PvP and the existing community


Pathfinder Online

351 to 400 of 424 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

.

Then 1d200 Pyronous Rath f~~#ed everything up. He's driven a wedge between us so we'll tear each other to ribbons. Soon, all the grass in the grass in the world will belong to him alone. And he does NOT. SHARE. POWER.

Or grass.

Just remember I tried to warn you guys.

Did he ever manage to sell his account he posted for sale a few weeks back?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I will buy it, that I may continue fighting the good fight on his behalf. The current grass is okay, but it feels like we could do better, guys. Let's start by making it longer. I'm thinking we start at ankles and work our way up from there.

Goblin Squad Member

Diego Rossi wrote:

I love how

Gol Tink wrote:


We had no intention of beginning a war with Keepers' Pass or Brighthaven. We still have no real intention of being in a war with Keeper's Pass or Brighthaven, which is why we have been keeping the vast majority of our operations close to Phaeros lands.

is equivalent to "2 hexes from Keeper Pass, in the mountains".

I get the tactical reasons perfectly, it is way easier to get targets if you sit in the main access to KP, where your target movement is restricted to a single hex and the ogre help you. But I find that that beavyor make the statement "we want to fight only Phaeros" blatantly false.

Not a surprise as this is as much a propaganda war as a guerrilla war for Golgotha.

I liked this response, the first night of our interdiction campaign we in point of fact did not attack anyone up on the mountain we only operated in the area around Phaeros. The next day the entire brighthaven alliance mobilized to take all of our towers. The next day I opened up the area of engagement to include the mountain that PK and Brighthaven reside on.

I am willing to provide prof of the original set or orders to my members if anyone would like to see it. There is some profanity in it how ever.


Forencith of Phaeros, TSV wrote:
Rynnik wrote:
Forencith of Phaeros, TSV wrote:
Gaskon wrote:
Flynn Pontis wrote:
Gaskon I don't know what you can't understand about the story here.

I guess what I don't understand is why Golgotha chose to escalate from "we lost one tower" directly to "We kill all Phaeros members."

...

I want the response to "we lost a tower" to be "we take 2 towers back", instead of what's happening now.

Out of curiosity, what would you (or anyone) feel is an appropriate response to hostilities as defined below -- specifically (as in this case) someone attacked escalations and establishing a holding in declared territory?

TEO Cheatle wrote:


The EBA has established our borders, shown on the following map, for resource, escalation, and holding claims. We consider anyone harvesting resources, attacking escalations, or establishing holdings to be hostile, unless given prior permission from EBA leadership.

Is anyone suggesting the EBA (of which Phaeros is a member) does not have a right to respond to acts of hostility?

Is this game about territorial control?

Finally, in the name of being constructive, assuming no one is objecting to Settlements/Alliances/Kingdoms defending their territory, what would be an appropriate way to address the actions of rogue companies? Is there any agreement as to whether settlements should or should not be be held accountable for the actions of companies they agree to sponsor?

How about in ways that don't break the arrangements or agreements political affiliates have made?

Did the agreement or arrangement in question offer permission to harvest resources, attack escalations, and/or establish holdings in EBA territory? If not, can you offer the details of the arrangement so I can understand how it trumped EBA sovereignty?

Sure.

No Golgothan Towers = no EBA towers or hunting for PvP on EBA 'territory'

We didn't take your towers or instigate non-consensual PvP in your lands. In exchange we kept our own towers (Hey, we gave you two things for one - damn we are reasonable).

Everything else fell in into the category of skirmishable offenses and things that may, you know, create content for each other and allow some force vs force fun (think the great Ogg escalation fight we had 3 hexes south of KB, that was so much fun) without going for each others throat with the two things that were banned: towers and your gatherers (not ours btw - PLEASE come kill some Golgothan harvesters).

You then attacked a tower.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Gol Phyllain wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
Gol Phyllain wrote:

We are talking about a different tower agreement not the original NAP.

You are correct

Asking us to remove it would have been a nice place to start yes. We might not have agreed but it would have been nice.

There was no such agreement and you know that. Try to act in good faith.

