Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
(IMO) There are 2 basic problems that many FFA-PvP games fall into....
1) They encourage Player vs Player conflict when what they ACTUALY should be encouraging is Player CHARACTER vs Player CHARACTER conflict. Far too many people conflate the two. They are actualy very different. Think of it like Little League Baseball. You want your kids team to defeat the opposing team. What you don't want, unless you are mentally ill, is for anyone to make the other team feel miserable, for hostility to occur between players off the field or for anyone to place winning above playing by the rules of the game and the spirit of fair competition. Ideally, at the end of the game, the players from the opposing teams should shake hands, congratulate each other on a game well played... and go grab a slice of pizza with each other where they can laugh, joke around and have fun with each other. Metaphoricaly opponents in a PvP game should be no different then the Little League example cited above.... too rarely is that the case.
Anyone that starts in with a "Hur, U suk, go play WOW noob because I just pwned you." comment (IMO) has missed the ENTIRE POINT behind FRPG's, GAMING in general and competition in games....and I would hope the community displays ZERO tolerance for such attitudes.
2) They encourage rabid anti-social behavoir because they make it unrealisticaly easy for such behavior to be effective and persist. In real life such behavior is rare because it is HEAVLY SELECTED AGAINST. Due the interdependance required to be able to function effectively, openly anti-social people have a very difficult time being able to function and when such behavior does occur to the significant determent of societies, it is often crushed decisively by society. Where a significant degree of persistant conflict occurs it's usualy between GROUPS of individuals working together that have their own sociel backing and are working within the socialy accepted framework of some larger power group. PvP Games would do well to try to emulate some degree of this dynamic.
In other words, the "Lone Bandit" that targets everyone indiscriminately should have a rather difficult time operating anywhere except fringe areas where power blocs have little interest or ability to project thier power. Even when doing so, they should have a rather difficult time persisting thier operations due to thier limited ability to gain the things they need to operate effectively from established communities. On the other hand, "bandits" that operate in a specific area with the tacit approval of one or more power blocs might because it meets the INTRESTS of those powers for them to do so, might enjoy a rather more significant degree of success.... but in that case, they are not likely being uniformly anti-social in thier behavior but likely more selective in the application of thier skull-duggery.
What this does in game terms is allow the player to excersize a reasonable (though not 100 percent perdictable) degree of control over the risk they are exposed to. It also incentivizes players to cooperate at least to some degree with at least some portion of the player base.
If, I'm a merchant for example, I can predict that I am able to operate with LIMITED (though not absolute) risk within Area X, because it suits the interests of a particular power bloc that I do so and that power bloc is able to project significant power into that area (and opposing blocs aren't). On the other hand, I can predict that I am undertaking SIGNIFICANT risk by operating with area Y, because either no power bloc is able to project significant power into that area, or the ones that do don't neccesarly have it in thier interests that I operate there...and therefore I must make some provision for that, IF I try to operate there. It's only if I'm not taking that into account, that I'm getting myself into trouble on a regular basis.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i only have one question for the pve crowd (aka carebears ,diminishing how it may sound)
Wow.
There is someone who seems to embody every single concern I have about playing PFO.
*shrug*
I'll give it a shot. If players like insorrow are few and far between, I'm sure I'll enjoy it. If I'm fighting wave after wave of "just play Skyrim you noob carebear" gamers then I think I'll be unlikely to stick with it. After all, I won't be playing the free version - I'll be a paying customer of probably the only MMO I'll ever be interested in due to its ties to the Pathfinder universe.
Time will tell, I guess.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
non-consensual PvP is only ever fun for PvPers.
In which case, since they want PvP, then it is entirely consensual PvP anyway.
It is never fun for people who DON'T want to PvP. If seeing the best areas, mining the best ore or fighting toughest monsters is only going to be available to those who PvP then you can count me out.
I was excited about the prospect of playing Pathfinder online with my friends. Now, not so much.
This is not true. I have a group of friends playing EVE. Areas of Eve are dangerous, and known to be, but they are sometimes major routes players need to take. When someone needs to transport something important through one of these areas, they talk to the corporation and ask who is free to scout the area. Someone sends in a disposable alt/clone in a cheap ship, runs some scans, and sends back his report. The important ship then jumps in and moves through the area if it is safe. My friends enjoy working arround this element of danger as a logistics problem. Thus non-consentual PVP creates other interactions in game and influences player behavior in creative and fun ways.
As far as mining goes, it means you do not mine in dangerous areas alone. In EVE, you get a group: 1-2 people with combat skills to watch everyone and be the guard, 3-4 miners who churn through the asteroids, 2-3 haulers who take the mined materials back to base. If hostiles show up, the miners pack up and run while the people who are there to guard fight. If it looks like a long fight, they jump into alternate ships specked for combat and counterattack. This encourages group behavior and reliance on a guild, which is one of the big advantages of an MMO game.
Which sounds NOTHING like Dungeons and Dragons/Pathfinder. And I dont mean the space ships.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Which sounds NOTHING like Dungeons and Dragons/Pathfinder. And I dont mean the space ships.non-consensual PvP is only ever fun for PvPers.
In which case, since they want PvP, then it is entirely consensual PvP anyway.
It is never fun for people who DON'T want to PvP. If seeing the best areas, mining the best ore or fighting toughest monsters is only going to be available to those who PvP then you can count me out.
I was excited about the prospect of playing Pathfinder online with my friends. Now, not so much.
This is not true. I have a group of friends playing EVE. Areas of Eve are dangerous, and known to be, but they are sometimes major routes players need to take. When someone needs to transport something important through one of these areas, they talk to the corporation and ask who is free to scout the area. Someone sends in a disposable alt/clone in a cheap ship, runs some scans, and sends back his report. The important ship then jumps in and moves through the area if it is safe. My friends enjoy working arround this element of danger as a logistics problem. Thus non-consentual PVP creates other interactions in game and influences player behavior in creative and fun ways.
As far as mining goes, it means you do not mine in dangerous areas alone. In EVE, you get a group: 1-2 people with combat skills to watch everyone and be the guard, 3-4 miners who churn through the asteroids, 2-3 haulers who take the mined materials back to base. If hostiles show up, the miners pack up and run while the people who are there to guard fight. If it looks like a long fight, they jump into alternate ships specked for combat and counterattack. This encourages group behavior and reliance on a guild, which is one of the big advantages of an MMO game.
It does sound like a sandbox online mmo, though? I think the point is referring to mechanics of obviating around "open pvp" - solutions by players to in-game challenges, an eg from a current & relevant mmo?
For sure there are some really interesting things designers can look at and ask how that translates from PF, but it works the other way too, what lessons, observations of current MMOs?
