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.

Nothing to Fight for...

@ Vyal

I see you forgot to mention or have no experience with EVE online.
Not a member, representative, or supporter of Brighthaven Alliance.
Tyv Blodvaerd of Aragon
@ Vyal

I see you forgot to mention or have no experience with EVE online.

There is no need to mention EvE, PFO has little or no resemblance to it in any meaningful way.
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
I am not an expert on PvP, but in most MMOs that I have played in I have avoided it for various reasons, mostly related to game balance. Many are unbalanced by level, ie you must be max level to compete, barely, or suffer from griefing/kos/newb camping to make the game unlearnable thus unplayable. I welcome a new method, but in this case I think that it would best be tied to resources. Want to leave the caste to go raiding? Build, recruit/arm, and expense mercenaries, npc guards, as well as citizen PCs. Want to raid another city/castle? Better bring an army, and siege equipment.
As to alignment, I think the choices allowed should reflect alignment choice. Evil get skeletons, Good get halflings. It makes it more of a wargame, but if you have to go to the trouble to craft a halfling village or fill then unfill a graveyard, you paid in resources. Just an idea. This would allow everyone to be a participant in either crafting, participating in defense, or taking to the field as their specialties dictate. No time to go on a raid? Build a ram, or a bunch of arrows, etc, and then designate them to defenses or even a personal troop.
Hobson Fiffledown
PvP still feels like a testers game. There's little to no incentive for many to get into it (aside from forum drama and the occasional awesome loot drop). It's also the main reason my initial group of 9 players is down to 1.5 players. I'm really hoping for some nice changes with all of the settlement and faction stuff coming online over the next few months.

A little PvP based DI or upkeep would be interesting. Drop the bulk upkeep a little and add 5 non alliance PvP kills per + for barracks, war wizzie, combat trainers and such. If we have to grind so much to keep settlements afloat (bulk goods), why can't we spread the grind out a little around different game styles?
This space for rent.
My view from the cheap seats.

I am new to MMOs, PFO being my first. I know a lot of comparisons have been made to EVE and PFO but I don't know EVE nor do I think it particularly relevant. Mechanics might be similar but two different games. Starships vs toons running around with swords. A vast area of interstellar space verses a small piece of the River Kingdoms.

My first PvP experience was mostly negative. Some goon in T2 gear kicked the crap out of my level 4 wizard in a 'supposed' safe zone while I was trying to smack some goblins. Fine, no tears from me - big deal, I lost all of 1 endurance on starter equipment and I didn't have really anything on me to loot. First time at PvP. Learn and adapt. I am fine with that. Dusted myself off and vowed to do better and be more observant - sharks can eat sardines in this game so be a smarter sardine, I say.

Next time, I was with another group doing a tower battle with Golgotha. More positive experience. I was mentally ready and better prepared. I did okay but first time PvPer has to learn the ropes, so I died a few times but I had fun.

Yes, I had fun. Since those days, I have been involved in more PvP and a whole lot more of 'standing to', expecting to be attacked. Hours in fact.

Fast forward to now and I have had more time for reflection on the state of PvP to date.

1. Towers was the main driver for PvP and I have to agree with those who say it was largely a failure. The objectives was constrained and forced and largely pointless. Lose a few towers today, gain them back tomorrow. In fact, both sides have entirely swept the other alliance's towers, only to lose them. The impact on the economics and the strategic ramification - by and large meaningless. The battle areas too small, the shrines too close and far too much whining and complaining by butt hurt posts by all sides.

2. Feuds, our apparent salvation, isn't much to hang a hat on right now. I think it is idiotic to have Thornguards who will attack settlement enemies on the off chance they attack into the settlement itself, but if a feud is declared, the same Thornguards decide to take a long lunch break and allow attackers unmolested into the settlement to kill and gank at will. At some point, we will be paying upkeep for the guards. I want them to do their damn job if my coin is supporting them.

At this point, to me, it looks like feuds are a step backwards. Literally, a group of 4 to 5 people can interdict a settlement and induce paralysis for the duration of the Feud window. Why battle for outposts and holdings in a two stage process (coming in EE10) when it is more effective to attack the settlement directly. More kills for the attackers and better loot (from the unsuspecting people ganked at banks, since people showing up in a feud at a tower or outpost bring nothing to loot) This is NOT a improvement to PvP mechanics. Bandits attacks should be a certain level of risk. Attacks on holdings should amp up the risk for the attacker. Attacks on settlements should represent the ultimate risk to the attacker. Right now, attacking a settlement is pathetically easy - just feud every company in it, get back almost all your influence, waltz into town and be ignored by the Thornguard and indict/gank away for the duration of the feud window.

3. The Cost vs Reward ratio sucks for PvP. I 'stood to' for about 20 hours one week alone, defending or retaking towers or expecting to defend or retake towers. Outside a few player killer points , I had nothing to show for 20 hours of 'defending' turf. No achievement points gained in other areas. Not a single copper coin to show for my time. Then I think about all the material I could have gathered, or loot gathered from escalations in that 20 hours and I could weep.