Ah, I'm sorry, the “unilateral cooling off”. While we are being candid, will you admit that the EOX did not, in fact, break any deals that we had with you? I'm not talking about respecting your “territorial rights”, as we never ratified those territorial claims. To the EOX, that Mordent Spire hex was fair game. Our towers were also fair game to you, apparently, and in attacking us you dragged your allies, who were very much in an agreement with the Empire, into an unnecessary war. A war that, in turn, made all of the EBA's towers and players fair game to us.

Would that be us acting in good faith?

We only attacked a single AGC tower, and they are and always have been independent of you.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gol Phyllain wrote:
Diego Rossi wrote:

I love how

Gol Tink wrote:


We had no intention of beginning a war with Keepers' Pass or Brighthaven. We still have no real intention of being in a war with Keeper's Pass or Brighthaven, which is why we have been keeping the vast majority of our operations close to Phaeros lands.

is equivalent to "2 hexes from Keeper Pass, in the mountains".

I get the tactical reasons perfectly, it is way easier to get targets if you sit in the main access to KP, where your target movement is restricted to a single hex and the ogre help you. But I find that that beavyor make the statement "we want to fight only Phaeros" blatantly false.

Not a surprise as this is as much a propaganda war as a guerrilla war for Golgotha.

I liked this response, the first night of our interdiction campaign we in point of fact did not attack anyone up on the mountain we only operated in the area around Phaeros. The next day the entire brighthaven alliance mobilized to take all of our towers. The next day I opened up the area of engagement to include the mountain that PK and Brighthaven reside on.

I am willing to provide prof of the original set or orders to my members if anyone would like to see it. There is some profanity in it how ever.

If you didn't want a war but felt forced into one because we defended a tower for a day, would you be willing to settle for a state in which there isn't a wave that sweeps up from the south and wipes all of EoX's towers, and EoX generally respects EBA territory and doesn't try to inderdict anywhere outside its own borders?

Or is one tower important enough to go to war over, but all of them not important enough to be an important part of peace?

Phaeros believes that the principle of punishing gank squads, regardless of how effective they are, is important enough to war over, but that the cost of total war leaves every participant worse than a more limited war.

"Limited war" was the reason why we took only one tower, and the fact that it wouldn't result in any loss of training or support was a factor. After EoX started ganking in retailiation, the amount of damage that I intended to cause increased significantly.

Goblin Squad Member

@Decius

I'm sorry, but the feud mechanic isn't in the game yet. Try again later.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Atheory wrote:

@Decius

I'm sorry, but the feud mechanic isn't in the game yet. Try again later.

What's that got to do with anything? According to my understanding of feuds, settlements and nations wouldn't be able to declare feuds against companies. In the finished game, I bet we'd have raided one or two of your holdings and considered our point made.

Goblin Squad Member

what point would that be?

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Atheory wrote:
what point would that be?

That you can't set up base camps in our territory with impunity. What did you think the point of taking the tower was?

Goblin Squad Member

I have no idea why you decided to take the tower. I wasn't informed as to the reason behind it and I unfortunately cannot read minds. It's not like I refused to remove the base camp, because no one asked us too.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

I would be very curious to see the age metric of the different groups.

The War of Towers work perfectly for people with jobs that keep them busy most of the day and force them in a regular schedule. They will know that if they log in at some specific time they will risk (more) PvP and they could be called to attack or defend towers. Outside those capture window they would be (relatively) safe.

Camping the enemy area work better for people with irregular hours, lot of free time or the capability to work/study while keeping a eye on the game (like a student without an incoming test).

The problem with that is that every group will try to force the other into fighting the way that work best for them.
Golghota with an asymmetric war against an alliance that (I think) is made up, mostly, by older people, will do some serious damage. But at some point they will become enough of a nuisance that the only response will be resorting to scorched earth tactics against them, i.e. permanently denying them access to any tower while killing his characters as often as possible, so that they will lose their T2 gear and will be unable to re-craft it.
Currently, AFAIK, there is no way to do some form of limited war. Or it is too inconsequential to do anything or it will rapidly escalate to a total war. Especially if one side don't care about the WoT and target the logistic arm of the opponent.


DeciusBrutus wrote:
What did you think the point of taking the tower was?

To get us to kill your gatherers?

I mean that is what any reasonable person would assume knowing the in-place deal you disrupted between EoX and your ally TEO.

