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.

Open letter – 24/7 availability, game balance and PvP

Jakaal
vyal
Put another way.. if it takes less time and/or resources to destroy than it does to build, destruction will ~always be the more attractive choice; cue the lamentation, toxicity, and popcorn. If it takes MORE time and/or resources to destroy than it does to build, that's something that can lead to meaningful player interaction.

+1 to this
Rynnik
Nihimon
Killing someone outside of a Feud was supposed to incur the penalty of Reputation Loss. Currently, that penalty is so trivial that it is irrelevant.
If that was the case I doubt I would hate being low rep as much as I do and have to think so carefully about how and when I spend my rep. You know it is bad when I have to consider carefully engagements even against well established political opponents - people who should be open season for as long as the current opted into conflict continues. By any reasonable metric our two groups should be free game to each other.

As much as you like to twist things to try and get your cake and eat it too it just isn't the reality of what actually occurs, Nihimon.

Nihimon
As it stands right now, the only constraint on PvP is more PvP from the other side.
It sure is if, as a baseline, you write off any other form of human interaction with the other group like, I don't know, talking to them.

vyal
The issues you've described, Thod, are one of the reasons I promote an NPC/Script/Server/Insulated approach to player conflict, and in particular, to player conflict involving in-game structures. (buildings) Especially if such structures are a means of territory control, or in some way are a resource, political, or similar beneficial mechanic.
Don't forget the factor that destroying buildings is incredibly boring. Pushing buttons while watching a targeted static health bar sink isn't exactly riveting gameplay.

I do agree that PvP should be a negative net sum activity in most cases (banditry being the main exception).
Not a member, representative, or supporter of Brighthaven Alliance.
Saiph the Fallen
Rynnik
Nihimon
Killing someone outside of a Feud was supposed to incur the penalty of Reputation Loss. Currently, that penalty is so trivial that it is irrelevant.
If that was the case I doubt I would hate being low rep as much as I do and have to think so carefully about how and when I spend my rep. You know it is bad when I have to consider carefully engagements even against well established political opponents - people who should be open season for as long as the current opted into conflict continues. By any reasonable metric our two groups should be free game to each other.

As much as you like to twist things to try and get your cake and eat it too it just isn't the reality of what actually occurs, Nihimon.

Nihimon
As it stands right now, the only constraint on PvP is more PvP from the other side.
It sure is if as a baseline you write off any other form of human interaction with the other group like, I don't know, talking to them.

vyal
The issues you've described, Thod, are one of the reasons I promote an NPC/Script/Server/Insulated approach to player conflict, and in particular, to player conflict involving in-game structures. (buildings) Especially if such structures are a means of territory control, or in some way are a resource, political, or similar beneficial mechanic.
Don't forget the factor that destroying buildings is incredibly boring. Pushing buttons while watching a targeted static health bar sink isn't exactly riveting gameplay.

I do agree that PvP should be a negative net sum activity in most cases (banditry being the main exception).

Rynnik, you can't actually believe the punishment for murder in PFO is actually a meaningful and detrimental punishment, can you?

Stilachio Thrax
Rynnik
Don't forget the factor that destroying buildings is incredibly boring. Pushing buttons while watching a targeted static health bar sink isn't exactly riveting gameplay.

If the building and its defenders (even NPCs ones) are firing ballistae and catapults at you with the possibility of destroying your siege weapons or one shotting all but the strongest fighters, I can assure you that is definitely not boring.

Big/Epic Battles in the Helm's Deep expansion for LOTRO didn't get a lot right, but using siege weapons and the dangers of being targeted by them was something they did do well.
Virtus et Honor

Steward of Ozem's Vigil, Lord Commander of the Argyraspides Iomedais
Rynnik
Saiph the Fallen
Rynnik
Nihimon
Killing someone outside of a Feud was supposed to incur the penalty of Reputation Loss. Currently, that penalty is so trivial that it is irrelevant.
If that was the case I doubt I would hate being low rep as much as I do and have to think so carefully about how and when I spend my rep. You know it is bad when I have to consider carefully engagements even against well established political opponents - people who should be open season for as long as the current opted into conflict continues. By any reasonable metric our two groups should be free game to each other.

As much as you like to twist things to try and get your cake and eat it too it just isn't the reality of what actually occurs, Nihimon.

Nihimon
As it stands right now, the only constraint on PvP is more PvP from the other side.
It sure is if as a baseline you write off any other form of human interaction with the other group like, I don't know, talking to them.

vyal
The issues you've described, Thod, are one of the reasons I promote an NPC/Script/Server/Insulated approach to player conflict, and in particular, to player conflict involving in-game structures. (buildings) Especially if such structures are a means of territory control, or in some way are a resource, political, or similar beneficial mechanic.
Don't forget the factor that destroying buildings is incredibly boring. Pushing buttons while watching a targeted static health bar sink isn't exactly riveting gameplay.

I do agree that PvP should be a negative net sum activity in most cases (banditry being the main exception).

Rynnik, you can't actually believe the punishment for murder in PFO is actually a meaningful and detrimental punishment, can you?
Killing Phaerites and anyone who shelters or befriends them isn't murder. It is war.

Unless you are one of those people who thinks that as a soldier in real life I am a murderer?

Actual murder in PFO hardly happens - mostly due to social rather then mechanical pressures. Almost exactly as I believe was advertised.
Not a member, representative, or supporter of Brighthaven Alliance.
Saiph the Fallen
You are twisting my question, I'm talking about murder outside of feuds.
Rynnik
Saiph the Fallen
You are twisting my question, I'm talking about murder outside of feuds.
There are limited mechanical ways to prosecute war right now.

Killing Phaerites and friends outside of feuds is NOT murder.
Not a member, representative, or supporter of Brighthaven Alliance.
Tink says Stab
I believe it is a meaningful and detrimental punishment. By being low reputation I can't be in enemy settlements. By not being able to be in enemy settlements I can't feud them and stab them. This is detrimental to my ability to play the game the way I want to play it.

Which is why Tink is currently positive reputation. Because not being positive reputation is detrimental for me.
Tink quivers in sheer euphoria as the dank memes course through his fedora
Thod-Theodum
@Nihimon
I don't think I'm actually disagreeing with you. Taken out of context the sentence I wrote sounds harsh. I had to check that I had actually written this and in which context. All the sentence describes is the current in-game implementation.

All your 'yes but' would bring it much closer to the emotional state of PvP and so I'm agreeing with all you have written.
Thod/Theodum are the OOC/IC leaders of the Emerald Lodge - a neutral settlement in the center of the mal that tries to the first to explore the Emerald Spire - should that part of the game ever become available. We have a strong in game and out of game relationship with the Pathfinder Society.
We welcome both hard core players as well as casual players with or without tabletop experience. We have a strong group in Europe and are slowly expanding into the US. We are predominately PvE as our neutral political stance means that we tend to use PvP only in self-defence. We are not anti-PVP - but expect limited PvP opportunity with us.
Dreaden
I disagree with your issue about having to be available 24/7. In fact, there is very little time the average player needs to be online once you are situated with some gear and expendables. Exp is free and achievements are fast and easy to come by. Farming money has some value but lack of any significant cash sinks diminishes need for farming. I feel there is very little difference in effectiveness of a player that games 5-10 hours a week vs a player that puts in 40+. Currently there is not enough to do(outside of PvP) to hold my interest in my normal 3-4 hour gaming session and definitely do not feel like I cannot keep up. Your complaints seem to be more oriented with settlement management and missing the big event.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post