I thought that was obvious enough in the EvE eg.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
i only have one question for the pve crowd (aka carebears ,diminishing how it may sound)
why do you play MMORPGs ?As far as i am concerned it means massively multiplayer online role playing game.
massively multiplayer , massively , mass .
if you can play for 2 hours a month ,buy skyrim
if you want to play solo at off hours , buy skyrim
if you want to play in co-op mode with 3 friends fighting the scripted AI
buy wowif you want to chat with your friends and click at plants etc , i heard farm ville does that.
not all shoes fit all feet.
the point is there are a lot of games out there .the mmo genre was made in an attempt to have games that feel like a world .it is about immersion.
mmo is not co-op.it is not an irc channel either .many people come from wow or similar "mmo" games unable to understand probably what it means
-mmo
-sandbox
-open worldand they try to change the game to fit their views.I hope goblinworks can deliver an AAA quality sandbox mmo , so that i can play and enjoy the risks and the adventures.The rest of the people can buy wow , i heard it is pretty consensual and convenient and user friendly .you can play 30 minutes a day , do your daily quests , and join the "i found you some friends" raid on weekend. you collect "high five" badges and at the end you get a shiny epix tinfoil hat. thank you
insorrow,
While I am entirely supportive of the type of game GW wants to design with PFO. I feel obliged to point out to you that NOTHING about the terms "mmo", "sandbox" or "open world" necessitates the particular design qualities you have expressed...
Such a game does NOT have to support combat at ALL (examples "A Tale in the Desert", "2nd Life") let alone PvP, let alone FFA PvP. Nor does it imply anything about the level of time commitment required to play ("casual vs hardcore") and if anything, it actualy IMPLIES that cooperative social interaction between players is not only supported but ENCOURAGED rather then discouraged.
"MMO" - Simply implies that the game is played online with a massive amount of players.
"sandbox" - Simply implies that the game features the ability of the player to interact with it's environment in a creative way. There are MANY different ways to creatively interact with environments.
"open world" - Simply implies that the player is not tightly constrained as to how they traverse the game environment.
Finaly, you actualy left out a very important one "RPG" - Role-Playing Game. Which implies the players is actualy playing a "ROLE" within the conext of the game...in other words doing things like.... (to para-phrase )"talking with people while clicking on plants and stuff"...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It does sound like a sandbox online mmo, though? I think the point is referring to mechanics of obviating around "open pvp" - solutions by players to in-game challenges, an...Which sounds NOTHING like Dungeons and Dragons/Pathfinder. And I dont mean the space ships.non-consensual PvP is only ever fun for PvPers.
In which case, since they want PvP, then it is entirely consensual PvP anyway.
It is never fun for people who DON'T want to PvP. If seeing the best areas, mining the best ore or fighting toughest monsters is only going to be available to those who PvP then you can count me out.
I was excited about the prospect of playing Pathfinder online with my friends. Now, not so much.
This is not true. I have a group of friends playing EVE. Areas of Eve are dangerous, and known to be, but they are sometimes major routes players need to take. When someone needs to transport something important through one of these areas, they talk to the corporation and ask who is free to scout the area. Someone sends in a disposable alt/clone in a cheap ship, runs some scans, and sends back his report. The important ship then jumps in and moves through the area if it is safe. My friends enjoy working arround this element of danger as a logistics problem. Thus non-consentual PVP creates other interactions in game and influences player behavior in creative and fun ways.
As far as mining goes, it means you do not mine in dangerous areas alone. In EVE, you get a group: 1-2 people with combat skills to watch everyone and be the guard, 3-4 miners who churn through the asteroids, 2-3 haulers who take the mined materials back to base. If hostiles show up, the miners pack up and run while the people who are there to guard fight. If it looks like a long fight, they jump into alternate ships specked for combat and counterattack. This encourages group behavior and reliance on a guild, which is one of the big advantages of an MMO game.
No, I agree, it does sound like a sanbox MMO. My concern is its beginning to sound like a constant pvp 10yd fight over resources with other players vs. a fantasy rpg. Although any mmo could be arguably boiled down to a conflict over resources, I'd still like the fantasy/d&d'ish elements to be as strongly represented.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...It does sound like a sandbox online mmo, though? I think the point is referring to mechanics of obviating around "open pvp" - solutions by players toWhich sounds NOTHING like Dungeons and Dragons/Pathfinder. And I dont mean the space ships.non-consensual PvP is only ever fun for PvPers.
In which case, since they want PvP, then it is entirely consensual PvP anyway.
It is never fun for people who DON'T want to PvP. If seeing the best areas, mining the best ore or fighting toughest monsters is only going to be available to those who PvP then you can count me out.
I was excited about the prospect of playing Pathfinder online with my friends. Now, not so much.
This is not true. I have a group of friends playing EVE. Areas of Eve are dangerous, and known to be, but they are sometimes major routes players need to take. When someone needs to transport something important through one of these areas, they talk to the corporation and ask who is free to scout the area. Someone sends in a disposable alt/clone in a cheap ship, runs some scans, and sends back his report. The important ship then jumps in and moves through the area if it is safe. My friends enjoy working arround this element of danger as a logistics problem. Thus non-consentual PVP creates other interactions in game and influences player behavior in creative and fun ways.
As far as mining goes, it means you do not mine in dangerous areas alone. In EVE, you get a group: 1-2 people with combat skills to watch everyone and be the guard, 3-4 miners who churn through the asteroids, 2-3 haulers who take the mined materials back to base. If hostiles show up, the miners pack up and run while the people who are there to guard fight. If it looks like a long fight, they jump into alternate ships specked for combat and counterattack. This encourages group behavior and reliance on a guild, which is one of the big advantages of an MMO game.
Well, that's going to be the battle for the devs, to prevent a "run-away pvp escalation". Also the other thing is, this being "hot button" in mmorpg discussion, it's going to get a lot of focus which hopefully is us players over-reporting it's emphasis on the game. It's true EvE is renowned for ganking/open-pvp. I think GW's have tried to distance from that open/free-for-all glorification that CCP evidently encourages.
So the above eg has that taint I guess. But the in-game player collaborations/problem solving that pvp leads to (interesting choices and decisions etc) that ideally the emphasis of pvp: I hope! :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
i only have one question for the pve crowd (aka carebears ,diminishing how it may sound)
why do you play MMORPGs ?As far as i am concerned it means massively multiplayer online role playing game.
massively multiplayer , massively , mass .
if you can play for 2 hours a month ,buy skyrim
if you want to play solo at off hours , buy skyrim
if you want to play in co-op mode with 3 friends fighting the scripted AI
buy wowif you want to chat with your friends and click at plants etc , i heard farm ville does that.
not all shoes fit all feet.
