and said 'Fight'

I spent most of the combat just trying to identify the enemy and then doing a insane click fest trying to target one guy. This is where the game falls down at the moment. It needs to be way better than this if people like myself who are new to MMOs and to PvP are to be won over. Because it is insanely hard right now and frustrating and expecting someone to spend hours doing click fest activities to better target is NOT a way to endear PvP to a new comer. I have high hope the 'Feud' mechanics will make this a lot easier and then I would enjoy it more.

Othewise, kick the puppy too many times, like the activities going on around Marchmont and all you will succeed in doing is turning newcomers off to PvP due to the negative experience and they will either be pushed further into a anti-PvP mindset and never appreciate or they will join the steady growing ranks of EBA as protection from the negative PvP presented thus far in the game.

Truly, I DO GET your frustration, Savage Grace. I want to play YOUR GAME at some point but IMO, the game isn't there and I am not there yet.

In the final analysis, the issue isn't the 'existing community'. The issue is the 'presentation' and 'meaningfulness' of the PvP by certain elements in the game that has worked completely against what they claim is their goals. Carry on with the current state that most PvP is conducted right now and the 'New' community will be the same type of players of the 'Existing' Community and you have gained nothing, except a bigger and more polarized EBA, and settlements and companies who 'bunker down' to protect themselves for the largely negative PvP that has been the norm up to now. And the issue is the game 'tech' has not matured enough to make the PvP fully meaningful and FUN to people like myself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The onus is soundly on Goblinworks to increase interest in PvP. EE7 better bring some good combat mechanic changes. In the few mid-sized skirmishes where people have fun, they do so despite the current mechanics. All we're really left with now are a couple of sloppy mini-zerg groups and a broken capture the tower game. Convincing people who want more immersive PvP to join in that "fun" is like convincing a foodie to just give up and eat McDonalds. Many players are content to just pick some flowers until GW picks up the slack. Many more will just continue to relocate to "secure" areas (bleh) until the map falls on its end. The current state of PvP creates a negative experience for many new players coming here for an open world PvP sandbox.


@Black Moria

I'm actually not frustrated, I've moved beyond it.

It is completely acceptable to eschew PvP until doing so becomes unavoidable.

Heck, I avoided crafting until the devs fixed Thornguards. (Thanks Golgotha!) Being ganked at a crafting station while my guards picked their noses was as unappealing an idea as some of the PvP you eschew.

My mates' antics may not be winning over the old guard, but landrush pretty much told us y'all weren't joining, anyway.

As far as the new players coming in, we registered 7 new players on our website last night. How many people signed up with your settlement last night?

Everyone's membership numbers (including Golgotha's) are whack right now, due to new companies forming (while settlements are having problems with being able to accept them) but Golgotha is growing by leaps and bounds and almost every one of our guys is a PvPer.

I think we're poised for greatness if PvP ever becomes relevant.


While I agree with a couple of your points Moria in regards to pvp not having matured, I would very much appreciate you to not insinuate that Golgothans in anyway condone the ganking and killing of new players around Marchmont. We are not murder hobos who kill anything that moves rather we try to do alot of homework on the target. Have we seen them before? Which settlement do they belong to? Have they been gathering in our territory? You wouldn't believe how many times we just let someone go because we are unsure. Yes we might kill a player a couple hexes away from Marchmont time to time but not new players. And I certainly wouldn't classify you as a "new" player either I think you deserve much more credit than that.

Goblin Squad Member

I think it will become relevant. And the game will make it 'needed' because the system is making resources the point of friction which will affect everyone.

Right now, there really no incentive for a crafter to consider PvP something of concern because except for the occasional ganking, their resources come in by gatherers who take the risks, they craft away and they or their community profits.

Rather sterile and safe, yes?

Except, once bulk goods and the holding/settlement bits get implemented, a raid on their settlement or outpost will have ramifications with influence, settlement infrastructure gets damage and resources that support most aspects of the settlement are threatened and everyone is at risk at some fashion, due to diminished capacity for training and crafting.

Like it or not, people are going to have to 'take to the field' and 'stand to' to protect those resources and that infrastructure.

Which means medium and large scale battles will be a normal part of every day life. And if you don't have enough personnel or warriors, that means crafter and gatherers are going to have the 'hold the line' on occasion.

That mean most people are going to have to PvP or be more active in supporting the PvP more directly than now (either being scouts, or supply haulers, crafting or repairing equipment or fixing infrastructure.

I see that and acknowledge that part is coming. It will be huge once implemented and it is going to be a rude awaking to most people just how much that new aspect of the game is going to impact their blissful sedate way they are playing the game.

But it is not here yet.

