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?

Caldeathe Baequiannia
Kitsune
Doc, you'd mentioned your friends up North (e.g. Kabal) that you might get along with well. Has any though been given into literally picking-up and moving up there with them? Once actual settlement warfare begins, I'd imagine it would be feasible to make arrangements with them to have them help your people destroy and rebuild one of the empty or inactive nearby settlements, should they exist at that time. Then, with your combined forces, you'd be your own force to be reckoned with, and any feelings of insecurity or helplessness should theoretically be out the window.
I suspect Doc is gone. For that reason only, I'm going to inject my interpretation of what doc was saying. The issue isn't where AGC lives. The primary issue I am reading in Doc's words is that they want to do PvP, and the only ones that they feel they can test against, without getting an undeserved reputation, is two groups that are big enough to crush their ability to function as a retaliation.

The large groups are locked in making a show of strength, so any action against them is met with a disproportionate show of force, and the moderate sized group that is willing to PvP is being backed up by a large one and the result is the same. Moving to Stoneroot would not change any of that. They would have exactly the same option of whom to conduct PvP against, except that Stoneroot would probably expect them to be careful about bringing the wrath of Brighthaven down on us, so that the pressure would be both internal and external instead of just external.

I think what is needed is a group that is willing to set aside the political posturing, and do some PvP without always taking back more than they lost as a penalty, or another group in the mid-size range that is willing to conduct engagements against them.

As much as there are a lot of friendships across the map, it might be good for the game if Everbloom would take it upon themselves to stay in the south of the map unless their friends and allies are obviously having a more difficult time than they can handle, not just supporting them out of hand. It might mean finding other ways to demonstrate their friendship, and might, but it could reduce some of the apparent one-sidedness of the map at the moment.

Or maybe not. Maybe Allegiant don't get treated as badly as they think they do when they try to engage. Maybe they do, but don't deserve to have a chance to play the game they came for.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Nihimon
Caldeathe Baequiannia
I think what is needed is a group that is willing to set aside the political posturing, and do some PvP without always taking back more than they lost as a penalty…

Was I not clear enough that this is exactly what I was offering when I suggested that they could show up at a Phaeros Tower during our PvP Window?

Caldeathe Baequiannia
… it might be good for the game if Everbloom would take it upon themselves to stay in the south of the map…

No.

Caldeathe Baequiannia
… unless their friends and allies are obviously having a more difficult time than they can handle…

As judged by whom?

Caldeathe Baequiannia
… not just supporting them out of hand.

We don't support them "out of hand"; we support them, as I said above, "when they raise the alarm". Our friends' judgment about whether or not they're having a more difficult time than they can handle - or whether they just want to have fun playing with us at their side - is the only judgment we're interested in.

You're all going to have to make a much better argument that what we're doing is in some way bad for the game before you'll stand a snowball's chance of talking us out of supporting our friends and allies.
Nihimon murmurs in sheer ecstasy as the magic courses through his veins
lfseeney
What would happen to the game if one of the major player bases left.

Please just think about that for a few.

This is not a Quest filled, delving game.
Without the Player interactions what is left? You could gather without fear, but why?
To make Weapons and Armor? To fight a Monster hex day in day out?

The players are the content so that GW does not have to build content.

In any game where you end up with 2 Major sides it normally falls apart, as the side with 50% or more advantage, will start to grow faster, then it gets so many folks that skill has no meaning.

For a game like this to grow and become something we want to play, it must have Three at the least kingdoms, 4-6 would be better, but 3 is a start.
The land Rush may have been setup to try and build this, but it became the High School elections.

Not sure if this can even be fixed now to be honest.

I voiced the opinion early on that Pathfinder Online was a bad name for the game, as it evokes an idea of what the game is to many, that does not match reality.

Perhaps Pathfinder at War, would have been better.
As without a threat from a player there is little else to worry about.

But if one side gets so many that they walk over the rest, then folks will leave and you will have won and empty game will be yours.

That is the real issue here I think folks are trying to Win the game before most of the game is written.

Using the labels of alignment to gather troops, then because the game does not enforce alignment, doing what ever they can to win. `6`

Kitsune
lfseeney
In any game where you end up with 2 Major sides it normally falls apart, as the side with 50% or more advantage, will start to grow faster, then it gets so many folks that skill has no meaning.