Bullshit.
If you can play for 2 hours a month, play PFO or Eve! The Skill system in PFO allows you skill up and during your brief play time you can focus on badges. Or...you can play Eve and just skill up without effort during a hectic month of real life. I didn't play for a whole two months but I was flying a Hulk when I got back. ^_^
If you want to play solo at off hours, play PFO or Eve! Your chances of being jumped are less likely in off hours. In Eve I mine in NPC nullsec (FFA PvP zone) at 3am, rarely people visit my neck of the woods. Profit.
If you want to play Co-op mode with a small group verus scripted AI play PFO (dungeons) or Eve! You do know doing Level 4 missions in Eve makes a ton of ISK right? Great way to earn my monthly PLEX.
If you want to chat with your friends and click at plants/asteroids etc. play PFO or Eve! Though seriously in Eve keep one eye on your scanner if the other is on chat or you might get boned. And by boned I mean podded...twice. Don't ask how. And let's face it, if we miners didn't do the work and supply the mineral market in Eve who would? Pirates? HA! Ya right those lazy bastards.
Not all shoes fit all feet but all shoes have insoles and heels.
If a person wants to play this way they have the right to play that way regardless of what you think about it. Now I agree with you though people that don't like the PvP shouldn't whine about it to try and make the game into something its not. Hell, I called out one "carebear's" BS "goodbye" post BECAUSE of his whining about the PvP. However those that ACCEPT the social contract of "Yes, there is PvP and my play style puts me at a SERIOUS DISADVANTAGE but screw it." I welcome with open arms because let's face it, that's a "hardcore" disadvantage and they still want in. We should NOT be telling those people to gtfo and "buy skyrim".
Carebears can have massive balls.
Edit: Oh and to answer the question, they play because they want and are having fun. Who are we to tell them they are doing it wrong? No one. Same goes for them if they want to tell us we should go play CoD if we want to PvP and "be a douche".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
(IMO) There are 2 basic problems that many FFA-PvP games fall into....
1) They encourage Player vs Player conflict when what they ACTUALY should be encouraging is Player CHARACTER vs Player CHARACTER conflict. Far too many people conflate the two. They are actualy very different. Think of it like Little League Baseball. You want your kids team to defeat the opposing team. What you don't want, unless you are mentally ill, is for anyone to make the other team feel miserable, for hostility to occur between players off the field or for anyone to place winning above playing by the rules of the game and the spirit of fair competition. Ideally, at the end of the game, the players from the opposing teams should shake hands, congratulate each other on a game well played... and go grab a slice of pizza with each other where they can laugh, joke around and have fun with each other. Metaphoricaly opponents in a PvP game should be no different then the Little League example cited above.... too rarely is that the case.
Anyone that starts in with a "Hur, U suk, go play WOW noob because I just pwned you." comment (IMO) has missed the ENTIRE POINT behind FRPG's, GAMING in general and competition in games....and I would hope the community displays ZERO tolerance for such attitudes.
2) They encourage rabid anti-social behavoir because they make it unrealisticaly easy for such behavior to be effective and persist. In real life such behavior is rare because it is HEAVLY SELECTED AGAINST. Due the interdependance required to be able to function effectively, openly anti-social people have a very difficult time being able to function and when such behavior does occur to the significant determent of societies, it is often crushed decisively by society. Where a significant degree of persistant conflict occurs it's usualy between GROUPS of individuals working together that have their own sociel backing and are working within the socialy accepted framework of some larger power group. PvP Games would do well to try to emulate some...
Awesome post. Good read.
Don't forget that WoW PvP servers (which are generally the most populated servers), experience griefing by top level characters on lower levels to this day. Before they instanced PvP, Azeroth was a carpet of corpses. Open PvP or relentless griefing for that matter, did not represented much of a problem considering WoW maintained a monster subscription base during the highest periods of grief.
Even on PVE servers, world PVP wouldrage for days on end. The running battles between Tarren Mill and Southshore were epic, and scooped up (by design or happenstance) lowbies as well as max level players. Griefing was an omnipresent possibility (flagged guy stands on Quest-giver NPC. Lowbie clicks on NPC, tags PVP-flagged player instead...oops lowbie just got flagged and ganked).
All this being as it may, world PVP did create one thing that is now missing in WoW. Notoriety. Players knew each other. Even cross faction they knew each other. Reputations were built. Sadly, with all the instancing and phasing going on, no one really knows anyone anymore.
i only have one question for the pve crowd (aka carebears ,diminishing how it may sound)
why do you play MMORPGs ?As far as i am concerned it means massively multiplayer online role playing game.
massively multiplayer , massively , mass .
if you can play for 2 hours a month ,buy skyrim
if you want to play solo at off hours , buy skyrim
if you want to play in co-op mode with 3 friends fighting the scripted AI
buy wowif you want to chat with your friends and click at plants etc , i heard farm ville does that.
not all shoes fit all feet.
the point is there are a lot of games out there .the mmo genre was made in an attempt to have games that feel like a world .it is about immersion.
mmo is not co-op.it is not an irc channel either .many people come from wow or similar "mmo" games unable to understand probably what it means
-mmo
-sandbox
-open worldand they try to change the game to fit their views.I hope goblinworks can deliver an AAA quality sandbox mmo , so that i can play and enjoy the risks and the adventures.The rest of the people can buy wow , i heard it is pretty consensual and convenient and user friendly .you can play 30 minutes a day , do your daily quests , and join the "i found you some friends" raid on weekend. you collect "high five" badges and at the end you get a shiny epix tinfoil hat. thank you
First, let me disabuse you of your notions as to what a PVE player is, and is not.
Time played (/played) =/= PVE (or PVP for that matter)
Playing solo is neither indicative of PVE or PVP leanings.
Playing co-op most certainly is PVE, but deriding people to "go play WoW" is the type of douchebag trollery that really isn't tolerated much, and only goes towards identifying said D-bag trolls. Glad you outed yourself.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
-snip-Playing co-op most certainly is PVE, but deriding people to "go play WoW" is the type of douchebag trollery that really isn't tolerated much, and only goes towards identifying said D-bag trolls. Glad you outed yourself.
Well I agree that "phrase" is not useful to anyone, however I don't think "insorrow" was attempting trolling, I think they are just expressing the plight or frustration of the minority and trying to shoot down all indications of "another wow clone" given a sniff of something different here. I'd give "insorrow" a chance to rephrase that perhaps to "Huge selection of themepark non-open-pvp mmorpgs eg... ; why open-pvp has REAL potential": cue:
All this being as it may, world PVP did create one thing that is now missing in WoW. Notoriety. Players knew each other. Even cross faction they knew each other. Reputations were built. Sadly, with all the instancing and phasing going on, no one really knows anyone anymore.