Goblin Squad Member

Rynnik wrote:
DeciusBrutus wrote:
What did you think the point of taking the tower was?

To get us to kill your gatherers?

I mean that is what any reasonable person would assume knowing the in-place deal you disrupted between EoX and your ally TEO.

It is very regrettable that a communication breakdown allowed Golgotha to assume that Phaeros was a party to that agreement. Perhaps we can all learn a lesson from this.

Nihimon (Asymmetrical Warfare)


Nihimon wrote:
It is very regrettable that a communication breakdown allowed Golgotha to assume that Phaeros was a party to that agreement. Perhaps we can all learn a lesson from this.

It was a good post on GW dude.

And miscommunications always suck and can never be 100% blamed on either party. Takes two to tango as the saying goes.

That said Phaeros in no way had to be PARTY to an agreement to be able to UNDERSTAND it and draw a line saying if we do 'A' it will have 'B' effect.

Won't kill gatherers if you don't take towers doesn't leave a lot of reaction wiggle room when a tower goes down does it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So my question is why make an agreement as the EBA but not have everyone in said alliance agree to the terms? If Phaeros did not agree to the specific terms of the policy then fine all the power to them. Phaeros did however get to enjoy the benefits of the agreement which was no banditry and no tower capping. The treaty did not affirm their borders and claim to the hexes though and there was a mutual understanding that you could and would be killed if spotted pveing or gathering in our/their perceived territory. Phaeros finds some xelians pveing in "their" territory drives them out and takes a KB tower thinking that it might intimidate them enough to change their actions. Xelias being confused about Phaeros breaking the treaty attempts to seek clarification with the EBA about the seizure of the tower while at the same time mobilizing troops to retake the tower. It is revealed that Phaeros was not a signatory of the treaty which is fine and we stop applying the treaty that we had in place with the EBA in regards to Phaeros because apparently they did not agree to it. Thus we begin a campaign around phaeros and advise the rest of the EBA that did agree to the terms of the treaty to steer clear of the area. The rest of the EBA then decides to break the agreement we had in place because we are "Killing citizens in EBA territory." And here we are.

So to sum up apparently there was no agreement with phaeros, it is realized that there is no such agreement and Xelias does not apply the agreement to Phaeros. The rest of the EBA breaks their agreement saying that xelias broke their agreement.

Community Manager

Removed posts and their replies. Be civil to each other, please and thank you—name calling and insulting other posters is not cool.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Endless forum flows
Belching vile spite and venom.
It's a game. Move on.

All the wasted hours of b!*!%ing at each other in the forums to wage petty battles in your war of misinformation - sad. I understand that much of this is because you are bored of gathering beast pelts and yew logs.

How about this as a new starting point:

All agreements between Golgotha and EBA are considered null and void.

Expect to be attacked anywhere on the map no matter who you are.

Rebuild agreements as you leaders see fit and inform your citizens. Publish the agreements publically so that so one can deny what was agreed to.

Keep calm and kill Bonedancers.

Love always,
Grip

Grand Lodge Goblin Squad Member

GripGuiness wrote:

Keep calm and kill Bonedancers.

Love always,
Grip

This is exactly what I have begun to do, under the tutelage of Thod, who has extensively mapped out the Bonedancer scourge.

Goblin Squad Member

GripGuiness wrote:

Keep calm and kill Bonedancers.

Just as long as those bonedancers are not found within EBA's virtual boundries...

sry, couldn't pass that up :p

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just an outsider's opinion here. A complete lack of communication, from both sides, has caused this.

That is fine as there is some life in the game because of it. Not all casualties in this probably feel the same way though.


AGC Ronyel wrote:
GripGuiness wrote:

Keep calm and kill Bonedancers.

Just as long as those bonedancers are not found within EBA's virtual boundries...

sry, couldn't pass that up :p

Feel free to substitute Nature's Wrath, Razmirians, or Glutgluts to fit your current local infestation.

Also please re-read for emphasis: "Expect to be attacked anywhere on the map no matter who you are."


Yrme wrote:
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).

Maybe later on.

TEO's initial concept.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pax Pagan wrote:
As I have been outed(with my permission) sorry Pax guys you are a great bunch and it wasn't personal

NICE!!! Confirmation!!!!

