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.

Golgotha ... meh

Rynnik
Daeglin
It's quite illuminating for those not involved.
Bingo.

Better people read it and allow the information help guide their choices. Especially new or trial players that might shortly be selecting a first home settlement.
Not a member, representative, or supporter of Brighthaven Alliance.
Edam
Rynnik
Daeglin
It's quite illuminating for those not involved.
Bingo.

Better people read it and allow the information help guide their choices. Especially new or trial players that might shortly be selecting a first home settlement.

Yep or thinking of subbing.

Given Ryan's attitude to the game needing to be more hardcore than EVE, much of the current population need to eventually move on and be replaced by more PvP inclined players. You actually need the more PvE inclined to stop subbing and be replaced by new more PvP focused players.
Doc
Given Ryan's attitude to the game needing to be more hardcore than EVE, much of the current population need to eventually move on and be replaced by more PvP inclined players. You actually need the more PvE inclined to stop subbing and some more PvP focused players to join and replace the current ones that are leaving.

Not sure if you are being sardonic or just bluntly honest.

But yeah, I've been worried for a long time that the underlying concepts being designed into this game, and the existing implemented mechanics, don't do a very good job at making it appealing to the polar ends of the PvP spectrum (those that love it and those that hate it).

I feel like there are two segments of players constantly playing this tug-of-war over the PvP mechanics in PFO. Is it possible to satisfy both? Serious question is serious.
Edam
Doc
Given Ryan's attitude to the game needing to be more hardcore than EVE, much of the current population need to eventually move on and be replaced by more PvP inclined players. You actually need the more PvE inclined to stop subbing and some more PvP focused players to join and replace the current ones that are leaving.

Not sure if you are being sardonic or just bluntly honest.

But yeah, I've been worried for a long time that the underlying concepts being designed into this game, and the existing implemented mechanics, don't do a very good job at making it appealing to the polar ends of the PvP spectrum (those that love it and those that hate it).

I feel like their are two segments of players constantly playing this tug-of-war over the PvP mechanics in PFO. Is it possible to satisfy both? Serious question is serious.

No totally serious.

PvP adverse people are that way for a reason. It may be personality, it may be that they log on to wind down and relax doing something other people see as a grind (as opposed to getting excitement and an adrenaline rush) or they may just like the idea of building something up over time but are not competitive.

Generally that sort of player is not going to suddenly "try PvP and decide they love it" . Either they know themselves well enough to know its not for them, they have tried it and just find it stressful or in some case find PvP just mskes them angry and sociopathic and they do not like that about themselves.

The game as it stands "tricks" that sort of player into playing a game that Ryan has stated continually (in here but not in the publicity) is meant to eventually be a no hold bars, PvP anywhere anytime, no place is safe, hardcore bloodbath. The only reason it is not is the current population have a bad habit of getting along.

I play EVE. Despite its reputation EVE goes out of its way to cater for "carebears" providing low reward but relatively safe places to hangout and do your own thing and its built into the game. However the riskier the area the higher the reward. (In PFO the whole map is equally dangerous for PvP in terms of game mechanics and equal reward)

I have no opposition to Ryan's vison of PFO as a 24/7 non stop bloodbath sandbox and wish him success at that BUT much of the current population needs to move on and GW need to stop recruiting PvE players into a game where they are intended to be nothing but fodder.
Doc
BUT much of the current population needs to move on and GW need to stop recruiting PvE players into a game where they are intended to be nothing but fodder.

Do you feel that many of the threads currently or previously floating on the forum, trying to find ways to boost the punishment of reputation, or increase ways to curtail non-reputation loss PvP as a pushback from that cohort of players?
Edam
Doc
BUT much of the current population needs to move on and GW need to stop recruiting PvE players into a game where they are intended to be nothing but fodder.

Do you feel that many of the threads currently or previously floating on the forum, trying to find ways to boost the punishment of reputation, or increase ways to curtail non-reputation loss PvP as a pushback from that cohort of players?

There is a very strong feeling amongst some early backers that the game described at the time original statements about the game "not being a murder sim" along with inferences the PvP was going to see more large battlefield action and less skirmish and 1v1 along with discussions about chaotic behavior/settlements being non viable is not the game that is being created.