And the rather negative blowback on the questionable 'content' of most of the existing PvP now is a negative impediment to the transition to that 'other'game that is coming.

I AM on your side on this, despite me point out the negatives of PvP in my previous post. I see what is coming and I am preparing for. But cherry picking my argument and offering antedotal counter evidence doesn't not strengthen your argument or change the reality as I see it.

As Adam Savage said in Mythbuster - 'I reject your argument and substitute my own'

My point remains - the PvP up to know as largely been negative to the community, doesn't further your cause or win you any support among the people on the sidelines who aren't already been polarized to either extreme and is an impediment to the mental transition from a game in which PvP is considered somehow 'wrong' to a game in which is will be the norm and a necessity if settlements want to survive once all the bits and pieces are in place.


Black Moria wrote:
My point remains - the PvP up to know as largely been negative to the community, doesn't further your cause or win you any support among the people on the sidelines who aren't already been polarized to either extreme and is an impediment to the mental transition from a game in which PvP is considered somehow 'wrong' to a game in which is will be the norm and a necessity if settlements want to survive once all the bits and pieces are in place.

First, let me remind you I haven't done any banditry in over a month. Because banditry is also irrelevant PvP.

I think all the PvP up to now has been largely irrelevant and furthered no one's cause, nor hindered anyone's cause. The entirety of all the loot that has been "bandited" over the last 3 months across the map is probably less valuable than what any average player has sitting in a bank.

Regarding the mental transition... Psychologically, non-consensual PvP has been kind of wild, but on the forums it is almost like crime headlines in the newspaper. Far more people read about "crime" than ever experience it.

And if the people who experienced non-consensual PvP were RATIONAL about it, they'd realize they lose almost nothing.

I'm not worried about the mental transition of the community, because it doesn't really matter. Rational people will simply deal with it and irrational people will keep doing whatever it is irrational people do.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The idea that you gained nothing, the target lost nothing but you still did it anyways says all sorts of things about interpreting motivations, differing psychological reactions to events, and gauging future behavior.

Arguably no matter what the specific outcome is everything breaks down to 'wasting' someone's time. I think people generally dislike when that happens, especially if it's a surprise or unintended affect, the negative emotion of feeling helpless or annoyed will persist much longer than the light satisfaction of having a successful night doing whatever in-game activity. No one remembers 'all' the days when nothing happened, they only remember the highs and the lows.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Duffy

I wanted to engage in informed crowdforging. I can't tell GW about things I don't try.

So I tried it, and it was irrelevant.

I can't speak for others, but some of what continues by others may just be training/practice, or a willingness to TRY it longer than I was willing to try it before giving up on it, or maybe they *like* their results compared to what they can gather or loot in PvE (which seems unlikely to me).

Banditry is like fishing.

Some people have more patience than me with wasting their time while waiting for that big fish... and some people just like to be fishing, regardless of their results.

Frankly, I don't blame people for continuing to try banditry compared to some aspects of the game.

If you compare it to staring at a 35 hour armor crafting bar... even chasing a gatherer carrying a single tansy leaf actually sounds like more fun. :-)

Goblin Squad Member

Flynn Pontis wrote:
While I agree with a couple of your points Moria in regards to pvp not having matured, I would very much appreciate you to not insinuate that Golgothans in anyway condone the ganking and killing of new players around Marchmont. We are not murder hobos who kill anything that moves rather we try to do alot of homework on the target. Have we seen them before? Which settlement do they belong to? Have they been gathering in our territory? You wouldn't believe how many times we just let someone go because we are unsure. Yes we might kill a player a couple hexes away from Marchmont time to time but not new players. And I certainly wouldn't classify you as a "new" player either I think you deserve much more credit than that.

I will not name and shame on these forums. This incident happened in the hex directly north of Marchmont and the two individuals were well known Golgothans. One of them is in the leadership of Golgatha. Enough said.

So just how have I mischaracterised this? You are entitled to your opinion but not to your own facts and you were not there. I was and some other player I don't know from jack whispered me not to come back to my husk because one of them was still there as he could see him and the other guy chased him to Marchmont. So witnessed as well.

And several weeks previous, I saw a newbie get ganked by another well established Golgothan (No naming and shaming). I knew he was new because he was talking with others in general about where to get gear, Yada yada. Someone mentioned PFO at Riverbank and told him about it. Some 30 to 45 minutes later, I see him pass me in a hex or two south of Marchmont. He isn't even off my mini map when another player closes on his icon and he is done like dinner. I identified the other player as a known Golgothan hostile and cleared out.

Now, all Golgothans aren't murder hobos. I acknowledge that here and now. But, IMO, there is a few bad apples in that barrel. And what is the saying - If you sleep with dogs, you get fleas.