THIS^. Something very interesting going on if this arises? (another good reason for single-shard). SW: pre-NGE players always mentioned this as did UO. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
the themepark model is about 100% security , playing with your pace ,on your terms.
Sandbox does not mean FFA PvP aka lack of security. Second Life.
Ever played Second Life? You can play at your pace, on your terms. I swear it. Zero PvP if you don't want to do it. 100% security. Sandbox means sandbox. Aka having lots of "stuff" (sand) and "tools" (shovel/bucket) to make something (castle) with. That's the model. Not "make sandcastle for jerk to kick". Just the better ones (my opinion) do have that castle kicking option.Themepark does not exclude PvP. Warhammer/WoW/SWTOR
Themepark games have PvP servers and it can be just as "gankerific" in them. Farming spots are "SERIOUS BUSINESS", I've seen b*%#!ing over one guy trying to farm food for raids only to be pushed out of the spot by a lone frost mage. Why was he killed over and over for wanting to quietly farming food? Because I was a douche, that's why. (Not proud of that one.) In SWTOR those that know the game know the Datacron on Tatooine after the 2 hour ballon ride. Imagine you wait for the balloon, ride it, get to sandcrawler and there I was waiting for you in stealth to knock you off. "SORRY! LULZ!" (Not me.) That's just two examples too, there are HUNDREDS of such stories. Just look at their forums. Now, if your going to cry don't roll on PvP but it happens anyway. Themepark does NOT equal 100% security.
@waruko
I enjoy your view on pfo and eve , but i would like to point out a few issues.
3am "off hours" simply does not exist in EVE online.it is a single server and 3am in europe could be prime time in korea.
you cannot play 2hours a month and enjoy the game. well you can who am i to say otherwise but , i am sure that paying the same 12 euro for a single player game in steam would offer you "more" for your money.
In eve you cannot be an
-inventor with 2hours a week , you need to do the logistics for the towers fuel them , manage the inventions etc
-trader , as 0.1isk games need constant attention , at least daily in remote systems (not jita or amar)
-pirate ,pvper of any sort , no need to explain
-be a part of any involved alliance.most ask for attendance for fights on reinforced bases etcyou can only mine (which make the least amount of isk/hour )
or do lvl4 missions , which is not even end-game content.to do any meaningful pve you should find deadspace complexes rated 8+ or do wormholes etcfor those unaware of eve .my point is that you pay a monthly fee to see 5% of the game content.which is probably fine by you , it is your money and all .but maybe you shouldnt be the group of people that the company takes into consideration when they decide balance or features or content for example.
ORLY? Let's look at the numbers. Numbers don't lie. We would call those peaks "prime hours". The lows "off hours". Every single day, same pattern. My "home system" for mining, has a average player count of 3-4 people in local during "prime" hours. During "off" hours there is me...and the occasional visitor (singular). Call the hours whatever you want if you don't like the term "off". The point stands. The fact is there is a significant drop in numbers during late night hours in Europe and America where the majority of the player base is from. So yes, "off hours" exist for those looking for times they are less likely to be ganked by virtue of fewer players online. They exist in every game. Shoes. Insoles. Heels.
As for what we can do with two hours you missed some things:
1. Planetary Interaction. Takes less than a hour to set up, runs for a long long time. Fun little mini-game for those that like it. Others...boring as hell.
2. Ransom pirate. I can can flip at least 3 people and ransom them in a hour so there is a sprinkle of PvP. Sure its not 1000 ship battles but it gets the job done. And I can do it in a short amount of time.
3. 'Freight' trading can be done in 2 hours. One for traveling alone but it can be done. My friend in EXE just loaded down with a cargo full of Caldari "gear" and went to a out of the way mission hub to unload. In two hours. I'm sure in a month all his buy orders will gain him a 40-60% profit from his investment. Considering that was 2 billion in ISK dropped that's another billion gained.
4. Your list and my list are BARELY a tip of the iceberg on what one can do in EvE, and I can do a fair amount two hours. I guess I'm good at time management? Sure I'm not the only one. Not to mention this whole basis of two hours a month play time is RIDICULOUS. How many people even do that? Less than 1% of a game population at MOST. More money for the Dev's I say. Whatever.
You view of "meaningful" is subjective. Again if they get their rocks off fighting poor AI bots or shooting jet canning nubs than who gives a shit? I certainly don't, their money, their time. Why should we care? I agree $15 a month to play 2 hours is a bit of a rip-off but hell so is 30mins of laser tag for THE SAME PRICE. Or that greasy ass pizza you ate in 10mins. If they want to spend their money in that fashion we still don't have valid reason to tell them to go "buy skyrim". Most of all if they are enjoy the game as it is and don't cry about it.
I feel you massively underestimate the ability of developers to record and gather statistical data which they use to "decide balance/features/content". Do you think they do not know that X person only plays 2 hours a month? If GMs can pull up PM chat logs from six months back I PROMISE they have records on average play times of each and every player. With that data I'm also willing to bet they consider those player's "opinions" on a game they rarely play to weigh less than those that play 20+ hours a week. Or if you lack faith in their abilities we should just call Ryan Dancey out right now. I'm sure he or someone on staff is reading this. We could ask them if they plan to cave to the demands of super causal carebears. I'm thinking...no.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
the themepark model is about 100% security , playing with your pace ,on your terms.Sandbox does not mean FFA PvP aka lack of security. Second Life.
Ever played Second Life? You can play at your pace, on your terms. I swear it. Zero PvP if you don't want to do it. 100% security. Sandbox means sandbox. Aka having lots of "stuff" (sand) and "tools" (shovel/bucket) to make something (castle) with. That's the model. Not "make sandcastle for jerk to kick". Just the better ones (my opinion) do have that castle kicking option.
I would say that in the second life example, that is not A sandbox, but a few million privately owned sandboxes. You can't change the world, you can only change your house or your business. One continous sandbox, does entail being able to have some impact on EVERYTHING, not just having control of your own personal sandbox.
Second life is a Sandbox game, but not A single sandbox, secondlife is a collection of sandboxes. Minecraft on the other hand, each server is a sandbox, and while PVP in the sense of player killing is not possible, kicking over someone elses sandbox is certainly possible on all servers assuming the server admin dosn't ban you for such.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
the themepark model is about 100% security , playing with your pace ,on your terms.Sandbox does not mean FFA PvP aka lack of security. Second Life.