I have a series of PMs between Pax and myself where I let them know that I believed "Ulfang Fourfingers" one of the spies that was known to TEO leadership at the time, Pax Pagan, and Steelwing were the same person.

They dismissed it as impossible.

Quote:

(Original Message: "A Possible Spy Within Pax")

There is a member within Pax who we have reason to believe is linked to a member within TEO intending to sabotage us. I'm however growing somewhat less inclined to believe he's actually working for Pax, or if he is, he certainly seems to have an independent agenda.

If this is something you are interested in discussing get back to me. However I must say that due to the nature of this saboteur, I would ask you to keep all information on this, including this message, completely confidential, as if I am right this individual is in a somewhat trusted position within Pax.

And before you ask, no it's not Areks, though I was originally suspicious of him and personally could believe his involvement we're currently looking at someone else based on a tip we received from a relatively trusted source.

(Later Message)

I assume by freeze protocol you mean that I can talk freely now?

There is a spy within TEO known as Ulfang Fourfingers. I know for a fact Ulfang is Greyknife of Dark Omen. I've seen his registration on the DO boards, noted his guilty behavior such as using hidden status on our forums, dropping posts obviously made to stir up discontent, and being the only person to ask "What's Dark Omen" when I subtly dropped the name at a clan meeting. This I am 100% certain of.

Pagan has been reported by a relatively trusted source to have read information given to Ulfang/Greyknife as it was posted on the PFO Fan TS. This was after you confirmed to me you know of no Pax spies in TEO.

At the time I had taken it of evidence of dishonesty especially when coupled with how information from our boards is known to Pax. I tested this once by referencing CotP using only the acronym before they had ever been mentioned outside our private forums. Sure enough, Pagan shortly after used their full name. To me, Pagan's involvement with Ulfang mostly certain.

However the recent emergence of Steelwing has caused me to question if a Pagan is working for Pax, or if he is Steelwing. Steelwing seems to have a lot of the same information as Greyknife, and talks about doing things such as sitting in on our TS meetings that I know Greyknife has done.

Further interesting tidbits is his asserted familiarity with Pax's plans and British spelling of words.

Not a strong enough case to convict on it's own, however if I'm right I'm sure this may bring some evidence you may be holding to light. Something I'd appreciate knowing is Steelwing talks about waking up with his wife and 2 adult daughters to take part in EVE battles. While it would be really sloppy, Ulfang's trademark is how sloppy he's been so far, so I'm wondering if that might be a possible connection to Pagan.

Fun times. That was from back when I was spying for TEO as Eldurian Darkrender.

Goblin Squad Member

Dark Omen is also Blaeringr's guild, whom I assume Blaeringr and UNC's Greedalox were one and the same.

The thing is, a majority of these forum goers are not playing the game...... Or are they? ;-)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tharak Venethorn wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

@ 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.

Crowfall is not a direct competitor until it goes into Alpha stage 1, which will be in the summer. Alpha stage 2 is scheduled for September, and that is a much more significant number (and is probably double the size of PFO's current player base).

Crowfall has been marketed to the PVP base of Shadowbane, Darkfall and EVE and the crafting base of Star Wars Galaxies. Where this differs from PFO should be obvious, and it is where I think GW has made its major mistake.

Crowfall is marketed to the Open World PVP Sandbox MMO player base. It is not trying to attract the TT community, and so it does not have to "teach" players how to cope with Open World PVP. The Devs are in fact unapologetic about it, and I have seen a moderator or two actually tell forum goers "this is not the game for you, unless....".

Crowfall has been backed by almost every major guild I can think of from its stated lineage.

Albion Online, is also an Open World PVP Sandbox MMO, that is even more "hard core" than Crowfall. Its guild discussion boards are a cesspool of toxic banter, with no language filters to speak of (when a guild name can be "Black C_ _ K" and they justify the name by having a Black Rooster as their logo, you'll understand what I mean).

The game is more of sandbox due to the total lack of a class system. You gain and train skills based on the equipment that you wear or use. You can mix and match however you choose.

The PVP, even though there are a few safe zones, is FFA Full loot and no penalty for PKing.

Its population is smaller than Crowfall's, but its Summer Alpha begins in June, so it will be competition a bit sooner for at least some of PFO's player base.

