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.

Seriously? PvP not optional?

Doc
Guys don't waste your energy. This guy was probably done with this game the moment he posted here, I believe he just wanted to get some schadenfreude out of it.

The truth is, there will be many like that. Personally I feel it was a mistake to market so hard to Pathfinder TT players, since this game really has very little to do with the IP, and because the Pathfinder Society apparently has a no player killing policy - obviously very contrary to the PvP-centric aspects of PFO. But that was the course GW and Paizo took.

At this stage, instead of trying to attract new people, I think the community should probably focus its energy on trying to retain the people who had already committed to and like the concept - but are starting to lose faith or become discouraged, or worse, bored. They don't need convincing of the core game concepts, they just need renewed hope that the game will progress in a reasonable pace and actually come to fruition.
Hobson Fiffledown
With all of the guides out there, I think something in the new player guides describing actual player PvP experience might go a long way towards defusing situations like this. Some heated threads, or PvP saturated areas, can give the wrong impression of the game as a whole (I'm all for heated threads and PvP saturated areas, just pointing out the impression it can give to people who don't do more research). People can quickly jump to 'this is murder-hobo land'.

There are always going to be people making uninformed purchase decisions who react badly when their expectations aren't met, but as a community we could stand to do a little more preventative work.

(sigh, there's always an aside with this halfling, isn't there?)

For the record - I grew up with a hobo camp behind one of the small towns I lived in. There were no murders…by hobos. Well, one year, it was King John's (not kidding, he was the hobo king) birthday and they invited the whole town to celebrate with them. I was about 11 and our little group of friends worked up the courage to go to the hobo camp. I brought King John an eastern box turtle I had caught, as a pet, for his birthday. I remember this towering figure laughing and thanking me heartily, saying "What a fine stew this will make. Thank you, little man!". The whole hobo camp laughed and celebrated. So…maybe there was some turtle murder.
This space for rent.
QMan
Can't say I'm surprised by this response. It should be expected to see posts like this as more and more people try the game out. Some people will fundamentally want a different user experience.
Wylder
The uninformed impulse purchase strikes again.

What he's pointing to is a significant difference between the product and the people it's being marketed to. Table Top RPGs =/= MMORPGs. Pathfinder RPG is a Table Top game. Pathfinder Online is an attempt to take that brand into the MMORPG market. Pathfinder Online =/= Pathfinder RPG (which is basically D&D 3.75). I don't think this is/was a big secret. Those who want to check out Pathfinder Online can do so; and the recommendation is to get one of the 15-day trial memberships, which means finding a buddy who can offer you one. It's also a game under development; another thing that isn't a secret.

Aren't going to see the full, polished version of this for another 3 years. That is if the revenue stream can keep the developers going. That's obviously tied to keeping membership level to a certain number (above break even). I'm sure a lot of us have played a lot of MMOs where the game "died" within 6 months. Most of those spent millions to develop the game, then released. Membership typically peaked in the first few months, then declined most dramatically. Because those developers had such a high investment early on, their break even threshold was much higher. They had to lay people off, stifling further development. The developers of this game have taken a different approach, which you can read about.

Problem is that a lot/most of the people interested in the Pathfinder brand are your Table Top types. A sub-segment of that group also play MMOs, and understand/accept the differences. These are the folks that supported the Kickstarter and have participated in Alpha. Not saying there aren't those who weren't aware of Pathfinder before Pathfinder Online, but I'd be surprised if the number of such players is higher than a handful. Marketing to the Table Top crowd is going to be a challenge, but worth it because the brand loyalty is much higher. Marketing to other MMO fans, since that market is saturated with games that are further along in their development or have established members, is a lot harder but there are more players. MMO fans are fickle though; evidence is the large number of MMOs that are either no longer active or on caretaker status. The best situation would be if Pathfinder Online can attract the Pathfinder RPG players to MMOs and the MMO players to Pathfinder the brand, and into the Pathfinder RPG. So while Pathfinder Online =/= Pathfinder RPG, I believe you need enough similarity or crossover between the two to a) maintain the brand and b) get people to want to play both.

Interesting story about Pathfinder fans is that this is a group of dedicated people that a big company essentially walked away from. Paizo got the rights to D&D 3.5, and that loyalty from the fans not only stuck with Paizo, but has grown steadily. They took on their WoW equivalent and won. So if players want Pathfinder Online to be a successful MMO, then they need to show the same level of loyalty, provided developers keep listening. And be patient because MMOs aren't as easy to develop as say a splat book that doesn't integrate well with the rest of the system (seen a lot of those, haven't we?).

The PvP thing is something that can either set this game apart from other MMOs or kill it altogether. I don't envy the task of the developers. It's why a lot of developers just opt for two different types of servers to cater to the two sizable, but significantly different groups. But that also eats a lot of resources. I don't believe the Pathfinder crowd is big enough to split out into two such groups anyway. Need a win-win solution for the non-PVP vs PVP argument to be successful.
Gog
Some people would not enjoy playing the game that PFO is or will become. And that's fine.