Pardon me for picking out this one statement from your post and "attacking" it, but it seems your whole argument is based solely around this point. So, I digress:

Where did you come up with this statistic/fact/point? It is my understanding that there are plenty of healthy games out there with exclusively two "Major" sides/factions controlling and ruling the political landscape of the game they belong to. But then again, I'm not coming up with any suggestions of specific examples to defend myself, so I'm pretty much just talking out the butt.

So, those who have been following a large sample moderate-sized MMOs (narrowing results further by those that actually support any sort of "sides" like PFO does), what are some good examples of games failing because there are only two large factions in said game? And conversely, are there any good success stories you can share?
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Nihimon
You're all going to have to make a much better argument that what we're doing is in some way bad for the game before you'll stand a snowball's chance of talking us out of supporting our friends and allies.
I thought I was a friend and ally, but either I was wrong, or I'm not allowed to have my own opinions.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Nihimon
Caldeathe Baequiannia
… I'm not allowed to have my own opinions.

Seriously?

Am I telling you that you shouldn't post your opinions? Or am I telling you that we're not going to abandon our friends and allies just because someone says "it's for the good of the game".
Nihimon murmurs in sheer ecstasy as the magic courses through his veins
Midnight
I need to get in on this disregarding Caldeathe's opinion trend.

So which is the smallest settlement with the most casual players?

The first time was an accident, but hey, this time I can give them a week's warning or use some other idea from Ryan's writings.

Players like Caldeathe are a large part of why no one has seen me jump a gatherer on any of my characters for 13 days, even when Ryan is giving us the ok.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Nihimon
Am I telling you that you shouldn't post your opinions? Or am I telling you that we're not going to abandon our friends and allies just because someone says "it's for the good of the game".
Nice rehtorical switching of unless they are having a difficult time into abandonment. I'm telling you that just maybe the north doesn't benefit in the long run from mother Brighthaven running to pick us up every time we scratch our knees. That maybe if you actually want the North to succeed, once in a while when called you could ask, "Do you need us to help you take away all of Aragon's towers because the one you lost is crippling you and you can't handle it by yourself, or do you want us to make an example of anyone who dares to challenge you so they won't ever do it again?"

I entered this because I think people were misinterpreting Doc, and I don't think he's going to come back here. Whether he was correct or not, I think I understand some of how his group is feeling, and I think he had some excellent points.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
deisum
Nihimon
You're all going to have to make a much better argument that what we're doing is in some way bad for the game before you'll stand a snowball's chance of talking us out of supporting our friends and allies.
So what will it take? How many people have to tell you you're behavior is making their experience unpleasant? You're creating your beloved utopia supposedly to ensure folks in your alliance have a pleasant experience, but only by using your superior numbers to bully those you don't like. We've already seen one PvP-minded group leave the game because they feared the culture you're creating would deny them enjoyment. Now there appears to be another approaching that conclusion because of your explicit actions.

Feel free to keep insisting upon your moral ('sheepdog' ) superiority all you'd like. Your actions clearly tell another tale. But don't feed the community bullshit lines about how you're willing to change if only someone just told you why.
Dazyk of Phaeros
This thread is bonkers.

1. We didn't start the bullying, we have just responded to it
2. Who exactly are we bullying? We made it clear that if you are poaching our resources and you are NOT a friend, ally, or neutral party, that we reserve the right to deter you from doing so. I'm pretty sure that is what this game is about…
3. We are playing this game the way it has been designed. It is a PvP territorial game in which people make alliances to grow their settlements and protect their people… So what did we do wrong?

If all you are mad about is that our leaders attempted to communicate the issue in a politically correct way (again playing the game as intended) then I'm not too sure what else to say. If you are new here, realise that this back and forth political intrigue has been going on for years; get used to it.

And please watch your language. Thank you.
Dazyk Half-Elven, Elder of the Frozen Fingers, the shock- troops of Phaeros. If you are a fighter, cleric, or rogue, and enjoy battle, be it PVP or PVE, we are the company for you! We welcome role-players, casual gamers, and hardcore players alike.

Find your hidden strength, join the Frozen Fingers today!
Dazyk's PFO Resources Folder
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post