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.

Crazy idea

vyal
Caldeathe Baequiannia
… The stated, hoped-for, mechanism is that other settlements will apply pressure to the "bandit settlement" with it being under constant pressure and being regularly razed so as to not provide support for the most egregious characters. The postulated single-player-multi-account-settlement is probably impractical for the ability to generate sufficient influence to capitalize on a large number of accounts for settlement control.

The recent declaration that factions will provide support has done some damage to that particular mechanism. Allowing small settlements, with virtually no resources, to provide support to 20 has done further damage to the mechanism. It remains to be seen how that will play out. The final solution, as promulgated by Lisa, is that if they feel the game is damaging the Pathfinder brand, they will shut it down.

I guess then, I remain mystified as to the overall design goals at play.

If they're going down this path of "we don't ultimately support or encourage you to kill people whenever or wherever you want" and yet promote the game feature of "you can be attacked anywhere, by anyone", how does that align, logically?

I mean, if banditry isn't viable, nor chaotic evil, why permit it at all? Why spend development time on it?
It seems like it would be easier, faster, cheaper, and better from every perspective to simply assign certain hexes as FFA PvP/Arenas, flag the rest of the hexes by default as No-PvP, move back to the Pathfinder ruleset, start implementing the Pathfinder Adventure Paths & Adventure Modules / Lore and then move on to gathering tens of thousands of customers.

Why delay the inevitable by sitting in this untenable grey area for years? (it just seems like a waste of money, to me /shrug )
Caldeathe Baequiannia
vyal
I guess then, I remain mystified as to the overall design goals at play.

If they're going down this path of "we don't ultimately support or encourage you to kill people whenever or wherever you want" and yet promote the game feature of "you can be attacked anywhere, by anyone", how does that align, logically?

I mean, if banditry isn't viable, nor chaotic evil, why permit it at all? Why spend development time on it?
It seems like it would be easier, faster, cheaper, and better from every perspective to simply assign certain hexes as FFA PvP/Arenas, flag the rest of the hexes by default as No-PvP, move back to the Pathfinder ruleset, start implementing the Pathfinder Adventure Paths & Adventure Modules / Lore and then move on to gathering tens of thousands of customers.

Why delay the inevitable by sitting in this untenable grey area for years? /shrug
Not encouraging something is different from forbidding or discouraging. Many games don't encourage many things, that doesn't mean they take an active role in stopping you. Hoping that the players will attack bandit settlements is not an active role.

The devs don't encourage banditry, yet. They do warn all of us to expect it, because the very small things they do to discourage it are not intended to stop it altogether. The design philosophy is that doing things the average person doesn't like should bear consequences, and only occur if the reward is acceptable in the face of those consequences. Someone who wants to be a bandit right now can do so, they just have to accept reputation hits and the potential for the community to decide they are doing too much of it, or doing it in a way that we don't like.

They can't implement the Pathfinder rules. It is an outgrowth of the OGL, which expressly forbids it being implemented as a computer game. The resources are not available to build a comparable theme park, so PvP* is an important, in fact, critical, component of the system.

Banditry is intended to be possible, but generally discouraged (unless your name is Robin Hood), just as it is in the original sandbox, Earth. Players who learn to run bandits with that understanding will find success. Players who think that they should be able to do whatever they want, whenever they want (unless it is mechanically forbidden), without other people getting upset at them, will not find success.

There is no conflict at all between "we don't ultimately support or encourage you to kill people whenever or wherever you want" and "you can be attacked anywhere, by anyone." It is exactly true of most civilized nations on earth. They don't do anything to encourage criminals, yet warn us that criminals are all over the place, and you might get shot on your way to yoga classes tomorrow. That's about as sandboxy as it gets.

* and I reiterate, the narrow definition that "PvP" means two players fighting with weapons is just that, a narrow definition. I am also engaging in PvP when I negotiate with another player for a better price for my goods, or a lower price for theirs, or when I buy their goods in one settlement and sell them in another for a higher price, or when I convince one settlement to leave me alone and attack someone else instead. All of those things are PvP.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
vyal
With that in mind, Caldeathe, from my narrow biased selfish perspective, it seems like..

It's either bait-and-switch for predators, or bait-and-switch for prey, to varying degrees.

If it's the former, then GW is wasting time and money because predators can't play the way they want (and when they leave, they're going to be loud and toxic about it, in-game)
If it's the latter, GW is simply delaying the inevitable death of game, because prey won't pay to be victimized, indefinitely. (and when they leave, they'll just silently depart in-game, cancel their sub, and then tweet about it)

Maybe they're both wasting time & money and delaying the inevitable death of the game? smile

Is low-population the inevitable consequence of trying to stay in the middle of the player conflict road, instead of picking a path? /ponder
EDIT:

As a subscription game, it should be fun, rewarding, and provide good entertainment value for the dollar.

I'm not sure the current design goals are contributing toward any of those?

I mean, I get the philosophy of trying to reproduce earth-like behavioral restrictions, and that's a laudable hypothetical exercise. In practice, in a entertainment/game setting? I think a consequence is we get the low population we have now.