Sure, the 3 or 4 hours of actual PvP during that 20 hours was fun but the standing around waiting to be attacked for the rest of the time sucked sour ass. And no loot to show for it. Absolutely the WORST way to play the game from an economics improvement viewpoint.

The people who talk about PvP 'fatigue' have it right. The defender need to 'stand to' long hours waiting for an attack that may or may not come. The attacker can simply agree to a time and place, log on in sufficient time to mass for the attack, attack for the feud window and log off. Then what will happen is what happened this past weekend. People too tired, too played out or too cynical or frustrated to 'play the chump's game' of trying to defend a piece of real estate for hours and hours on end that ultimately becomes meaningless because what you gain today you will lose tomorrow or the next day and vice versa.

What is the line from the movie "Wargame"? The only winning move is not to play. That about sums up how I feel right now.

Now, this is a novice PvP person point of view but I think a 'newcomer to PvP' point of view is relevant here because others may be seeing what I see. And I am not afraid to say what is souring me to the experience. Quite frankly, I don't see what others see in PvP to keep doing it day after day, hour after hour because at this point, it is so full of lose to me. It is inefficient, ineffective, and frustrating. Yes, it has its fun moments but most of the time, it is seems like pointless work with little payoff. What is the payoff? Being the biggest badass on the server? Fine, you win then because I am not that good at PvP. Happy?

Perhaps every bandit should have to have 100 copper in their pockets to even initiate PvP. In that way, if PvP does happen and I get lucky against the bandit, at least I have something to show for it…
Elsworth Sugarfoot
Agree with pretty much everything Black Moria said. When the only thing to fight over is bragging rights it leads to all the bloviating you see in general and on forums because you haven't won anything else but bragging rights.

There's no way to capture territory. You don't see it on a the map. I don't relish the idea of having to raid holdings for 6 months before victories start to pile up.

I think the idea of mules is good. I like the gushers idea. I feel like we need about 10 more of these kinds of things so that there's always something going on when you log on. One of the reason the population is so low is that there's nothing really to do most of the time you log on. Hey we've got a tower window open for 1 hour a day…. I'd like to be able to have an activity all day, or at least during most times.
The big opportunity missed in this game was the chance to setup skirmish areas (a bit like losec in EVE).

A few spots on the map with half a dozen clumped hexes that were open no-rep loss PvP and at the same time provided by far the best gathering drops and PvE kill loot drops in the game would have made a massive difference. If you go in there you get great loot but risk PvP at any time. If you PvP there you can be pretty sure any target are carrying valuable loot.

An arrangement like that would have been artificial but may have actually had a chance of encouraging the risk adverse to risk PvP and made PvP actually meaningful.
Tink says Stab
Eh, people were suggesting that Meteor Hexes should have been that since the Alpha. That they haven't gone in that direction means one of two things; that they do not like the idea, or that they do like it, but for some reason have not had the time. Given that the technology to make a hex PvP enabled clearly exists, and that altering drop rates is as simple as a spreadsheet change, I have to assume the former.

Which is a shame, because I agree that having actually beneficial points of conflict, rather than the towers and holdings we are actually getting, would probably drive some actually interesting PvP.

The lack of flashpoints, and the complete lack of progress in that regard over the last 7 months, is one of my big concerns for the game.

But hey, our settlement leaders might soon be able to build themselves some buildings!
Tink quivers in sheer euphoria as the dank memes course through his fedora
Honest question:

What do you guys predict will happen when real consequences for PvP [potentially] make it into the game? ie. losing an entire settlement. Clearly that is the next evolution beyond "bragging rights" or ephemeral loss of access to towers and such.

Will that invigorate a struggling game population?

Or will it lead to mass rage-quitting by the losing sides?
Honest question:

What do you guys predict will happen when real consequences for PvP [potentially] make it into the game? ie. losing an entire settlement. Clearly that is the next evolution beyond "bragging rights" or ephemeral loss of access to towers and such.

Will that invigorate a struggling game population?

Or will it lead to mass rage-quitting by the losing sides?

Given that a settlement loss will probably be the result of either an already disinterested player base not caring or defenders giving up from burn out from trying to defend 24/7 with insufficient population it is almost guaranteed most in a settlement loss scenario will quit.

That was certainly the result of both Hammerfall and Blackwood Glade going under due to PvP. Almost all the original residents quit (a few moved to other settlements) and both of those settlements are now occupied by a totally different population with few or none of the originals still there.

It is guaranteed to be that way when people attach a lot of significance to settlement. The only way it would be different is if nations/kingdoms and alliances became the player group people attached loyalty to and settlements were not held in any significance. At the moment it seems Xelias is the only group were players seem loyal to the larger group rather than the settlement. Everyone else is Settlement focused.
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post