As to me being a new player - no, not a new player. New character. Answer me this. What exactly is the point for T2+ characters ganking a level 4 wizard in a hex immediately north of Marchmont, if that area is supposedly a 'leave the newbs alone' area. It can't be for the loot. I assume it has to be for the giggles because I don't get it otherwise. Color me confused then.

Goblin Squad Member

Black Moria, If you can PM me the names. We can't deal with problems if we don't actually know the facts. Golgothans should know not to start pvp around Marchmont. IF the names cannot be provided, I have to assume it did not happen OR you cannot actually claim they were "established" Golgothans. Thank You

Goblin Squad Member

Gol Tigari wrote:
Black Moria, If you can PM me the names. We can't deal with problems if we don't actually know the facts. Golgothans should know not to start pvp around Marchmont. IF the names cannot be provided, I have to assume it did not happen OR you cannot actually claim they were "established" Golgothans. Thank You

PM sent.

Goblin Squad Member

I've waited a bit before commenting here, but the OP makes a good point. The point is made even more clear by reaction that Black Moria had to being killed, in what was likely a rare occasion for him, by a superior force.

What surprises me is the near apologetic tone that has been taken for such a likely rare event, over ..... Heaven forbid... Two guys playing "bad guys" / evil characters.

The OP's posts is even more affirmed and it's concern is possibly understated.

Goblin Squad Member

I don't see any apology for two people killing a third. I see concern by Tigari that it might have happened closer to Marchmont ([b]and[b] to a character that was not obviously advanced) than is Golgotha's meta-policy.


Bluddwolf wrote:


The OP's posts is even more affirmed and it's concern is possibly understated.

Since I'm unconcerned, it can't possibly be understated. ;-)

People don't want to PvP and they'll probably even get away with it. Most players have gotten away with it for over 3 months, now.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Savage Grace wrote:
People don't want to PvP...

Having been personally accused of "not wanting to PvP" for years on these forums, when it was never true and despite my best efforts to illuminate the truth, I'm skeptical of this.

I think a lot of the people playing PFO are not interested in random player killing, and rightly recognize that PFO was marketed as a game that will have "a negative feedback loop that links random killing to gimping character development".

The fact that the game has developed a culture that's intolerant of certain types of degenerative behavior is good. The fact that Phaeros was able to generate some meaningful PvP last night when we defended the Tower we took from AGC (who was consistently violating our sovereignty in Everbloom Alliance Territory by both establishing a Base Camp and attacking Escalations) is good. The fact that some of the groups who have been written off as "anti-PvP" fought side-by-side with us while we did so is good.

People don't want meaningless PvP. People don't want PvP that deliberately targets inexperienced players around starter areas. But that doesn't mean they don't want PvP.

Goblin Squad Member

Caldeathe Baequiannia wrote:

I don't see any apology for two people killing a third. I see concern by Tigari that it might have happened closer to Marchmont ([b]and[b] to a character that was not obviously advanced) than is Golgotha's meta-policy.

I intentionally used "near" apology. If it is an internal policy of Golgotha not to prey on anyone near Marchmont, then that may require an internal reminder of the policy.

How will this community build capacity for tolerating non consensual PvP if it jumps to correct rare instances of it , as if there is something wrong with non consensual PvP ?

From a bandit"s perspective, the only meaningful PvP is preying upon gatherers or looting husks found in the wild. Those are the only sources of quick loot. As long as the sever population is low and concentrated in a few areas, bandits will go where the opportunity is. When you can cross 30+ wilderness hexes, and not encounter another player, you have little choice but to hunt around the settlements.

Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that this means preying on noobs, it actually doesn't have to resort to that. For example, I looted 3 husks last night, and in all three cases the original owners of the husks returned while I was still there. In all three cases I did not attack, nor did I prevent them from taking what was left of the husk.

Only one followed me to the bank in Aragon, and he shot me once. I ignored him, and figured I'll let him take the rep hit and get ganked by TG. He was possibly savvy enough not to hit twice.


Quote:
People don't want meaningless PvP. People don't want PvP that deliberately targets inexperienced players around starter areas. But that doesn't mean they don't want PvP.

Then all those people who have posted on the forums that they didn't want PvP at all, and ragequit the game because of PvP are just bad at typing?

I'm willing to bet that your stipulation only comes close to being true because most of the staunchest anti-PvP people have already ragequit, and the most active PvP-centric groups or sub-groups have already left as well. What is left behind is likely just the people who have crafting alts who will switch characters to engage in PvP when it appears there are more than a dozen people online playing the game.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Al Smithy wrote:
Quote:
People don't want meaningless PvP. People don't want PvP that deliberately targets inexperienced players around starter areas. But that doesn't mean they don't want PvP.