Ryan may have been right in that the Sandbox MMO is the wave of the future of MMOs. But I think he may have excluded the other factor, MMO players that focus on PVP don't want "safe" or even have the same notions of what is or isn't "toxic". They want risk vs reward full loot, based on both of the games I've mentioned. They don't want their game play dictated by PVP adverse players.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

PvP players never want their game to be dictated by anyone, it is part of the mindset of being a PvPer.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Then I am glad there are those other games for those types of players to go play and NOT join PFO.

Goblin Squad Member

Harneloot wrote:
Then I am glad there are those other games for those types of players to go play and NOT join PFO.

I don't believe you are understanding the impact that Crowfall's pull from PFO will have. PFO has already tapped out its draw of the TT crowd, and for the most part the PF TT has rejected the premise of PFO being Pathfinder.

The D&D crowd will have Sword Coast Legends multiplayer, quasi sequel of Baldur's Gate / NeverWinter Nights to flock to.

The generic PVP / PVE MMO players has not produced the numbers to sustain PFO, especially with more MMOs on the horizon (Black Desert, Shroud of Avatar, etc).

At some point your niche target audience becomes a ditch of losing revenue and subscription numbers, that can't be filled unless major changes in direction take place.

Come back here after May 1, and see if you're happy with the population numbers. If you are, than the "Massively Multiplayer" is not part of your interest either.

Open World PVP Sandbox MMO RPG are all of the tags that PFO is supposedly trying to match up with. How many is it actually achieving?

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Doom and Gloom! Doom and Gloom!"

Let's not pretend a single audience is the end all and be all. PFO is it's own thing that mixes a bunch of different concepts. Trying to say it's geared towards stealing a specific audience is the wrong way to think about it. It will build it's own audience or it won't. Crying it doesn't do the thing you want to fill your needs is just silly. It does or it doesn't, they are gonna follow their intended design, if it doesn't work for you just walk away. If it doesn't work at all then it closes down so be it, that's the way of things.

For example I love competitive games. I played high level amateur sports most of my life. I will play hours of a MOBA with rage and hate in my heart without ever saying a toxic word while I slam my head against a ladder I can't quite climb. I've play team based FPS games on and off for years. I love a good RTS match despite getting curb stomped by 2000 APM players. Hell, I won't even step foot in a match for one of those games if it uses bots; to me that's a waste of time.

MMOs tho? I've stuck to games like WoW, FFXI, GW2, TEO, DCUO, CO, CoH, and even a bit of EQ.

But I hated EVE, Darkfall, and even Ultima way back; turns out I hated most sandbox MMOs I tried. They don't scratch the competitive itch for me or make building things interesting enough. But I like PFO and I like the intent of where the Devs want to go with it. I think it's different and unique (eventually) that pulls at my gaming inclinations both for MMOs and competitive gaming. I hope they succeed. But if they changed their intent to try and pull the general audiences of those sandboxes I mentioned above? Then I would leave and I assume many like me would leave, because that's not the type of game we want to play, and that's specifically why we are here. Because we don't fall into the existing games filling this genre.

By the way, I backed Crowfall specifically because it was taking the PvP competitive aspect of a Sandbox and moving it into a more match like campaign system. In that setup the rougher aspects of those other PvP sandboxes I disliked get sanded off somewhat. Which is still a huge difference compared to what PFO is trying to do. If you think PFO and Crowfall are competing games (or should be), one of them is probably not really for you.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Risk vs. Reward isn't a system that caters singularly to Darkfall/EVE/UO style PvPers. It's a content driver.

The best resources are gathered by the best gatherers and hunted by the best bandits. The best gatherers need the best military to defend them from the best bandits. The best bandits end up not being the best bandits but raiders from the other nation that believes it has the best military. These two nations go to war because of hostilities stemming from the actions of the raiders. War requires weapons. Weapons require crafters and resources. Resources require gatherers. Gatherers are hunted by bandits and require protection from the military.

Or... the best resources require no more danger to harvest than any other resource. There are few to no real bandits because the population is to low to sustain them and SADs never made it in so they have to take rep hits if they want to be bandits. No protectors are needed. The war never breaks out because the raiders never were there and there is no feud or siege system to wage it with. No weapons are needed. The crafters don't need to make weapons so they don't need resources. The resources aren't needed so the gatherers aren't that big of a deal.

