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?

I don't disagree with what you're saying. Goes back to my concerns about those two polar-opposite kinds of players in this game, and a lack of an "effectively" PvP free region on the map, a la Hi-sec in EVE.

Even if you further increase penalties against non-opt-in PvP, which is the only plausible recommendation I've been seeing, it will still happen, ostensibly because the game wants it to. Otherwise, they would just make non-opt-in PvP impossible to do. The predictable result would be that it would just be more rare, but it will still happen.

However, because it is more rare, I suspect that when it did occur the psychological impact on those not wanting it to occur or being affected by it would likely be even more severe than now due to even less exposure to it, less desensitization. It will probably still elicit rage-quitting.

I'm really not sure how you rectify this. Maybe they need to post guards in wilderness hexes surrounding a designated NPC town, possibly Thornkeep? Make a non-pvp reserve for players who want no part in it, and post enough guards so that PvP'ers stay away? Allocate like 6 - 12 hexes as an essentially non-pvp zone?

Edit, added:
Frankly, 90% of the playerbase needs to step up and do some PvP and let the 30 or so of us who are currently actively PvPing catch up on PvE.

We can't crowdforge PvP without INFORMED crowdforgers. I believe this is so important that I'd like to see the devs announce that they are drafting the rest of the population to engage in PvP and tell them that if they don't they are SHIRKING their crowdforging responsibilities.

People need to understand what it is like to play offensively. People need to understand what it is like to have to play defensively. And PvP shouldn't feel as rare as lightning strikes (for most of the map) AT LEAST DURING CROWDFORGING. If others are doing PvP (including non-consensual PvP or a simulation of it) they'll start thinking about how PvP works and what game mechanics need to exist.

We need people to step up and do this so that there will be fewer shocks about how PvP works when Open Enrollment opens the floodgates.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
People need to do nothing. People need to play how they want, yet not cry when things don't go their way. If you only want to pve, then only pve. Just realize there are those who want to only pvp who will face stomp you. Both sides have options on how to facilitate their playstyle. For the PVEr, aligning with a settlement that has a pvp bramch to defend them may be a highly intelligent move.
I'm one of the players who decided this game is not for me, and I want to clarify some things that there seem to be misconceptions about. First, I knew coming into this game that PvP was going to be a big part of it; Ryan was totally up front about that when I was looking for a new game. Second, I'm not leaving because of the PvP; that's part of the game. I'm leaving because I came to realize I'm not any good at PvP so have very little chance to prevail in a PvP fight and I don't find it fun to be cannon fodder for PvPers. It may be because I just don't understand the game mechanics and how to make them work for me in PvP; it may be because I'm not a young man anymore and so my reflexes aren't what they used to be; it may be a combination of things. But it is not because of the PvP in the game.

As far as talking to the bandits and making a deal, as Ryan suggested in a previous post: First, in the few encounters I've had with bandits, they didn't stand around talking to me before they killed me. Second, how much fun do you think it would be to be that person who has to make a deal with the bandits and beg for his life? Sorry, folks, but that role is not one that I would find entertaining in real life so I definitely won't find it entertaining in a game. Maybe there are some submissive types out there who are entertained by playing the role of the subjected victim; that ain't me.

So I'm leaving the game; no big deal, folks. I wish you all well. I just hope you can understand that I'm not leaving because of the PvP.

Would you want crafting to be mostly crowdforged by 30 or so players?

I wouldn't have a lot of confidence in that.

We've seen what happens when even a LARGE but insular group are the only people fighting Ustalavs.

Over the long term PvP is going to be way more important than silly Ustalavs (and non-consensual PvP will likely be the most visceral experience in the game) so we need broadbased INFORMED crowdforging, rather than an insular minority like me and my Golgothan mates and our Aragon friends doing most of the non-consensual PvP crowdforging.

I can't make anyone do anything, but I've got a million "I told you so" posts waiting on my clipboard to copy and paste next year when folks ignore this plea.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Thought the players were supposed to come up with meaningful reasons for PVP in a sandbox game.

