Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

Pathfinder Online will be ending operations on November 28, 2021. For more details please visit our FAQ.

If you REALLY want conflict...

Midnight
Nihimon
Midnight
The current plan is just going to lead to settlements taking turns owning towers (It's Wednesday folks, our turn to train up) and thus won't funnel PvP anywhere.

By "funnel", I meant "give folks who wanted to PvP a place to do so without losing Reputation". The fact that some players aren't availing themselves of the various opportunities PFO offers for PvP may say more about those players' expectations than about the developers' intentions.

ahh, yeah all I need are the PvP windows. The towers were irrelevant because the popular kids have already divided them up, and towers will likely will remain irrelevant after the patch for the same reason.

But I assure you, I do appreciate the PvP windows those towers offer, though, and I do avail myself of them.

In fact, if the player population was higher, just gathering/monster-hunting in PvP windows while picking off interlopers (or running away while shrieking like a frightened schoolgirl) could completely satisfy me.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Midnight
Deleted, I shouldn't give people evil ideas.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Nihimon
Tigari
Nihimon
The problem is not the people who WANT to pvp, its the fact that its to easy to stay away from rep free pvp if you DON'T WANT pvp. We've ran around capping towers, and even let the other settlements know where we were and what we were doing…

I would caution you against assuming that those people didn't want PvP. After all, those people did exactly the same thing to you, with the same results.
Nihimon murmurs in sheer ecstasy as the magic courses through his veins
Tigari
I assumed nothing. when I was there, we were told THEY DID NOT WANT TO PVP, complaining about the targeting system and they would rather be doing something else. This was also more then one group, so (watch what I do here), I'm assuming your assuming I'm just talking about EBA people by the way you responded.

AND

ALMOST every time I've been told a tower is under attack, I have joined/formed a group. I think one of the few exceptions I remember is that I was on the other side of the map, DOING PVP.
Ortallus
If you REALLY want conflict…

…come to the PFO Forums with an opinion.

Just don't defend yourself from the old guard, or you'll get banned.
My ban has now gone from 7 days to permanent with a chance to appeal after 6 months. Paizo has violated the ToS and EULA, which mention nothing about repercussions for actions on the forums resulting in loss of access to the game client. I have not done anything in violation of the rules which would warrant a ban from the game client.
Tigari
Ortallus
Congratulations on growing up and learning how to play the game as intended. I commend you, sir! Now if the rest of the crying bandits would do the same.

I disagree with you. I do not think I'm playing the game as intended. I am NOT a bandit either. I could care less if my victims had anything on them (although it is a nice bonus). I just want PvP. I do not think the Devs intended players to not care about their rep. If that was the case, they would not of had it in the game. Their is a reason low rep will be have penalties.

My honest opinion is I think the players shocked the Devs. I don't think the Devs expected so many Naps and Treaties. They told us to start making friends, and playing the politics game a LONG time ago, but I also think they expected more "feuds" to break out. The biggest "feud" (using this term loosly here) is Everbloom Alliance vs Empire of Xeilias, and that's just because they're the two biggest power blocs,and that's all it is, a minor feud. I myself like many of the EBA members, it just so happens that because they are so big, the chance of me finding someone in their area is much greater then anywhere else.

Other then the "Hammerfall Incident" (which was training/experimenting/showing Devs larger group pvp), and the 2v2 PvP tournament, I don't think any other large(er) scale pvp events have happened. "Barons Folly" and some of EoX/EBA run in's are up there, but nothing "Historical".
Ortallus
PS. If you REALLY want conflict…

Post an unpopular opinion on the forums.
My ban has now gone from 7 days to permanent with a chance to appeal after 6 months. Paizo has violated the ToS and EULA, which mention nothing about repercussions for actions on the forums resulting in loss of access to the game client. I have not done anything in violation of the rules which would warrant a ban from the game client.
Midnight
Looking at Lee's latest blog, it looks like they're going to let ALL PC settlements train up to one level less than the maximum possible level given where player xp is at any particular time, so towers only matter to people at the very maxed point who are intent on training that maxed point.

If I'm understanding that blog correctly, I really don't even see why the devs are bothering to change WoT if any PC settlement can be max level -1.

Considering how many people dual class, etc. I predict almost no conflict (especially since people will probably still take turns owning towers for max training on their scheduled day of the week).

This is the lowest conflict sandbox game I've ever seen or heard of.

I hesitate to blame the devs, because just like how in a tabletop game, a group of players can almost always out-think a lone DM, in PFO hundreds of players can always out-think the devs. In this case, the players are using their aversion to combat to allow them to amass vast stockpiles of supplies they needn't use in combat today, and thus pose a ridiculous risk to any newcomer upstarts a year from now.

When we tell the tales of Early Enrollment a year from now will the wildest tale we'll tell be of how Aragon accepted a company with a tower that all the other settlements had agreed not to attack?
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Tyv Blodvaerd of Aragon
Ortallus
PS. If you REALLY want conflict…

Post an unpopular opinion on the forums.

Hmm… I have to try that.
Aragon (CN) a settlement founded on the principles of the River Freedoms: Say What You Will; Oath Breakers Die; Walk Any Road, Float Any River; Courts are for Kings; Slavery is an Abomination; Have What You Hold.

Settlement Focus: Fighter and Rogue Training
Game Play: Escalations / Refining / Crafting / Defensive PVP
Midnight
I *am* waiting for Outposts. It was merely one of the announcements on WoT changes that made me think the devs wanted conflict before then. But the latest blog (based on the playerbase's input) has undone that impression.

And what makes you think that the popular kids won't divvy those Outposts up the same way they divvy up towers?

How does a low budget sandbox entertain players if the players won't engage in conflict?
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post