Ever played Second Life? You can play at your pace, on your terms. I swear it. Zero PvP if you don't want to do it. 100% security. Sandbox means sandbox. Aka having lots of "stuff" (sand) and "tools" (shovel/bucket) to make something (castle) with. That's the model. Not "make sandcastle for jerk to kick". Just the better ones (my opinion) do have that castle kicking option.I would say that in the second life example, that is not A sandbox, but a few million privately owned sandboxes. You can't change the world, you can only change your house or your business. One continous sandbox, does entail being able to have some impact on EVERYTHING, not just having control of your own personal sandbox.
Second life is a Sandbox game, but not A single sandbox, secondlife is a collection of sandboxes. Minecraft on the other hand, each server is a sandbox, and while PVP in the sense of player killing is not possible, kicking over someone elses sandbox is certainly possible on all servers assuming the server admin dosn't ban you for such.
Yeah its a sandbox, with a megaton of smaller sandboxes servers inside that don't necessarily follow "We are a sandbox, we must have FFA PvP" mantra. Though some really awesome ones do have PvP sandboxes set up. I would of loved to use Minecraft but I can already hear, "its not a MMO" argument.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
it seems people like to look at the tree instead of the forest.There is nothing wrong with wow or other themepark games .they offer a specific gameplay experience that is fun for a great deal of people.
the themepark model is about 100% security , playing with your pace ,on your terms.
the sandbox model is about freedom.and there comes risk .In well designed sandbox games (it seems pfo is one of those) each player finds a risk level that they feel comfortable with.
I will give you a card games example.
themepark is like , bridge.it can be a smart competitive , excellent game
sandbox is like poker.there is the thrill of risk.It is up to you to decide the table .you can feel comfortable at the 1 dollar blind or at the 1000 dollar blind.
I want to be very emphatic here.you should choose a game that you enjoy , but you cannot ask for poker without money.Poker becomes dull without any risk , with nothing to lose or gain .I would choose bridge any day over poker without risk.you should not come at a sandbox game forum asking that risk , or pvp is removed.it simply does not compute .If you get an answer like "maybe wow is better for your taste" this is not an attempt to diminish you or your gamestyle , it is probably the truth.
I don't think at is at all what he is asking for.
I think most people's concern is they don't want to see 50 no-lifers hanging around where the starter zones and the PVP areas collide instantly ganking everyone who comes out saying.
"WEEEEEEEEEE I'M GETTING LOTS OF KILLS!!! I R TEH UBER!!!"
That is not the reason Open World PVP is being put into this game. It is being put into this game to add a level of authenticity to the world where there are real total war scenarios and you have to be smart about the way you do things. It's meant to add challenge and more realistic roleplay not opportunities for people to show off their e-peen.
WoW cannot offer a game in which people can enjoy the authenticity and challenge of Open World PVP without snot-nosed idiots who view it as a giant Halo match. Neither can Skyrim.
A lot of people are going to appeal to the developers. I just intend to drive the griefer mentality players from this game with their tears streaming behind them. It's more fun that way. ;)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Waruko GTA online, if Rockstar ever makes it.
A true sandbox will never be made, but you should only take out what is illegal, or outside of your targeted audience 'content' level.
The less they remove from the possibilities, the closer the game is to a true sandbox.
I just hope the anti-PVP players don't give the game a try at launch, and wait until chartered companies are able to establish, so The Seventh Veil are able to educate people, and The Great Legionnaires can protect them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A true sandbox mmo means that all players can do what they want, this includes attacking other players.
I believe the greater key of it is, where you can attempt. In second life, you can build and create whatever you want within your proporty, but as far as I know, your abilities are then 100% limited when in someone elses house. I wouldn't even say the Can kill other players, as the key to the sandbox breaker.
Minecraft though not MMO, still holds one major part of that. It is one giant sandbox in that I can go into my friends house, and redesign his living room.
Now when you are mass scaling that freedom, PVP almost has to be required, because giving someone the potential to re-arange your furniture, and allowing someone to keep their furniture the way they like it, requires some sort of PVP to neither split the sandbox into multiple owned sandboxes, nor make the sandbox unplayable because their house is endlessly changed outside of their control, and the only thing they can do is keep putting it back the way they had it before.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Waruko GTA online, if Rockstar ever makes it.
A true sandbox will never be made, but you should only take out what is illegal, or outside of your targeted audience 'content' level.
The less they remove from the possibilities, the closer the game is to a true sandbox.
I just hope the anti-PVP players don't give the game a try at launch, and wait until chartered companies are able to establish, so The Seventh Veil are able to educate people, and The Great Legionnaires can protect them.
Rockstar doesn't have the balls. Now there is a Japanese company I know of might because they already crossed that line in a single player game. My point is some sandbox target audience "content" level excludes all forms of violence. This includes verbal and sexual. Sure its not what we want in a sandbox (we want fighting) but they are out there.
Now that IS the LEGITIMATE argument I was waiting for insorrow or anyone to use. AKA"Please do NOT give one of the 4500 slots to anti-PvPers." I just don't care if a carebear gets it. (Carebear via MY definition is a person not interested in PvP, not someone anti-PvP. We need miners, etc.) But for someone who is going to whine on Day 1 about walking out of town to mine only to get attacked on the way back when he was loaded with loot is a waste of a slot vs the guy that would shrug it off and go right back out there to mine. I can agree to that 150%.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I feel you massively underestimate the ability of developers to record and gather statistical data which they use to "decide balance/features/content". Do you think they do not know that X person only plays 2 hours a month? If GMs can pull up PM chat logs from six months back I PROMISE they have records on average play times of each and every player. With that data I'm also willing to bet they consider those player's "opinions" on a game they rarely play to weigh less than those that play 20+ hours a week. Or if you lack faith in their abilities we should just call Ryan Dancey out right now. I'm sure he or someone on staff is reading this. We could ask them if they plan to cave to the demands of super causal carebears. I'm thinking...no.
The above statement disappoints me, and I certainly hope it's not true. It seems to me that driving away casual customers is no way to grow a business; in the real world there's a lot more people who can play casually than who can devote their life to MMOs. Really, I was kind of with you until you started to show the typical disdain for "carebears." Good lord.
I'll freely admit I'm absolutely certain to be a casual customer. I have no interest in giving up my family, my two live Pathfinder RPG games and my other hobbies to devote all my spare time to "living" in a fictional universe.
In the real world, there's consequences when you're a jerk. Most people aren't jerks. My understanding, on the other hand, is that many MMOs actually reward jerky behavior since there's really little down side.
Saying PFO is a sandbox does not mean it will give every player carte blance to do whatever they damn well please. Nor should it. There should be in-game consequences for being a jerk, or a murderer, or thief, or any other stupid-ass thing just like there is in the real world.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Waruko, that's a good point. I imagine Goblinworks will put quite a bit of thought into who they invite in those first several months. I can't imagine they'd want to invite people who are adamant that Open PvP is a terrible idea.