I've stated a desire to have PVP windows opened on and off more frequently (every two hours). I also think it's good to have a few PVP areas opened 24/7, aka battle grounds.

Kind of wish there was a mechanism where players could turn on hexes for consensual PVP. Low degree would be for duels. Higher would be for battles. Something like one player proposes PVP, at least one other must consent to open the PVP window starting in x minutes. That would allow fair warning to those who don't want to participate. After that anyone who wants to fight can do so without the rep hit.

The banditry issue would also need to be settled by players. Rep only goes so far, and if you're behaving badly with an alt, there really is no penalty (especially with destiny's twin accounts). Only way I see that system working is if you have zero alts. So players need to step up and make something happen.

Getting ganked is part of open world play. Getting camped is a different story, but that can happen too (although I like the way the respawn points are spread out to make camping much more difficult).
TEO Brighthaven
We just wanted to be group of elves living off the land around our forest. Apparently, that kind of roleplaying is not possible in this game, nor encouraged. Just like any other MMO… power grab, power grab, power grab is the direction this is heading. It is no wonder that small settlements can't survive if the game just becomes a total PvP fest.
We just wanted to be group of elves living off the land around our forest. Apparently, that kind of roleplaying is not possible in this game, nor encouraged. Just like any other MMO… power grab, power grab, power grab is the direction this is heading. It is no wonder that small settlements can't survive if the game just becomes a total PvP fest.

None of the things you described are impossible. You just decided to try and do it in the middle of a warzone and are allied to one of the combatants. Not saying you consciously made that choice, but this is stated to be a game of settlement conflict, so at minimum you have to be aware of the overriding political situation and where your location is affected by that.

If you moved up north to Tavernhold, you'll be able to do exactly what you want.
Cronge just some thoughts..
You could RP going to your allies after a raid upon your lands and asking your allies what they intend to do about it[Midnight would be happy to play defense for a while] . Are they sending war parties north to defend your honor and retake some of your property and exact a measure of revenge? Or are your allies saying that is folly .. …. if that is the response perhaps you need better allies. ( just in a pure RP thought and where to go from here..)

As to no wonder why small settlements cant survive……… right now settlements are yours no one can take them from you no one can destroy them. The basis of the game is settlement conflict, controlling one is eventually going to mean other people are going to try and take it and destroy it. No amount of RP will change the basis of the game.. If you detest that aspect of the game not sure what to say other than last week was just raiding, in the upcoming years that raid would ignore you and destroy your town instead..[ not because you are neutral and the bullies want to ruin your fun but because your opponents are evil and see value in your location]

The small holdings may be the way for your group to go, it will have training better than NPC but not as good as PC settlement[ at least from what I have understood about them], it is mobile, you can move to which ever area of the map is not in a war zone. You can work out agreements higher level training with nearby friendly settlements in exchange for goods you guys produce, and move if things get to dangerous..

From reading your desires of what you want out of the game I just don’t get the sense that running a settlement will ever be enjoyable for your play style.. but your play style can survive in PFO you just need to rethink how that play style will fit into PFO in the years to come
^^^ this.

I'll add that settlement ownership/leadership is both a PRIVILEGE and a RESPONSIBILITY. It is a privilege I don't enjoy for the sole reason that I only heard about the game after the landrush. It is a responsibility because (among other things) settlement leaders are the folks that Lisa and Ryan are DEPENDING on to provide the social control and social feedback in this game (as well as to provide growth and retention of subscriptions).

I will be happy to accept control of your settlement and try my hand at running it, while allowing you to enjoy the fruits of our labor and try and bring the protection and the new players that you have been unable to achieve (increased numbers are an absolute must for any settlement to be viable in the long term). We can even discuss how to maintain/improve the vision you have for your settlement. I'll remind you I've often expressed (perhaps here and certainly on the Paizo forums) my admiration for what the Emerald Lodge does.

I might even fall flat on my face and fail, but I'll happily accept the challenge.

There are dozens of others who will likely make you similar or better offers. Settlement control is a very very strong card to hold in this game.

I'd also suggest seeking Thod's counsel. He'll offer you a perspective that no EBA or Northern Coalition member can.
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