Then all those people who have posted on the forums that they didn't want PvP at all, and ragequit the game because of PvP are just bad at typing?

I'm willing to bet that your stipulation only comes close to being true because most of the staunchest anti-PvP people have already ragequit, and the most active PvP-centric groups or sub-groups have already left as well. What is left behind is likely just the people who have crafting alts who will switch characters to engage in PvP when it appears there are more than a dozen people online playing the game.

Every single person that I engaged with who initially said that they didn't want PvP came to adjust their position toward not wanting meaningless PvP. Some of them didn't believe that PFO would provide meaningful enough PvP for them, and many wanted a theme park game, and some left before I could engage them, and some were driven off by other forumites. But nobody, without exception, stayed long enough to hear that PvP would be meaningful and then said that meaningful open-world pvp was an absolute deal-breaker.

Goblin Squad Member

Quote:
Quote:
People don't want meaningless PvP. People don't want PvP that deliberately targets inexperienced players around starter areas. But that doesn't mean they don't want PvP.
Then all those people who have posted on the forums that they didn't want PvP at all, and ragequit the game because of PvP are just bad at typing?

Part of the problem, of course, being that "people" are using "people" as though it means everybody, when both of you are talking about "some people." Some people do, in fact, want meaningless PvP, because all the meaning they need is to "win." Others want meaningful PvP, while others want as little as they can encounter, or none.

If somebody doesn't want any PvP, then it doesn't matter whether they ragequit or exited gracefully, because they don't belong in PFO. Other people have reassessed our positions and are (at various speeds) making peace with the notion of PvP combat.


Nihimon wrote:
Savage Grace wrote:
People don't want to PvP...

I'm skeptical of this.

The community doesn't just oppose meaningless PvP. The community constantly uses crowdforging, and diplomacy to assure that the only PvP available *is* meaningless PvP.

Everyone who pressed for the core 6 tower NAP didn't want to PvP.

Everyone whose resistance to GW's initial ideas for WoT core 6 removal, (that eventually caused GW to make P.C. settlements start better than NPC settlements EVEN WHEN THEY HAVE NO TOWERS) didn't want to PvP.

There are lots of little ways that people show they don't want PvP. They can claim they want it, that they see a place for it, that they'd do it if defensive scouting weren't so burdensome, that the game mechanics need improvement, etc.

But, in fact, people don't want it. They certainly don't want very much of it, and they want it to be eminently avoidable and it will have to be largely without risk or penalty before 90% of the population does it, and even then, they'll hope that someone else does it for them.

I stand by my initial claim that there will still be only 5 dozen PvP veterans the day that PvP becomes relevant.

And that's fine. PvP will probably become relevant in such tiny baby steps that experience won't matter, and throwing a bunch of inexperienced people onto the field (with empty pockets so they can't lose anything and with free gear given to them and gear replacement promises) will probably accomplish everything that needs to be accomplished by most settlements.


Quote:
Part of the problem, of course, being that "people" are using "people" as though it means everybody

No, I didn't mean everybody, I meant specifically the people who posted on the forums they did not like non-consenual PvP at all. The threads are there, I read them. I also read the threads on here pertaining to that Blackwatch people or whoever they were. But I get what you're saying.

Quote:
If somebody doesn't want any PvP, then it doesn't matter whether they ragequit or exited gracefully, because they don't belong in PFO.

Yeah, pretty much. It's too bad that Goblin Works and Paizo blew their marketing wad on a bunch of people who apparently fell into that category. I guess the rest of the evaporation of the playbase can be accounted for by the bugginess of each update.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd like to note that I'm not certain those numbers are a bad thing--we've got security forces and military that are ready to engage in combat as needed, then a civilian side that is much larger and does not want to engage in combat. That make sense to me. I don't think the point of PFO is to get to a point where 100% of the population engages in, or even likes, PVP.

As Cal notes, the folks that want 0% PvP and no risk aren't a fit for the game at all--even craftsmen, gatherers, etc. have to understand that PvP may come to them, but that doesn't mean they'll seek it out or enjoy it when it happens. They just need to be prepared as best they can to survive/escape and also not see the experience as a "problem" with PFO.

So, 60 veterans, out of a population of say 600 active players, could be the right number. They'll be the folks that lead another several dozen folks in the required PvP, while the rest of the folks keep working at their parts of the game. Now, these are just numbers I made up, but I do think it's a worthy question--what percentage of the population do folks feel should be actively seeking PvP opportunities?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Stop being reasonable. ;-P

Yeah, 10% might be enough, but Eve suggests that those who want to be free of PvP will be paying PvPers for the privilege to PvE in territory held by PvP-ers.