On that note, I'd like to remind everyone that I've fully embraced the need for Open PvP in PFO!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A true sandbox mmo means that all players can do what they want, this includes attacking other players.
Then no true sandbox game exists, including PnP games. All games are covered by RULES, which places some constraints on player behavior. Computer games are also governed by program code, meaning the developers of the game must have, in some way, accounted for the players behavior in order for the code of the application to handle it.
According to your definition, a "true sandbox" would be impossible to achieve and no game in existence including EvE, UO, Darkfall, etc would qualify nor would PFO.
In EvE...if I want to get out of my spaceship and drive around on a planet in a Tiger Tank, can I? No...then not a "true sandbox".
In UO.... if I wanted to beam up to the Starship Enterprise and blow apart Britania with my photon torpedos, can I? No....then not a "true sandbox".
I'd submit your definition of "sandbox" is unworkable and unachievable. "Sandbox" merely implies that the game allows/supports the player to interact with it in a creative manner. It doesn't imply that there are no constraints whatsoever. Even a litteral sandbox places some constraints upon what the player can do ... the box, the quantity of sand, the laws of physics, etc.
In no way, shape or form does a "sandbox" even imply that combat exists what-so-ever....let alone PvP, let alone FFA PvP. "A Tale in the Desert" is an example of a sandbox that doesn't. Games like SimCity would be examples in the non-mmo arena.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Waruko, that's a good point. I imagine Goblinworks will put quite a bit of thought into who they invite in those first several months. I can't imagine they'd want to invite people who are adamant that Open PvP is a terrible idea.
On that note, I'd like to remind everyone that I've fully embraced the need for Open PvP in PFO!
Right,
I'm not actualy against PvP in PFO...I'm supportive of it. I'm simply against the idea that FFA PvP is somehow the definition of "sandbox".... it's not. (IMO) the 2 have almost nothing to do with each other what-so-ever...nor do most of the other things inshadow mentioned.
I'm very supportive of the game they want to make with PFO. I'm also VERY supportive of...
- People who can only play 2 hours a month being able to enjoy PFO, even if they are limited in what they can achieve.
- People being able to play co-op with three friends fighting the AI.
(You know, the PVE content systems that the Dev's have described)
- People being able to stand around and chat while they click at plants
(You know, actualy ROLE-PLAY in a Role-Playing Game).
If insorrow doesn't want to see those things supported in PFO, I expect he's going to be disappointed.... because as I've read the Dev blogs and posts, GoblinWorks seems to have stated specificaly thier intention to support ALL those play elements, ALONG with thier support for PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I feel you massively underestimate the ability of developers to record and gather statistical data which they use to "decide balance/features/content". Do you think they do not know that X person only plays 2 hours a month? If GMs can pull up PM chat logs from six months back I PROMISE they have records on average play times of each and every player. With that data I'm also willing to bet they consider those player's "opinions" on a game they rarely play to weigh less than those that play 20+ hours a week. Or if you lack faith in their abilities we should just call Ryan Dancey out right now. I'm sure he or someone on staff is reading this. We could ask them if they plan to cave to the demands of super causal carebears. I'm thinking...no.The above statement disappoints me, and I certainly hope it's not true. It seems to me that driving away casual customers is no way to grow a business; in the real world there's a lot more people who can play casually than who can devote their life to MMOs. Really, I was kind of with you until you started to show the typical disdain for "carebears." Good lord.
I'll freely admit I'm absolutely certain to be a casual customer. I have no interest in giving up my family, my two live Pathfinder RPG games and my other hobbies to devote all my spare time to "living" in a fictional universe.
In the real world, there's consequences when you're a jerk. Most people aren't jerks. My understanding, on the other hand, is that many MMOs actually reward jerky behavior since there's really little down side.
Saying PFO is a sandbox does not mean it will give every player carte blance to do whatever they damn well please. Nor should it. There should be in-game consequences for being a jerk, or a murderer, or thief, or any other stupid-ass thing just like there is in the real world.
I have disdain for carebears? Get your words out of my mouth out. I NEVER showed disdain for carebears. PERIOD. A carebear, (AGAIN) is a person that does not want to PvP. Not a Anti-PvPer that wants everyone to live in peace. That's a hippy. (That was a joke.) Let's review shall we?
"Hell, I called out one "carebear's" BS "goodbye" post BECAUSE of his whining about the PvP." Seems I was using the term in mockery to the person I was replying to since they tossed the term first. No disdain here.
"Carebears can have massive balls." That seems like...praise? Oh wait, it is.
"We could ask them if they plan to cave to the demands of super causal carebears." Again seems here I was mocking insorrow's admitted concern of the boogeymen of MMO's, the Super Casual Carebears, those that shall lay waste to PFO. Haven't you heard? They are out to ruin everything!
I think I also went the extra mile and stepped in to defend the casual player style in this thread. So I excuse me if I misunderstand your "typical casual" assumption that "hardcore" means giving up real life or the hobbies on follows outside a fictional universe. Oh and to be clear that's not a comment of disdain against casuals, just your statement. If you want to be a causal player, good for you. I, and many others, are FINE with that. I like GOOD players. Causal, hardcore doesn't matter. Causal does not mean lacking in skill NOR unwillingness to smack skulls in PvP.
In MMO's there are consequences for being a jerk too. Maybe not enough of them for you or me but they are there. In EvE Online if BoB had been a little less elitist I doubt they would of had a whole coalition of people try to destroy them. And when they DID get destroyed if they had made more friends you think SOMEONE would of revenged them. But no. Everyone was like, "Lol gg BoB." Being a jerk doesn't pay out imho.
Now as for the bold text. If you're going to highlight it, highlight EVERYTHING before it. Do you think a person that plays ANY GAME two hours a MONTH. NOT causal BUT super derpy causal has any depth of understanding on said game vs someone that plays it a lot? Because I said "those player's "opinions" ". "Those players'" being the mythical demographic that plays a video game two hours a month. A average causal player plays a LOT MORE than two hours a month and a casual's opinion should weighs more than a guy that barely touches the game. How you play DOES matter on the type of opinion you form. Educated vs Ignorant. I'm not going to give a much credit to a guy's view on say... PvP balancing in WoW if he's only been to level five. What the hell does he know about class balance if he isn't even level 85 and PvPing regularly? He lacks knowledge, context, and experience. Therefore I must take anything he says with a ocean full of salt.