All jobs become a boring cycle of stuffing banks full of items and resources there is no meaningful purpose for.

Resources instead go into making suits for fashion shows and screwing around with a pissing match over meaningless objectives nobody really cares about. All but a small few find it boring and pointless. Population drops so low the Early Enrollment is opened to people with Open Enrollment accounts while most people are still playing on free time they got through the kickstarter.

Fast forward 5 years. Star Citizen, Crowfall, Life is Feudal, Black Dessert, Albion Online, Shroud of the Avatar, ArcheAge, Camelot Unchained, Project Legion etc. Have all been released on the American market and had time to iron out their kinks.

Do you really feel Pathfinder Online has a community large enough to give it the financial backing to compete with them all? Given it is already a few years behind if it advances five years in the next five years it's still a few years behind. Most players aren't sold on a single vision. They just want a title that's fun to play. I love PvP driven sandboxes but I'll play a well built theme park over a crappy sandbox any day of the week. Nobody is going to tollerate a game years behind it's closest competitors in terms of features, graphics, and gameplay unless it's incredibly unique and it's the only title that fits what they want from a game, and PFO is only slightly unique compared to the other sandboxes being developed.

Goblin Squad Member

Look at this question in 2 ways:-

1. Market
2. Gameplay

1. Market

With the 2m estimate for the sandbox mmorpg market and PFO needing 10k, it's a 1:200 ratio, but if you add more titles competing:-

Say 10 for argument's sake: it's down another factor/order to 1:20 which sounds an altogether taller order ie tighter competition in this space...

In a tight race it's the small differences that cumulatively add up that make or break the positive growth cycle (or boom in subs/acs if some games are lucky): I think that will hinge on:-

2. Gameplay

Looking at all the titles in those engines demo vids I posted, I think most of them are all actiony gameplay with big graphics stimulation and rapid attention-alternation feedback.

Imho, the sandbox mmorpgs from the above list all vie in this area with each other too and the ones that do the better combat will win the race.

This was the case with before WOW came out vs Warhammer (Climax, designer Tuomas Pirinen who attempted to design the warhammer PnP RPG - neither RvR nor Themepark) and there were other mmorpgs going for the title too.) I think the same battle will be fought with the same result just over 10 years later despite the stronger vision of PFO.

PnP => Trance
Book => Imagination
MUD => Simulation
MMORPG => Representation
MMO-VR/FPS => Participation

PKO (as it should be called!) needs to fit more between MUD->MMORPG. The other mmorpgs are going forwards to VR from Representation closer and closer to Participation (eg FPS). The vision of SWG and UO where players happily would become shop-keepers, entertainers, inn-keepers etc as well reigning in the powermongers (imho this should be via the building of Family Social Progression unlocking towards soldiers/battles of units of armies of lords between realms). What you want is inter-Family Conflict and jostling for position in realms (distanced from each other). IE Power is derived from Social progression web and depends on it's shaky/shifting and multiply erupting problems of loyalty!

In a realm you'd not get players running amok at the drop of a hat - so don't allow it.

You can apportion these behaviours via cost of Family members -> outcast if a player wants to experience playing this role. They have limited Family members per generation and secondly must secure the next generation to persist (ie gates).

Goblin Squad Member

@ AvenaOats,

The 10,000 subscriber number was what was hoped for for EE, not viability. That number, if I recall correctly, was around 50k.

Goblin Squad Member

What PFO is struggling to overcome:

1. Small Population
2. Lack of game systems to add meaningful participation in PGC
3. The world is too safe, resources are readily available
4. Crafting will hit (or has hit) surplus levels.
5. Economy is broken

Goblin Works has said from the very beginning that they wanted to model the player driven economy based on the EvE Online model. That is a great idea, but it requires that you actually follow the model a wee bit.

EvE Online form the start began with full loot and partial item destruction. You will never duplicate EvE's successful player economy without those two.

Common item recipes are are seeded, so that novice crafters can cheaply acquire those recipes and and begin producing those items. Resources for those items are not required in great amounts and can be harvested from safeer zones and through refining (breaking down items into their component resources with some waste factor).

More advanced items require more rare resources and that requires going into more dangerous areas, which are more open to PVP than the safer areas.