Of course it's quite possible people just misread what was originally proposed and the game goals have not changed at all - but regardless there is a strong feeling this is not the game they signed up for several years ago.
Bringslite
Edam
Given Ryan's attitude to the game needing to be more hardcore than EVE, much of the current population need to eventually move on and be replaced by more PvP inclined players. You actually need the more PvE inclined to stop subbing and be replaced by new more PvP focused players.

Ryan did chime in with this:"We intend that you be able to use various Settlement facilities in a way that is safe. The current situation where you remain embodied in the world while you use them is not the final intended design.

We intend that you have some means to enforce security in territory you control. Currently you don't have that, but you also don't have any cost for Thornguard either.

If we made the Thornguard kill feud targets on sight then the response to being feuded will be to stay inside the security perimeter of the Thornguard until the feud ends, thus making feuds much less valuable. If we let you walk into a Settlement without Thornguard interference until you became flagged the standard behavior would be to assemble close enough to a war target to Alpha Strike them, then run away. That's not noticeably different than the current situation except the killers maybe die one less time.

When Holding & Outpost Warfare is turned on (very, very soon) suddenly you will have real territorial control battles and you will face real risks. If you don't defend your Holdings, you'll lose them. If you lose them, your opponent may get some of your stuff. If you can't pay your weekly upkeep your training options will be reduced. Killing random people in Settlements "for the lulz" shouldn't happen much since it's pointless and real, meaningful PvP can be had elsewhere."

and this:"If I had my druthers, I'd druther you didn't fight in Settlements.

I'd really like it if you didn't kill characters standing outside facilities who are likely unable to see that they're under threat.

But rather than writing rules that will be exploited and abused, and trying to adjudicate the avalanche of customer support email I'd get if we wrote those rules claiming all manner of violations of those rules, I'm willing to accept some further time where those decisions are voluntary and community-based and continue to let the team work on and build the game mechanics which should reduce those things to a minimum anyway."

What makes you feel that he is going a route more "murder sim" than EVE?
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Kitsune
Whew, I didn't even fully read all the posts, but I did skim them. What a chore. I wanted to chime-in a bit:

1) I'm impressed with how civil most of these posts have been. Not the typical mud-slinging and personal attacks we typically see in these sorts of arguments. Bravo.

2) I'm impressed to see Ryan involved in this conversation. Kudos.

3)
coach
really? so you got so emotionally invested in a video game that your wife noticed? …
Coach, I "extremely dislike" [keeping it civil] this comment you made. My wife and I are so closely connected that we know everything that's happening in each other's life, even down to what PvP happened in a game today, or what conversations she's had with her friends today, or that cool skirt she saw at the store while she was shopping with her friends. I'm saying that one does not need to be emotionally invested in a game for his/her significant-other to notice what's happening in-game. Negative points for you.

4)
Nihimon
I take a lot of responsibility for the enmity between Golgotha and Phaeros, and will work to keep that out of the forums and more amiable in game.
Excellent. Applause, and I hope all of use (on both sides of the proverbial fence) can do the same, and consistently do so.

5)
Saiph the Fallen
I'm all about a wipe @ OE. I'm definitely in the minority though.

I'd be willing to see GW allow an optional per-character "wipe" of sorts. Rather, a complete, one-time "XP Refund" of all trained feats. Unfortunately, this would upset those who have remained "pure" with their builds - as opposed to those who may have wasted XP (in the long run) by jumping on the "OP-build-of-the-week" during the early game (e.g. heavy armor + casting). Considering that there's probably plenty of people out there who have understandably accidentally mis-clicked and trained unneeded feats by mistake, I think we'd see more happy people than upset people with this sort of voluntary refund.

Anyway, carry-on, people.
Tink says Stab
NO!

It was dead!

WHY DID YOU BRING IT BACK!?
Tink quivers in sheer euphoria as the dank memes course through his fedora
Rynnik
Kitsune
Anyway, carry-on, people.
Tink says Stab
NO!

It was dead!

WHY DID YOU BRING IT BACK!?
Forty ho!!!
Not a member, representative, or supporter of Brighthaven Alliance.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post