Who will be the first settlement to admit they have renters? :-)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Heh, sorry about that, need more caffeine to get me all hyped up and angry...

The mutually beneficial relationship between combatants and non-combatants should be a rich source of interaction in the game. The former will be necessary to provide the protection needed, while the latter are necessary to provide equipment. On that equation, the Keepers are happy to have renters in Keeper's Pass from either side! Well, so long as the abide our tenet of non-aggression...


Can PvP participation metrics (like Eve's PAP links) be far behind?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Savage Grace wrote:

Yeah, 10% might be enough, but Eve suggests that those who want to be free of PvP will be paying PvPers for the privilege to PvE in territory held by PvP-ers.

Who will be the first settlement to admit they have renters? :-)

TEOs initial concept was to be a PvP force that provided a space for people to be mostly safe from random player killing (to include simple banditry).

I don't think we have renters, yet. I think that our goals and ambitions are still such that we'd let individuals and companies live in our space without belonging to TEO, provided they are good citizens.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Savage Grace wrote:

Stop being reasonable. ;-P

Yeah, 10% might be enough, but Eve suggests that those who want to be free of PvP will be paying PvPers for the privilege to PvE in territory held by PvP-ers.

Who will be the first settlement to admit they have renters? :-)

"Admit"? Who will be the first group to boast that they support renters?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Savage Grace wrote:

Last night on PFU comms I had noted that the community (as a whole) wasn't interested in PvP.

People started giving me advice on how we might attract the community to PvP.

I was one of those people.

I have PvPed in PFO and enjoyed a lot of those fights.

But some were less enjoyable, and would likely have turned off a reluctant PvPer.

One of Golgotha's claims is that they are the best PvPers in the game right now - yet rarely do I see Golgothans fight with even odds - most fights they outnumber their opponents - so is it numbers or ability that is coming into play?

In one fight, when I suggested even odds, the response I received was that even odds were for suckers/losers.

When it was suggested that tournaments be held, the response that I remember is that Golgotha wasn't interested in that kind of fight.

The perception is that Golgothan's aren't interested in skilled PvP, but in gang ganking smaller groups.

That perception also colours the perception of PvP in general.

So how do you get people to engage in PvP? To get them wanting to engage in PvP?

I am willing to put up a T2+3 Captain's Chainmail as the prize for a tournament next weekend (have to make the armour first :)), say 8 Golgothans vs 8 non-golgothans (likely Coal Road folks) with eliminations so that the winner of the last fight get's the prize (with everyone else taking a single hit to durability). Would that be sufficiently attractive to get you to participate?

Disclaimer: I was killed by Tink the other day when out gathering (I have no issue with that, it is a danger of gathering alone). After the fight I had a conversation with him about how he had managed to catch me, then kill me - he explained what he had done and when asked, provided some possible counters. That type of interaction raises my interest (and skills) in PvP.

Goblin Squad Member

Yeah Golgotha never fights people in groups that out number them. Nope, never happens.

Goblin Squad Member

Nope. I've never seen it happen ever.


And Golgothans have never milled around for 1.5 to 3 hours WAITING for their foes to summon enough force so they can be outnumbered.

Nope, never happened.


Mistwalker wrote:


One of Golgotha's claims is that they are the best PvPers in the game right now

My self described claims for my characters have run from mediocre PvPer to I may be one of the worst PvPers in the land.

I would describe Golgotha as the most enthusiastic PvPers.

PvP in this game isn't really sensible enough, yet, for anyone to be consistently "best", and like Eve, the best PvP RESULTS (when PvP is relevant) will usually come with the best PvP participation.

That will be a combination of numbers and dogged determination to keep showing up.

Goblin Squad Member

Al Smithy wrote:
Quote:
Part of the problem, of course, being that "people" are using "people" as though it means everybody
No, I didn't mean everybody, I meant specifically the people who posted on the forums they did not like non-consenual PvP at all.

That's not correct. I was one of the most vocal opponents of non-consensual PvP and I am still here and have adjusted my position in the face of logical arguments. Admittedly, I adjusted same a long time ago, so if you weren't looking at threads before last fall, you might think I've always been balanced on that point.

Goblin Squad Member

The most exciting time I have had was PvP. For several minutes the character eluded pursuit. Then tried a new strategy and died. It was fabulous!

I am not much of a PvP player, but ....

Goblin Squad Member

Gol Phyllain wrote:
Yeah Golgotha never fights people in groups that out number them. Nope, never happens.

I have no doubt that you have done just that, but I haven't seen it.

To my knowledge, I have fought Golgothans 5 times.