There are many more layers to this system, but these are the building blocks.

Minimally, PFO needs:

1. Full Loot + Destroyed

2. Refining of Items to base materials

3. Open PVP Zones where higher tier resources can be gathered

4. Gatherers / Crafters need to have required tools

5. Greater Risk vs. Reward balancing. Right now there is no meaningful risk.

Goblin Squad Member

Ah righto, those numbers, I think PFO could be quite sticky if it hits 10k. But it's another question to then get that forward momentum from there and then how long to the full design doc vision?

As said PFO is seen as a PvP Combat game. So the combat has to be high quality and then the PvP has to square the circle of being satisfying via consequences eg full loot and item destruction and be tethered so that it does not consume the whole game-play of other players.

For all those reasons, as much as I like PvP I think it's going to detract from PFO's appeal to more of the market.

What you want is a world. In that world you want characters doing interesting things such as building up base with multiple functions for all to use to progress.

From that "investment positive" gameplay you want danger and challenge to that eg PvP or I'd suggest the treat of as much as the actual occurance. Then players band together to invest in defence... but I think players want opportunities to make a living eg farming, lumbering, mining, trading, transporting, hunting, fishing and so on.

Defence should be soldiers not any of the above. Think of the levy of taxes on the peasant families to their uppers and then the uppers of soldiers to their liege lord. At each point of the chain, each is concerned with their own preoccupations which chains upwards to defence of the realm spending and force projection - and prestige!

* PvP comes in in Soldiers through battles.
* Bandits through outcasts
* In the wilds ways away from realms (big -> huge map) ie space between realms
* assassins at very high dev level and extreme expense and rarity proportion

So I think,

1. The Economic Game
2. The Social Game
3. The Adventurers Game
4. The Do My Own Thing Game (wilderness, exceptions etc)
5. The Combat Game

PvP imo is the curve ball part of the game thrown in to disrupt and unsettle things. Eg werewolves are perfect example of this: Look at that full moon... Hmmm! One night of inconvenience.

Taking a panoramic view: If players see footage of the ecosystem of the above, settlements and adventurers and so on, it's like SimCity Pathfinder Online but with the Game Of Thrones battles of RTS thrown in... then we add loads of great monsters from the lore in the wilds for PvE and the SuperDungeon Emerald Spire and do it roguelike (small party chars)...

With the current game, it's all about PvP Sandboxes => Murder Sims and is the combat any good anyway? And it costs $15 per month in alpha...
*

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

Minimally, PFO needs:

1. Full Loot + Destroyed
2. Refining of Items to base materials
3. Open PVP Zones where higher tier resources can be gathered
4. Gatherers / Crafters need to have required tools
5. Greater Risk vs. Reward balancing. Right now there is no meaningful risk.

I agree with everything Bludd said except the full loot. I’m for almost full loot. I’m not sure how the threading system is going to work exactly, but I would not have a problem with a situation where, once you’re into Tier 2 gear, you can’t thread everything you’re wearing. You should need to make choice – is it more important for me to keep my fancy Tier 2 armor or my fancy Tier 2 sword and my Tier 2 implement? Or do I go out this time with a lesser fit of armor/weapon? Or, hmmm, our crafters don’t have the materials to replace my Tier 2 armor, so I’d better thread that and risk losing my Tier 2 sword because that can be replaced easier.

Bluddwolf wrote:
More advanced items require more rare resources and that requires going into more dangerous areas, which are more open to PVP than the safer areas.

This is a big missing piece of the puzzle right now, in my mind. I have an Ideascale entry for this (Node Resource Quality Commensurate with Hex Danger). Commenters on that entry have indicated they believe this will start to show itself when the population increases. I think it needs to show now, with a small population.