Other people would very much enjoy playing the game that PFO is or will become, but would not enjoy playing the game they mistakenly believe PFO to be. It would be a shame for them to miss out due to that misperception.
^This is Dak (Charlie George). RIP <Guurzak>
JustinianLorimar
ceannric
My question was and still is, how is PvP a "core" aspect of a game that names itself after Pathfinder??? That's absurd. You want to call it "River Kingdoms Rumble" or something similar, be my guest, but the ENTIRE notion of Pathfinder, as an evolution of D&D, is COOPERATION. The ones you battle are ADVERSARIES, not other characters!!! What, there aren't enough monsters, villains, or other enemies to take on in this version of Golarion? Really?? If that's the case, someone SERIOUSLY dropped the ball. Sorry but you're not changing my mind on this, it's basic to the game, and saying this is Pathfinder but forcing PvP on it is like saying D&D is only about killing other PC's…it's ridiculous.

This is not, and was never designed to be a themepark MMO. There are tons of them out there and Ryan has gone to great lengths to explain the reasoning, and to show the strengths of how this system design, PVP included, does support the Pathfinder idea without being a themepark MMO where players can solo their way to maximum power over a short period of time with zero risk.

This is a community game where players must work together and rely on fellow settlement members to advance their characters, build their settlements, advance their skills and defend everything they have built. You can't do any of that alone. The Pathfinder vibe is woven throughout the game mechanics, but it definitely is not a table top game made into an MMO. There forums have been hashing out the themepark vs. sandbox argument for over three years. Most of the current players are good to go with the current development plan. Even though many of the players don't love PvP, they understand the need for player interaction and interdependence, and it makes for a far richer gaming experience. Hopefully you will take the time to read through the blogs and forum posts to get a better idea what the thinking is and why most of us who are in game now think it is a great adaptation of the Pathfinder "mythos".
Nyrri
Well, I have been watching this thread closely. And I have to tell you I enjoyed the game thus far. Till last night.
Seems a group was out there ganking single players for their loot. Later I joined my settlements party to go hunting for mobs, a safe move I thought…and all 7 of us were … OH my that word again…ganked…for our loot. I have to say the bad guys were quite organized, had several parties….and now are rich with our spoils. Yeah their reputation went down only to be regained within the hr. I wonder which one of the group that killed me/us really suffered with the reputation loss. Seems they found a loophole already. didn't they?
It doesn't bother me dying at the hands of a better player (please note the singular) but I work very hard to collect the drops/mats and it simply is a 'cheat' the way they get it.
My friend is quitting. his reason…it wont get better. its not enjoyable anymore I feel helpless, our settlement wont stand a chance to survive. At this point he may be right. Such a shame.
Perhaps no group PVP?…or locks on some of our mats or some sort of individual protection for group hits. I know problems with all of it…too bad, the game was really shaping up nicely.
Azure_Zero
@Nyrri
Sucks that one bandit based PVP encounter soured your milk.
but if you take names when attacks you can keep them on a blacklist / KOS list.
And inform your allies so they in-turn become the hunted.

And what is your settlement?
as it could be the location of where it is.
i.e. if your settlement is near the EBA/NC border zone, expect PVP and ganking.
Doc
I think one problem is that so much marketing effort was directed towards a group of people that probably (IMHO) never had much organized PvP experience (ie. TT RPG'ers) to begin with.

They've created this open-world conflict game, effectively designed for lions, wolves, and sheepdogs, and in turn invite a herd of lambs to come play in it. It's kind of mean if you think about it. Nothing against the non-pvp folks, sincerely, but it just seems like they had no idea what they were getting into.

Another problem in my opinion was this Landrush business, whereby a bunch of people got control of settlements without any indication of evidence that they would know what to do with one once the game began in earnest. There is a huge disparity in settlement success at the moment and I attribute most of that to that fact.

In EVE they say HTFU, and I suppose with a motto like that it breeds or molds a certain kind of player. Without that kind of training or intestinal fortitude, I can see how set backs in this game can be very disheartening to some folks.

I'm sure a lot of people are wondering, at what point is it OK to take off the kids gloves?
Caldeathe Baequiannia

I think one problem is that so much marketing effort was directed towards a group of people that probably (IMHO) never had much organized PvP experience (ie. TT RPG'ers) to begin with.
Believe me, it's a long time before we'll forget that.


They've created this open-world conflict game, effectively designed for lions, wolves, and sheepdogs, and in turn invite a herd of lambs to come play in it. It's kind of mean if you think about it. Nothing against the non-pvp folks, sincerely, but it just seems like they had no idea what they were getting into.
Or that.


Another problem in my opinion was this Landrush business, whereby a bunch of people got control of settlements without any indication of evidence that they would know what to do with one once the game began in earnest. There is a huge disparity in settlement success at the moment and I attribute most of that to that fact.
Everyone paying attention at the time got the chance to convince 7 other people to make them a king. That is not a problem. The problem is people who think that having received their laurels they can rest on them, or that the game should cater to them simply because they got them, even though we were told that it was going to take hundreds of people to hold what we have.


In EVE they say HTFU
This is not EVE. We've been promised that this will not ever be EVE.


I'm sure a lot of people are wondering, at what point is it OK to take off the kids gloves?
As soon as they're willing to take the hit from getting their hands dirty. Part of that hit is that people who don't like it are going to complain about it.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post