1st fight, Tink and Tubomo attacked 3 from Stoneroot while they were out doing some PvE (and apparently is the only time that Tink has been killed in PvP).

2nd time, while doing PvE, 8 Golgothans attacked 3 from Stoneroot Glade.

3rd time (perhaps part 2 to the second time), Stoneroot went and got 3 others, bringing a total of 6, and challenged via Whisper those 8 Golgothans. The Golgothans sent a spy to determine our number, route and timing - and then 10 Golgothans ambused us before the agreed upon combat hex (great tactics - hit from Stealth while we were passing near a large group of wolves, so not only had to fight at 10 to 6 odds, but also had to fight the wolves).

4th time, was when I was trying to take a Callabean tower, the first Golgothan on the seen waited until re-inforcements had arrived before attacking - 3 Golgothans vs me (using my daughter's archer). After the second death, the archer had lost several pieces of key gear and was withdrawing, when Tink (apparently on the way to the tower - to bring the odds to 4 to 1) attacked (managed to break combat before dying).

5th time, while out with my gatherer, Tink killed him (and as mentioned above was very civil and answered questions about his technique and possible counters).

Others in the NW corner of the map have had similar encounters with Golgothans.

Offers to fight on even terms have so far been turned down.

This is why the impression is building up in the NW that Golgothans are more interested in gang ganking than in real PvP combat.

I do not mind PvP. You Golgothans state that you enjoy PvP and bemoan the lack of PvP in the game, that people don't want to engage in PvP with you. Yet attempts to get you to engage in PvP in a manner that will also be fun (and a learning experience) for those more reluctant to PvP are ignored or dismissed.

Since you appear to have no interest in my attempts to get those reluctant to try PvP, do you have any suggestions?


Mistwalker wrote:
Gol Phyllain wrote:
Yeah Golgotha never fights people in groups that out number them. Nope, never happens.

I have no doubt that you have done just that, but I haven't seen it.

To my knowledge, I have fought Golgothans 5 times.

1st fight, Tink and Tubomo attacked 3 from Stoneroot
while they were out doing some PvE (and apparently is the only time that Tink has been killed in PvP).

ITT 2 > 3

lol

Goblin Squad Member

Mistwalker wrote:
Offers to fight on even terms have so far been turned down.

Is that surprising?

I don't mean to imply specifically "when dealing with Golgotha", but in a general sense, why would anyone accept the terms of that offer?

"Even Terms" is not good training among friends, because it is outside of what your normal circumstances will be. Only exception may be one-on-one training.

After reading your description of the four encounters you had with Golgotha, they may very well be the best PVP company / settlement in the game.

Goblin Squad Member

1st time, as said it was the 2 of us against the 3 of you. We had just finished up with our PvE night up North and were on our way home when Tabomo saw you. I broke off from our group to come and have a go. We ended up getting our asses kicked because I messed up and chased one of you half way across the hex, leaving Tabomo to die. Quick note, that wasn't the first time I had died in PvP, I'm fairly sure I said it was the 3rd instance of PvP in which I have died. The current respawn mechanics have it so that I generally gauge a fight one of two ways; "Did I die at all this fight?". I had previously died a few times in extended fights with the South.

2nd time, yup. We came up into your lands, looked for your people, and killed you. As long as you have the second most valuable Monster Home hex in the game right on your doorstep, that is going to happen. As long as your recruiters continue to use the supposed safety oft he NW as a recruitment tool, that is going to happen.

3rd time. We didn't send a spy, one of our guys logged off early, came back on, saw you guys and said so on TS. We moved up to find you, literally ran right into you, and attacked. There wasn't an ambush. We weren't in stealth. You had literally as much time to react as we did, we just reacted a whole bunch faster. You seriously overestimate my organisational skill if you think attacking you while wolves were on you was purposeful.

4th time. You ran out of the hex, and I didn't want to lose reputation. Have a mentioned how stupid it is that someone only has to make it to the hex boundary to be safe, even if I have been stabbing them literally the entire time they have been running (and not doing damage because f+#& melee combat).

5th time. Yeah. Not much to say other than gathering is dangerous near the center of the map. Thanks for the resources though.

You know what I find funny? Tink is the common link in all of those PvP instances. I was either the aggressor, or I was leading the group at the time. So let me make this perfectly clear.

Golgotha will not bring equal forces to a fight if we can help it. If we can bring twice as many people as you can, then we will. We worked hard to get those recruits, and I'm going to use the,. If we can only bring half as many people as you can, chances are we will. The South can attest to that fact. We might have gotten our asses handed to us, but we knew before every fight that we would be facing overwhelming odds, and we still fought.