To me, there is no clear demarcation where “better stuff” is located currently. People go out to scout hexes and find interesting niches, and that information is held close to the vest. It should be more obvious to all and more lopsided, in my mind, as to where the best stuff is. Monster home hex? Expect better resource nodes for Dowser and/or Forester (depending on hex type). Crater hex? Expect better resource nodes for Miner. And by better I mean significantly better; like, for some stuff you can’t get it at all in other hex types. That forces gatherers to concentrate on those hexes, creates conflict, and gives a focal point for bandits as well. In EVE it’s pretty clear; you want to mine for better stuff? Well, you need to move out of the high sec systems and take more risk. Everyone knows that, it’s part of the game, and it drives meaningful conflict. You don’t want to take that risk or you aren’t in a group that will? Well, then you’re going to be limited in what you can do.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:


Minimally, PFO needs:

1. Full Loot + Destroyed

2. Refining of Items to base materials

3. Open PVP Zones where higher tier resources can be gathered

4. Gatherers / Crafters need to have required tools

5. Greater Risk vs. Reward balancing. Right now there is no meaningful risk.

I entirely agree this would improve the game.

However, I would argue we currently have #3. There is a difference between there being incentives to not PvP and being unable to. You are entirely welcome to PvP anywhere, including - especially including - areas with higher tier resources. I would admit that the incentive system, reputation, is not working as I would like to see it work.

I do not see this as a broken system, I see it as incomplete. I would be wary of changing the design of a house after only building the foundation, because I want a more comfortable couch. I am still excited to see the finished structure.


Bluddwolf wrote:

Dark Omen is also Blaeringr's guild, whom I assume Blaeringr and UNC's Greedalox were one and the same.

The thing is, a majority of these forum goers are not playing the game...... Or are they? ;-)

Actually, we all are! Unfortunately, we are also all sock puppets of Andius.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Bluddwolf and Avena. If you look at the subscriber numbers for Wurm, Mortal, and Darkfall you have the numbers for games that will drag on without shutting down, continually improving but doing so at a rate too slow to ever catch up with their competitors. I think at least Darkfall was somewhere in the 10k sub region so that's really what it takes to not have a backwards title like Mortal that gets more outdated as time goes on. And that was during a time where their only real competition was EVE. I wouldn't be surprised if those titles started to shut down as some of the newer ones hit the market. Even EVE itself may suffer greatly from the release of Star Citizen.

@Forencith. The reputation system is more like pumping your pool full of chlorine and telling people it's time to swim before you have any water. It just doesn't work without things like SADs, feuds, raids, factional warfare, etc. They should have been implemented together. Until then, all water and no chlorine works better.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would be fine with full loot if they adjusted the time and material cost of everything to reflect it. 2 days of crafting time to replace the "normal every day armor" is to long if it gets dropped every time you die.

Goblin Squad Member

Gol Phyllain wrote:
I would be fine with full loot if they adjusted the time and material cost of everything to reflect it. 2 days of crafting time to replace the "normal every day armor" is to long if it gets dropped every time you die.

I agree. But the system they have now needs to be changed and fast, imo.

You can technically "naked PvP" 100% of the time. And by naked I mean wear the best gear you have and risk death hits.

Goblin Squad Member

Saiph wrote:
Gol Phyllain wrote:
I would be fine with full loot if they adjusted the time and material cost of everything to reflect it. 2 days of crafting time to replace the "normal every day armor" is to long if it gets dropped every time you die.

I agree. But the system they have now needs to be changed and fast, imo.

You can technically "naked PvP" 100% of the time. And by naked I mean wear the best gear you have and risk death hits.

Yeah though I do not think we need to go to the extreme of EVE where, with the exception of incursion runners who tend to be on a ship replacement plan anyway, there is a slum mentality where using anything better than T2 gear is regarded as foolhardy and setting yourself up to be watch listed and ganked.

Liberty's Edge Goblin Squad Member

I think some people is doing the wrong comparisons about crafting, thinking that PFO T2 is the pinnacle of crafting.

In PFO:
- T1 is beginners gear
- T2 is regular, everyday gear
- T£ (to be implemented) is meant to be the big gear

To compare it to EVE:
- PFO T1 = figate/destroyers/cruisers
- PFO T2 = battlecruisers/battleships
- PFO T3 = T2 ships/Capital ships

In EVE you can do the equivalent of PFO T2 without ever leaving high sec.
it is only for the equivalent of PFO T3 that you need to elave high sec (and initially you could get some the needed materials doing missions for NPC and you could build capital ships in high sec).

PFO: all the gathering hexes are open to PVP. Those that are meant to have some level of NPC protection in the future (main roads, future settlement sites) have only T1 materials.
AFAIK only crater hexes will T3 crafting materials.

351 to 400 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.