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.

Sincere question: Where and what kind of PvP is allowed?

I think these particular issues are exactly the reason why the devs are aiming for a large scale battle model for PvP and discouraging small scale except for the occasional banditry but whether they can pull it off remains to be seen.

That would probably be cool, but I don't see how it would be much different than now because the issue is essentially created by Meta.

If Xelias had been the group that had won the recruiting challenge, of course the roles would be reversed and the problem would still exist. I don't think the issue is intrinsic to the particular groups that are at hand, though it could perhaps be exacerbated by the prevailing desire of so many people to play "the good guys". Again, the good/bad dichotomy creating meta-related issues.

I think ultimately the problem stems from there being no in-game mechanics in place to slow down or dissuade the build up of a group of players into a position where they control the map. There are literally zero inhibitory mechanics to prevent various settlements from ballooning into a permanently unbalancing size.

For Xeilias, I imagine their only real option (if they want to continue doing PvP and actually have a chance of winning battles) is to attack the settlements to the north. But I fear it is just as likely that EBA will still continue to attack them for doing such a thing, invoking the map police protocol, and since it probably feels easy to dogpile on the so-called "bad guys" and just make the situation even worse.

The main reason, from my perspective, for which AGC started out on the map where it did was primarily because we didn't want to contribute even more to the already unbalanced political situation. Believe it or now, but I honestly did not want us to join EBA because I felt that would make the power balance even more jacked up than it already was.
Ryan Dancey
The comminity said: Stop picking on newbies or small groups who don't know any better.

How did that transform into "no PvP"?

1: Tell people in small groups "you have one week to prepare. After that week, when we see you anywhere other than the Hexes adjacent to your Settlement we'll kill you and take your stuff." Tell 'em on the forums so there's no confusion, amd others can offer to help.

2: Pick some swathe of the map that isn't adjacent to any Settlement. Give yourself a 3-4 hex buffer from any Settlement so you don't "accidentally" screw up some small group's attempts to learn how to play. Publish your intention on the forums to conduct unrestricted PvP operations against anyone you find in that area. (If you scout for them, there are valuable resources that could be significantly embargoed by doing that.)

3: Everyone says its too easy to take Towers. So don't worry about someone taking yours. Take someone else's. Worst case, you get PvP. Or ignore them entirely. If you have a PC Settlement you can use TIer 2 gear with zero Towers held.

Ryan, I'm basically asking EBA, if I or we do any of the things you propose here, will they come and burn down all of our stuff.

Realistically, my group can only fight the smaller groups of players to the north, but the last time we tried that EBA came and took our towers in protective retaliation. To date, AGC has never taken an EBA tower that I'm aware of.

Finally, I'm looking to the future where there are structures like POI holdings and outposts that can be destroyed. We won't be able to just ignore those things being attacked as you are suggesting right now. When those facilities are in game, your present advice you are giving will be completely worthless, IMHO.
I'm not a policy maker in EBA, but a few observations from the perspective of a member:

* Your/AGC's past actions aside, AGC's association with Aragon (and specifically UNC) puts it firmly on Phaeros's, if not EBA's, list of enemies.
* AGC/Aragon's NAP with Xeilias cuts off what would otherwise be a primary venue for PvP for both groups, with which EBA would not bother interfering, so any lack of PvP is somewhat self-inflicted.
* Your approach to banditry is very rough: Engaging potential victims in a threatening but polite conversation and extorting something from them is (I would guess) a lot less emotionally impactful than jumping them from stealth and mocking them afterwards. It would still trigger a response, of course, though perhaps not to the extent of burning down your settlement. (But see point 1.)
* Banditry has always been intended to be "hard mode" in PFO, something that would only really be practiced by the hardcore, not weekend warriors out on a lark - in large part exactly because a settlement that harbours and even encourages banditry can be targeted by those who want to stamp it out. You can either embrace the full implications or choose a different avenue of expression.
* Player interactions are not limited to combat. Although I decry the (terrible) forum posturing on meta-game topics like "griefing" or "exploiting", there's definitely room for in-character political maneuvering and roleplaying (if we get a roleplaying forum!) between settlements which can ultimately create reasons for conflict.
* I view the potential for inter-settlement relations to be much more complex in this game than in, say, EVE Online where relations tend to be pretty black-and-white (red-and-blue?). If warfare becomes the tool of last resort after the failure of diplomacy, I think that will lead to a much richer gameplay experience than simply having constant warfare. Can you imagine a situation along the lines of the RL Ukraine conflict playing out in PFO?

As far as what PvP "EBA will allow you to participate in [without repercussions]", that's not really a question to which I could give an answer that held any weight, so I'll decline to do so.
Tuoweit , so you either didn't read anything I posted, or ignored it, so I guess that is fair. I already basically outlined everything you mentioned in my first post and then followed up.

1. We don't do banditry any more. Haven't done that in like a month.
2. We can't do PvP with Golgotha because they are 5 times as big as us. For practicality standpoint, you don't pick a fight with somebody who is only 4 hexes away and outnumbers you 5:1. Is that really your advice?
3. I mentioned the possibility of totally moving away from the Aragon-Golgotha connection, but then as I pointed out, that makes the current map imbalance even worse than it is now.