I will always, always take the smarter fight if I can. Having half my men stand on the sidelines because you want a fair fight is not the smart decision. I am not here to give your group PvP experience. I am not here to raise you up to more than you would otherwise be. If you want to learn how to PvP properly, then join one of the settlements that are actually regularly PvPing (we aren't the only ones). Golgotha is always looking for recruits.

Otherwise start matching the hard work that Golgotha has done in fostering a PvP positive community for the last 2 years. My people earnt the right to smash through those who didn't (and get rekt'd by those that did).

Goblin Squad Member

Gol Tink wrote:
3rd time. We didn't send a spy, one of our guys logged off early, came back on, saw you guys and said so on TS. We moved up to find you, literally ran right into you, and attacked. There wasn't an ambush. We weren't in stealth. You had literally as much time to react as we did, we just reacted a whole bunch faster. You seriously overestimate my organisational skill if you think attacking you while wolves were on you was purposeful.

Nice to know what happened, but as I mentioned above, the perception was there that it was well planned out. I will note that the "spy" was running into Stoneroot and didn't appear to be logging back in, so still appears to be a spy - however I am willing to accept that you didn't deliberately set it up

(Hey, wait a moment - wouldn't a devious lawful evil person want me to underestimate them? :))

Gol Tink wrote:

Golgotha will not bring equal forces to a fight if we can help it. If we can bring twice as many people as you can, then we will. We worked hard to get those recruits, and I'm going to use the,. If we can only bring half as many people as you can, chances are we will. The South can attest to that fact. We might have gotten our asses handed to us, but we knew before every fight that we would be facing overwhelming odds, and we still fought.

I will always, always take the smarter fight if I can. Having half my men stand on the sidelines because you want a fair fight is not the smart decision. I am not here to give your group PvP experience. I am not here to raise you up to more than you would otherwise be. If you want to learn how to PvP properly, then join one of the settlements that are actually regularly PvPing (we aren't the only ones). Golgotha is always looking for recruits.

Otherwise start matching the hard work that Golgotha has done in fostering a PvP positive community for the last 2 years. My people earnt the right to smash through those who didn't

If this was Open Enrolment, you would be 100% correct. This is where Ryan appears to want the game to go.

But this isn't yet Open Enrolment, it is still Early Enrolment, with all of the bugs, hiccups and opportunities to influence where the game is going.

Savage Grace wrote:
I tried for 2 months because it seemed like INFORMED crowdforging was going to be vital to having a good game in 2016.

This is part of what I am trying to address in this thread.

The Devs have stated that they were surprised by the fact that we weren't killing each other more than we are. That there was more resistance to PvP than they expected. That apparently most players are not in companies.

If you want to have more PvP in the game, you (or someone else) will have to find a way to get the players that are reluctant (or opposed) to join in PvP. My tournament suggestion above was an attempt at getting those folks doing PvP in a manner that wouldn't turn them against the idea, as most seem to experience PvP when they are gang ganked - leaving a very negative impression of PvP.

Example: Reluctant PvPer participates in 4 tournaments, dies in the first round each time, but learns something.
vs Reluctant PvPer whose is gang ganked 4 times, and starts to hate PvP.

In both cases, the Reluctant PvPer died 4 times, lost 4 durability. But the take home impression was vastly different.

My last MMO was Ultima Online years ago. There was non-consensual PvP - but when they came out with the PvP free facet of the shard, the original non-consensual PvP facets of the shards became ghost facets. This speaks loudly to Devs about what that community wanted.

I would prefer that this community build an attitude that accepted PvP. If the veterans in the system all accept PvP, and forward that acceptance to the new folks in Open Enrolment, I suspect that there will be a lot of fun PvP for everyone. However, if there is strong resistance to PvP, I suspect that the Devs will have to put limits onto PvP, limits that will frustrate you and those that want PvP.

So, once again, do you have any suggestions on how to shift the attitude of those Reluctant PvPer?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mistwalker wrote:

The Devs have stated that they were surprised by the fact that we weren't killing each other more than we are. That there was more resistance to PvP than they expected. That apparently most players are not in companies.

If you want to have more PvP in the game, you (or someone else) will have to find a way to get the players that are reluctant (or opposed) to join in PvP.

As you say in the top quoted sentence: 'The Devs have stated...' People will be seeing changes that bring more PvP into the game regardless of player reluctance or not.

Golgotha and obviously the Brighthaven Alliance will be ready for that. Will you?

Goblin Squad Member

Rynnik wrote:
Mistwalker wrote:
Gol Phyllain wrote:
Yeah Golgotha never fights people in groups that out number them. Nope, never happens.

I have no doubt that you have done just that, but I haven't seen it.