To finish, NOTHING I SAID meant one's opinion would be COMPLETELY DISREGRADED. Just judged in value based on the behavior , experience. and/or play style of the player. If all opinions should be equal in all things let's just firing those "hardcore" college professors and have some cliff notes "super derpy casual" jughead tell me why he thinks Japan attacked Pearl Harbor.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I feel you massively underestimate the ability of developers to record and gather statistical data which they use to "decide balance/features/content". Do you think they do not know that X person only plays 2 hours a month? If GMs can pull up PM chat logs from six months back I PROMISE they have records on average play times of each and every player. With that data I'm also willing to bet they consider those player's "opinions" on a game they rarely play to weigh less than those that play 20+ hours a week. Or if you lack faith in their abilities we should just call Ryan Dancey out right now. I'm sure he or someone on staff is reading this. We could ask them if they plan to cave to the demands of super causal carebears. I'm thinking...no.The above statement disappoints me, and I certainly hope it's not true. It seems to me that driving away casual customers is no way to grow a business; in the real world there's a lot more people who can play casually than who can devote their life to MMOs. Really, I was kind of with you until you started to show the typical disdain for "carebears." Good lord.
I'll freely admit I'm absolutely certain to be a casual customer. I have no interest in giving up my family, my two live Pathfinder RPG games and my other hobbies to devote all my spare time to "living" in a fictional universe.
In the real world, there's consequences when you're a jerk. Most people aren't jerks. My understanding, on the other hand, is that many MMOs actually reward jerky behavior since there's really little down side.
Saying PFO is a sandbox does not mean it will give every player carte blance to do whatever they damn well please. Nor should it. There should be in-game consequences for being a jerk, or a murderer, or thief, or any other stupid-ass thing just like there is in the real world.
Knowing Waruko, I think you may be misinterperating what he means. Yesterday what we were discussing in the Teamspeak is that there are two kinds of players that most of us get aggravated with.
The first is the kind of player that believes Open World PVP is about abusing people. That might makes right and if the game system allows them to kill you, it means they need to kill every newb they see, and camp all the newb spawns for a higher kill count regardless of the fact it doesn't give any benefits to them. And anyone who is not ok with this kind of abuse needs to go play WoW on a PVE server or a singleplayer game because they are obviously a carebear.
The second kind of player tends to characterize most or all Open World PVP as the kind done by the first kind of player. They demand all Open World PVP be removed or that it be limited to "consensual" PVP. Their ideas and proposals would kill the game for people who enjoy real mature Open World PVP in addition to the snot nosed idiots. When people push back against their ideas they announce to the whole forums that they are ragequitting the game and that company releasing it is making a huge mistake.
The second kind of player is the kind who Waruko is saying hopes do not gain the ears of the devs. I am right there with him. I don't mind a person who really likes to live in peace whenever possible and avoid PVP, but I don't want the devs pandering to people who are suggesting features that will ruin the game for the hundreds or thousands of Open World PVP supporters who donated $300k to a game promising them Open World PVP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have disdain for carebears? Get your words out of my mouth out. I NEVER showed disdain for carebears. PERIOD.
I didn't use the word "carebear" in your posts, you did. Simply using such a term for someone is dismissive to me, kind of like referring to someone as a munchkin, so I was interpreting that as a negative thing.
To me, this is kind of like talking to an author about their "crunch" and "fluff" (authors hate that) or talking to a teenager about "their little friends." In any event, what I've been seeing around here is a very positive thing to me; it looks like a lot of people want the game to not only succeed, but succeed because it's creating an environment where lots of people want to play.
---
As an aside; I'm pretty darn certain I misinterpred your "With that data I'm also willing to bet they consider those player's "opinions" on a game they rarely play to weigh less than those that play 20+ hours a week" comment as referring to anyone who plays a limited amount as inherently having an opinion less valuable than the heavier players.
In any event, in my opinion the opposite is true - GW is likely to be the most successful if they can pull in many, many casual gamers who aren't driven away by the actions of the heavy users. After all, don't most of these things have a flat subscription model?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There are a lot of people who proudly refer to themselves as "carebears". The term may be used derogatorily by some, but that's not universal.
I know a lot of people who use the term "Hippy" as a vile insult, and others who wear it as a badge of honor. If someone I didn't know used that term, I would have to rely on context to try to determine how they meant it. I would never dream of assuming they must have meant one or the other without that context.
Someone ask for a hippy carebear?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I said, "HEY!"
JC, I swear. I KNOW I used the term, and I laid the definition of it in MY VIEW down for you TWICE. You having a problem with the word is your problem, and I was asking for you to take the word "disdain" out of my mouth or any other imaginary feelings YOU thought I had for carebears, casuals, or what have you.
Goblinworks Founder
|
In the real world, there's consequences when you're a jerk. Most people aren't jerks. My understanding, on the other hand, is that many MMOs actually reward jerky behavior since there's really little down side.
Yes, except in the real world those consequences are rewarding for the risks the jerk must take. Anyone who works in management would know this, for those that haven't worked in management yet, here's a tip: Don't trust your managers. The world is a harsh place where jerks are in charge. In a civilised world jerks are rewarded for non-violent, cut-throat behaviour whether it is betraying the confidence of fellow workers to get ahead, stealing intellectual property, destroying bottom dwelling investors or traders, investing in companies that are literally consuming what's left of our world are all rewarding. In less civilised countries violence is often rewarding, you need only look to one of the many African or the civilised Middle-Eastern Countries. There are almost two-hundred countries on our planet and every single one of them is corrupt and run by jerks so that the meek can continue to live in a blissful ignorance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In the real world, there's consequences when you're a jerk. Most people aren't jerks. My understanding, on the other hand, is that many MMOs actually reward jerky behavior since there's really little down side.Yes, except in the real world those consequences are rewarding for the risks the jerk must take. Anyone who works in management would know this, for those that haven't worked in management yet, here's a tip: Don't trust your managers. The world is a harsh place where jerks are in charge. In a civilised world jerks are rewarded for non-violent, cut-throat behaviour whether it is betraying the confidence of fellow workers to get ahead, stealing intellectual property, destroying bottom dwelling investors or traders, investing in companies that are literally consuming what's left of our world are all rewarding. In less civilised countries violence is often rewarding, you need only look to one of the many African or the civilised Middle-Eastern Countries. There are almost two-hundred countries on our planet and every single one of them is corrupt and run by jerks so that the meek can continue to live in a blissful ignorance.
Hrm. For me there are 2 points here. Consequences are an important part of maintaing order in the real world, but at the same time there is a reward to following the rules. This is sometimes a collective reward, and sometimes an individual reward.