After all, it's been 7+ months. If the critical mass of new subs to reach OE in Jan 2016 was going to happen with the current mechanics, it would have happened.
Caldeathe Baequiannia
Humans are terrible for seeing what we want to see. I've never seen anything, anywhere, that made me think you could kill without consequences in PFO. And I can't imagine why anyone would think that the developers can stop the players from imposing their own consequences.

A sandbox means the fewest possible hard limitations, it shouldn't promise fewer consequences than you'd get in the real world, because doing that limits the other person. The best bandits will stay low and out of site and accumulate wealth without causing the locals enough trouble that they come after them. They shouldn't expect to be able to boast about raiding settlement vaults in general chat or at the local inn and have everyone else go "good job."

Bandits eventually facing angry villages is about as sandboxy as it gets.
To reach me, email d20rpg@gmail.com
Bringslite
@ Vyal

Yeah, I agree up to a point. This is a strange situation in that there are many systems not in place yet that will both allow far more penalty free PVP and curtail more unwanted random PVP. Even after they are in, they will take time to polish and adjust. The majority of MMO players (both sides of the PVP thing) don't have the patience to ride that out. Perfectly fine, but it may well be hampering growth more than was expected. Time will tell.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Dazyk of Phaeros
Duffy Swiftshadow
Except those changes for 'All War, All the time' alienates the market they already caught and we're preaching too, mainly people like me. If they go down the road of loosening or removing every restriction and meaningful interaction that this turns this into a free for all constant warzone game and I'm leaving. That's not a threat or a jab at design, I just don't want to play that sort of game in an MMO setting anymore. It does not appeal to me at all.

If conflict is so common and constant it would lose all meaning. You are supposed to care that you lost, if you didn't then it's meaningless which is the opposite of what they want. They do not want this to be login and deathmatch/capture the hill until I log off. Yes, conflict should be able to happen everyday, but the scale and result of said conflict needs to be more and more costly both for the attacker and the defender.

If something happens everyday then who cares that it happened? It's just another Tuesday. Ideally destruction or conflict around 'permanent' structures should be a drawn out process. It shouldn't be a common every night occurrence, it should be rare and require dedicate effort. The easier something is to replace the easier it should be to destory. The final stroke of ending a settlement should be a huge event that is not forgotten quickly nor occurs regularly. If it happens every single day then who cares that it happened? Why bother?

Edit: removed unnecessary provocation.

I'm not talking about 'war all the time.' I'm not talking about death match.

I'm talking about turning settlement siege from 'months' to 'weeks'. That's it.

I've invested over 1,000 dollars (Canadian, too, which equates to around 1,300 USD) in to this game, and frankly, I'm thinking of leaving the game.

So if people from the target market ARE leaving, or thinking of leaving, shouldn't we explore the 'why' and 'crowdforge' some possible solutions?

That's all I want.
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
Bringslite
"This is a strange situation in that there are many systems not in place yet that will both allow far more penalty free PVP and curtail more unwanted random PVP."

Did I mention that I am so excited for that time to arrive that I can barely stand it?
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Duffy Swiftshadow
Dazyk of Phaeros
Duffy Swiftshadow
All war all the time is just as bad as no war all the time.

Why?

I'm not sure I agree. If war IS something that rarely happens, it just exacerbates the meta drama and the hurt when you lose EVERYTHING you've worked for months, maybe years, to create.

If war and small-sided conflicts are commonplace, holdings and training are easier to set up, people don't get so attached (and subsequently hurt) when they lose it all.

I can see where we are headed right now; when the first big war hits and one of the medium to large groups gets annihilated, there is gonna be whole world's of rage thrown around the meta.

Teach us, the players, to embrace the wars by making settlements less of a big deal.

I might be confused but you clearly seem to be arguing against my anti 'All War, All the Time' comment in your earlier reply above, which seems to imply you are not talking about occasional few week long wars every couple months but constant conflict everyday. So which is it cause I'm confused at this point. Do you want a few week sieges every few months at most or do you expect to be building and knocking down settlements every other week?

What are you trying to get at? Are you upset cause we haven't had a chance to burn down a settlement yet? Why is that your big goal? Why is the amount of conflict the big measuring stick and not the significance of the conflict? You want us to fight over resources for crafting settlements? I would rather fight over territory or settlements than piddle around chasing gatherers in the name of 'significance'. A settlement falling should be a big deal, not something that happens every few days, otherwise it's meaningless. Right now building one from scratch will take you weeks according to the crafting times we can see, taking them down in less time is kind of insulting.

Also want to remind you that we're at a silly low fraction of the desired population for the size of the map we are on. That's kinda making it easier to build. Making it easier to wreck isn't gonna help grow the population at all.

As for such features being added these things are gonna take time, ideally it's gonna happen eventually, they aren't sitting around going 'nah we're not gonna turn it on today'. Everything is inter-connected and we only have a handful of the pieces. Some aspects to not be totally awful are gonna have to be incomplete or missing until all the pieces are created and added to the picture. In the meantime you will have to go without or just not play the game yet.

We haven't gotten the Emerald Spire yet either. We also haven't had a chance to assassinate anyone yet despite being promised that too. Banditry hasn't been implemented in any useful form either. Those systems aren't ready and are dependent on stuff that doesn't exist to be fun, fair, or meaningful.

It's a serious work in progress and it's gonna be that way for awhile, get used to it.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post