To my knowledge, I have fought Golgothans 5 times.

1st fight, Tink and Tubomo attacked 3 from Stoneroot
while they were out doing some PvE (and apparently is the only time that Tink has been killed in PvP).

ITT 2 > 3

lol

Perhaps I should have quoted the other posts.

Or expanded on the fact that it left the impression that as Stoneroot had come out with the upper hand in that encounter, that Golgotha was no longer willing to meet Stoneroot on even terms. That Golgotha is unable to compete unless they have the advantage in numbers. I know that that isn't the case, but the impression is still there.

Goblin Squad Member

The game hasn't reached the point of development where the combat system is actually captivating. Instead, PvP is currently very boring at the moment and has little to no risk or strategy. You kill someone, they re-spawn and come back for more; all weapons/armor equipped - this shouldn't be the case.

Plus the mechanics are all wonky. Half the time you don't know if an expendable was interrupted or is still casting while you're in the middle of combat (where are you expendable casting animations?) and you cannot heal your red friends. And if you take into the fact that the developers made the game so complicated yet much of the complication doesn't seem to work yet...the experience is lackluster.

I really wish we had a more strategical crowd control system (simple cc abilities coupled cc purge spells that focus on curing your companion of that ONE actual malady IE "sleep" and "cure sleep"). Someone would argue that we already have that but I'd advise them to play a game like Dark Age of Camelot to see how a very strategical, finely-tuned crowd control system works.

When the game is more developed I will definitely be a participant in PvP.


Mistwalker wrote:

Perhaps I should have quoted the other posts.

Or expanded on the fact that it left the impression that as Stoneroot had come out with the upper hand in that encounter, that Golgotha was no longer willing to meet Stoneroot on even terms. That Golgotha is unable to compete unless they have the advantage in numbers. I know that that isn't the case, but the impression is still there.

I get it. Your messaging is very clear, but if you want to launch a Golgotha smear campaign you should be meticulously clear on your details. Why would anyone place credibility in what you stated after when your first few phrases contradict themselves?

At the end of the day Stoneroot's impression of Golgotha is irrelevant. You have MADE it irrelevant.

We find and make content and sandbox in such a way that we daily have a lot of fun and keep our players interested and eager to log in. We aren't f$~&ing travel guides setting out altruistically to find you, discover what you want, bring it to you on a silver platter, then spoon feed it to you in the exact flavour and with the desired spiciness.

Golgotha is content IF you chose it make it so. You have choices. You can come crawling to us whining about 'fair' and pay us enough tribute or otherwise entice us to leave you alone. Or you can fight us when and where you can find the leverage to win. Or you can ignore and seek to avoid us (hot tip: being a loud forum name or snagging towers from the empire would be poor ways to avoid attention).

The onus is on you at the end of the day to get exactly what you want out of PFO... We are.


Mistwalker wrote:
If you want to have more PvP in the game, you (or someone else) will have to find a way to get the players that are reluctant (or opposed) to join in PvP.

It is going to have to be someone else, because like I said, I'm past it.

GoblinWorks are the ones with their money on the line. They know a sandbox needs conflict and it should be obvious as hell by now that *I* am not going to influence anyone.

Goblin Squad Member

It is not Golgothas job to make PvP reluctant players enjoy PvP. It is the settlement and company leaders of those players job to engage them in such a way that they accept the realities of the game.

My job is to make sure my players are having fun.

P.S, if any of your members continue to think that because they took Tabomo and I when outnumbered and not really being serious, I would be more than happy to meet them on the field and kick their butts one on one. I just won't put the enjoyment of my players at risk if we are out on a roam.

Goblin Squad Member

Rynnik wrote:
I get it. Your messaging is very clear, but if you want to launch a Golgotha smear campaign you should be meticulously clear on your details. Why would anyone place credibility in what you stated after when your first few phrases contradict themselves?

Then I haven't been clear, as it has never been my intention of doing a smear campaign. I was addressing the issue that Savage Grace raised in the first post in this thread.

Mistwalker wrote:
yet rarely do I see Golgothans fight with even odds

This was in my first post in the thread. I will admit that when I responded to the comments from Phyllain, Tink and Savage Grace, that I should have stated that I have only seen it once.

Rynnik wrote:
At the end of the day Stoneroot's impression of Golgotha is irrelevant. You have MADE it irrelevant.

I do not speak for Stoneroot. I am not an officer in Stoneroot, nor am I one of the leaders. My statements are my own.

It is unfortunate that my comments have raised your ire, as it was not my intention. I have found your comments to new players in "General" to be helpful and have a fair bit of respect for you for that.

1 to 50 of 424 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / PvP and the existing community All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.