In games, players thrive on satisfaction, fun, and a sense of achievement. One of the ways to gain these in many existing MMOs is PvP and indeed, antisocial PvP (or 'greifing'). I am a firm believer that it is more important to incentivise good behaviour than it is to punish bad. I refer strongly to this concept in my own work on the new Darkfall : Unholy Wars. I can't go into detail since it isnt out yet, but it is previous comments about Darklfall 1.0 in reference to PFO are really interesting to me. A large portion of my work at AV has been rethinking the games systems to try and reduce the sociopathic behaviour that plagued DF 1.0. I dont know how successful I have been yet, but I hope to see some improvement at launch.
The second point here about jerks in the real world : comparisons between behaviour online and behaviour in the real world are inherently weak. Consequences and benefits in the real world are immeasurably more significant than those in online games, and as such, behavioural patterns in-game are only a VERY loose and generalised model of those in the real world.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm still waiting to see what the risk is for those that choose to play the role of "bandits". Seems its all reward with very little risk. In minutes they can take what I spent hours to aquire.
Their risk? A bounty that I have to pay for increasing my losses. Bounties will be a badge of honor for these players.
I can get on board with open-pvp. Its the amount of stuff we lose on death that's hard to accept.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Rafkin, it's not just the immediate Risk that bandits need to weigh. It's also the long-term Costs of changes to their Alignment and Reputation. I think one of the biggest factors they'll be weighing is whether or not they'll be able to even access the Training Facilities that would be necessary to reach the pinnacle of their professions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Rafkin, it's not just the immediate Risk that bandits need to weigh. It's also the long-term Costs of changes to their Alignment and Reputation. I think one of the biggest factors they'll be weighing is whether or not they'll be able to even access the Training Facilities that would be necessary to reach the pinnacle of their professions.
I hope this is the case but we just don't know enough details yet. Like, will there be any reputation hit for killing someone out in the wild?
I understand its difficult for GW to nail down specifics at this stage of development but if they could it might help alleviate some concerns and boost the Kickstarter.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Most F2P games I've played heavily restrict the ability of F2P players to contribute the economy by limiting trades, inventory, etc. I haven't played every one, though. Which ones are F2P-friendly?
APB:Reloaded is one I would call F2P friendly, now that said it's also been deemed Pay2Win and is a hot bed for people that hack the game. I think their team is about 2/3rds hack control and 1/3rd content and support. It's effectively an Over the Shoulder shooter with an INSANE level of customization, almost a sandbox concept with a heavy gearing towards PVP. Missions you do without opposition can be observed by the other side and start a mission. Missions that are opposed have multi-layered defined goals to lead to winning the match. I find it to be a lot of fun from time to time. If I find myself wanting to grief in a video game and having been ganked in other games, or annoyed at the honor system (Vanilla WoW) had this idea that killing a lower level player was dishonorable, even in your home land. So, if you had a high level character and were playing a lowbie with friends and had griefers come to your area to gank you. You couldn't retaliate by bringing your high level down and slaughtering them to get them out of your zone, you'd get negative honor for it... that sucked. Back to the point, I'd hop APB where you can't really greif. If a person is fed up with being killed in a mission by you, they can give up and leave and not get killed anymore. In wow or a pvp environment, the result is needing/wanting to log out to wait for them to go away.
@Ryan
I like the idea and concepts that you mention here. You've planned to take X level of Risk and that entails the possibilities of Y. In the game world that would be like I'm going to stay on the road and take the longer safer path because I'll get there in 1 piece instead of taking the short cut through the Mines of Moria which has recently been taken over by that PK guild that rose up out of a desire to play Chaotic Evil. You access the level of risk you are willing to tolerate and then go for it. In the end, I think it allows for more styles of game play, which as far as I can tell you and your team have been trying to maximize. Loving it!
I hope this is the case but we just don't know enough details yet. Like, will there be any reputation hit for killing someone out in the wild?
I understand its difficult for GW to nail down specifics at this stage of development but if they could it might help alleviate some concerns and boost the Kickstarter.
I'm speculating here mostly, but that's just it. It seems like the reputation and build of settlements will be different. It seems like a lot of people have it in them that reputation being good only goes the one way, toward good. But if they are keeping with the levels of freedom and sandbox that they are reporting. I think the reality is that it's opposed. Good rep is good for good players. Bad Rep is good for evil players. I suspect we will see Evil Reputation settlements. In fact I imagine Evil players would have to come together to make them in the face of all the overwhelming good or we potentially end up loosing and missing an aspect of the game that could be quiet rewarding.
It sounds like Bandits would have to place themselves in higher risk areas, meaning that other high risk players are more then likely on an equal footing.
Trust me, I understand what you mean about mitigating loss as after loosing stuff cause you got ganked, you then need to put up money for a reward, losing more. That was something I really did not like about Eve. I could work for years and in a few minutes I could loose it all because someone else wanted to be a jerk or found and exploited a bug of some sort, or what have you. Yes I know the rule to Eve was don't fly it unless you can replace it, but I couldn't build the ISK to get there. I got ganked early on. I think Ryan is stating there will be areas you can go to build yourself up before running out into the wilds so you don't have to worry about going to areas of high risk with not but a loincloth and a dagger.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... will there be any reputation hit for killing someone out in the wild?
Yep :)
Does killing another player in the wilderness give me the Criminal Flag?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In SWTOR those that know the game know the Datacron on Tatooine after the 2 hour ballon ride. Imagine you wait for the balloon, ride it, get to sandcrawler and there I was waiting for you in stealth to knock you off. "SORRY! LULZ!" (Not me.)
Slightly off-topic but I just have to say (because I have Been there)... Never again on the Evil Balloon, knockbacks are godly for that Cron.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
OK is this Griefing, or a way to slow down a PC that is not with you?
This happened to me in 2 different games,
On a quest, one of the main lines that you really do need to complete.
Two higher level folks 15+ levels would wait where the boss mob was, and kill it, so it never spawned, on the weekend they did this taking turns for at least 12 hours.
How would PFO deal with this or is it Ok to do?
Lee
"Killing the boss mob" is a PVE concept that doesn't apply to PFO under the current design proposals
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Lee
In PFO, since there is PvP, you would get a few of your buddies and kill those two Griefers.
Remember, there are no levels in PFO. With enough people, you can kill them. You probably wouldn't even have to look far; there are probably a few ticked-off people in that zone that are looking for the same mob.
Also remember, though, that there will likely never be a specific mob that you have to kill for a quest in PFO. There won't likely be many quests, for that matter.
Also, most dungeons are opened only to a single group, so nobody else can enter and mess with your bosses. Sometimes, the builders in your settlement will run into a hiccup during construction, and will offer up a contract for adventurers to go out and find a specific material they need in order to continue building. You might have a good idea of what type of dungeon to look for it in, but that dungeon won't be in a specific place, and once you find one that looks promising, only you can enter it.