Keep in mind, I don't really want to pick fights with the small settlements in the north because I feel like they should be left to try and get their shit together. Funny how I didn't need a the tower NAP to come to that conclusion. So, I focused most of my attention towards EBA in the beginning because they can take care of themselves. I think that is why Golgotha took that route as well. It just turns out the only opponent we feel that we can make a go at that is tough enough to not be negatively impacted by warfare - is too big to ever beat by anyone else in the game. That's kind of what I'm getting at here.

a lot less emotionally impactful than jumping them from stealth and mocking them afterwards.

Where did that come from? Why do you have to be like that? I've never mocked anyone in game. And again, we don't do banditry anymore.
Doc, I think you're being sincere, and I started looking at you very differently the first time you said on these forums that you had changed your behavior when you realized that what you had been doing wasn't really acceptable. So please try to read my response as sincere.

My first comment is that the EBA is not acting in a vacuum to impose our view of what's acceptable. We're following Ryan's lead. Search his posts for "funnel of suck", there are only two posts. Read them and really try to understand what Ryan is saying. PvP in PFO is not going to be like PvP in other games. Ryan has talked about this a hundred times. He's trying to solve the problems that other games embraced, and he's trying to redeem PvP from the "original sin" of random player-killing all the time everywhere. He wants PvP to be something that the average MMO player comes to accept as enjoyable. Ultimately, everyone has to accept that. If you want PFO to succeed, you need to figure out how to PvP without making that a really crappy experience for the people you're fighting, and I applaud you for recognizing that and making a sincere effort.

As for the EBA, I would think it would go without saying that we will fight to protect our friends and allies. We are not interested in trying to protect every player in the game. But we have strong relationships and we try to be good friends, so if we're showing up when you attack a particular Settlement, you might need to consider whether that particular target is worthwhile or whether you should consider attacking another Settlement.
Nihimon murmurs in sheer ecstasy as the magic courses through his veins
Brighthaven Leader
We aren't the world police, I have personally set out to make sure people understand that we don't have the ability/resources to play world Police. Furthermore, I believe that you underestimate your options, and in fact, there are some really busy settlements out there that we can't or aren't going to help. Your targets up to date have been our alliance members or a group that we are very friendly with, we only have so many friends outside of EBA, and all of them are lawful.
Brighthaven is a Neutral Good settlement focused on defending its citizens and its allies from negative fringe based PvP (Player Killing and Griefing) while striving to become a large and shining beacon for Good. Whether you wish to benefit from this protection or you love PvP and wish to assist in providing this protection, Brighthaven aims to be the home and support center for you!
Nihimon, Cheatle, et al,

I definitely do not want PvP to be a crappy experience for other people in game, which like I said is why I had primarily made my PvP focus towards EBA. You guys have your stuff together. Most other settlements, not so much.

The honest truth? We can't beat you. We'll never win a fight against EBA unless the status quo changes or you guys decide to put on kid gloves and leave half your people at home. It sucks to admit that but it's reality.

So my choice is to fight people in the north, which I don't want to do because they need breathing room, or fight you guys in the south and get overwhelmed - and in the future lose all our buildings.

I think this is only an issue because from a balance standpoint the map is so utterly screwed up, which is one of the things I was trying to point out.

Basically, what it comes down to, if I (we?) want to play in such a way as to not negatively affect the fledgling settlements and unprepared players - and actually have a chance at winning some fights and not lose all our buildings - then the option to take is to not participate in the settlement PvP layer. That is what I'm struggling with. Because if that is my option, subscribing doesn't seem worthwhile.
Brighthaven Leader
Lets talk more in depth later Doc, say tomorrow night? Maybe you can get on mumble with me and we can discuss things.
Brighthaven is a Neutral Good settlement focused on defending its citizens and its allies from negative fringe based PvP (Player Killing and Griefing) while striving to become a large and shining beacon for Good. Whether you wish to benefit from this protection or you love PvP and wish to assist in providing this protection, Brighthaven aims to be the home and support center for you!
I genuinely appreciate the offer Cheatle, but I'd rather these things were discussed here, in the open, especially where Goblin Works can follow along.

I feel that the larger issue of map imbalance is something that affects the game as a whole, and every other player for that matter, and is much more important than whether one player like me feels like they have anything fun to do in game or not.

If the distribution of players across the map was anywhere close to being somewhat sane, I don't think this problem would exist at all. I wouldn't be in a situation of feeling bad for attacking settlements even smaller than our one company, and I wouldn't feel like the only opponent that I'd be OK about attacking could never be beaten, or at the very least fended off.
…..I think this is only an issue because from a balance standpoint the map is so utterly screwed up, which is one of the things I was trying to point out.

I'm in agreement with Doc, a lot.
For the game to get better, A balanced player distribution needs to Happen.
This means EBA needs to put on its recruitment brakes, and keep them braked until the rest of the map catches up and gets a balanced player load. Failure to do so, will result in game collapse.
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post