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.

Avenues for Improvement

vyal
Tyv Blodvaerd of Aragon
… That has always been an issue, especially for some of the more obscure role / alignment choices if and when the game ever evolves to include them.

Example: If there is only one settlement in all of the game that is LG and supports Paladins, and that settlement is destroyed, where will the Paladins go? Are they going to give up on the 2 1/2 years of training to be a lvl 20 Paladin? Are they going to go to another settlement that can allow LG, but ask them to build training facilities just for them?
I'm sure from a 'vision' perspective, the intent and dream is that it would lead to some kind of emergent gameplay and/or more player driven drama.

From a business perspective though, (as in, income/profit) it's horrible. Logical flaws like this are death to profit, especially when everyone can see them, and they remain unaddressed for years.
But again, that presumes the game is meant to make a profit, which it clearly hasn't up to this point. smile
Midnight
Jakaal
Midnight
I think that it probably looks like antagonizing people in a sandbox is a bad idea if you were hoping to be casual AND powerful.

Not sure that's a big newsflash to anyone who has played a sandbox, though.

Creating player tools (that even I use) doesn't make you immune to the consequences of meaningful choices.

It's not like they didn't work at antagonizing EoX really hard and really constantly. And it's not like they wouldn't completely destroy EoX if they could.

And everytime I suggest regime change to their members they respond that they love their leadership.

No one is making them quit. EoX is making them lose. In an adapt or die game (as all sandboxes are), I won't accept the blame if they choose quitting over adaptation.

I'm not trying to say EBA (I assume that is whom you are referring to) doesn't deserve some comeuppance for biting off more than they could chew but destroying another community at this point with the population already so low is a pretty serious mistake. Say what you will about their actions, but EoX's actions are in part responsible. Neither community leaving the game is good and actions should be taken to avoid such.

Destroying another community? They're a conglomeration of metagaming guilds. I'm not destroying a community, I'm (temporarily?) helping to defeat an opponent who has dedicated over a year to antagonizing EoX in the game and in multiple forums. I'm helping to crowdforge a history to this land, and it is a history of CONSEQUENCES.

If by some chance this isn't just a temporary swing of the pendulum in my favor, and I manage to help destroy their settlements months from now, they will STILL be a conglomeration of metagaming guilds. They would just need to select new homes.

No one should be quitting the game because they are losing. I played Eve for 10 years. Sandboxes were my first exposure to terms like evac and fail-cascade. I've had to find new homes, and I've proudly been part of causing tens of thousands of other players to find new homes.

Just as I used the term Holding Privilege to describe the sense of entitlement people had developed from having their holdings immune to attack, I'm going to suggest that some people might also suffer from Settlement Privilege from having settlements immune to attack for even longer. If losing a settlement is going to cause ANY player reading this to quit, my suggestion is to just quit now, because you don't have what it takes to enjoy sandboxes.

I fully accept that I may lose a settlement over the next 10 years. I consider it a STRONG possibility. I also know that the internal politics of guilds and regime change will probably have me looking for new homes over the next 10 years.

And if people are going to quit PFO because they don't like GW's game mechanics (which is the actual overt threat being made) then that is another situation that I will have to refuse to accept blame for. All I have done is reveal to people that relentlessness can be a serious factor in sandboxes. This is no surprise to sandbox veterans, the tales of relentlessness are legendary in the genre (e.g. BoB vs. Goonswarm).

tldr:
I won't apologize for being on a winning side.
I also won't apologize if people don't like what GW is developing.
We're not even witnessing an extraordinary situation.
This is just another mundane humdrum week in the history of sandboxes.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Midnight
Tyv Blodvaerd of Aragon
Jakaal
I'm not trying to say EBA (I assume that is whom you are referring to) doesn't deserve some comeuppance for biting off more than they could chew but destroying another community at this point with the population already so low is a pretty serious mistake. Say what you will about their actions, but EoX's actions are in part responsible. Neither community leaving the game is good and actions should be taken to avoid such.

I agree with this and I would take it a step further. Since it is expected that a loss of a settlement would be detrimental to server population, that possibility should not be turned on until well after the server population reaches into the thousands, and there are other options than quitting available for those players.

That has always been an issue, especially for some of the more obscure role / alignment choices if and when the game ever evolves to include them.

Example: If there is only one settlement in all of the game that is LG and supports Paladins, and that settlement is destroyed, where will the Paladins go? Are they going to give up on the 2 1/2 years of training to be a lvl 20 Paladin? Are they going to go to another settlement that can allow LG, but ask them to build training facilities just for them?

You'd be coddling them. The longer players face immunity from settlement defeat… the greater their sense of entitlement will grow.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Jakaal
See that is exactly what I'm talking about, you're willing to destroy the only group that has been willing to play with you. What are ya'll going to do if they pack up and yield the field to you? Fight amongst yourselves or go down the path Zycor was on?
This is my biggest problem with PvP types. You forget this is a game and both sides need to have fun to keep the game going. That doesn't happen often however when an opponent turns away from the fight or never wanted to fight at all, thats when more pile on to destroy the "noob" or "carebear".
PFOFIREFIGHTER
Jakaal
See that is exactly what I'm talking about, you're willing to destroy the only group that has been willing to play with you. What are ya'll going to do if they pack up and yield the field to you? Fight amongst yourselves or go down the path Zycor was on?
This is my biggest problem with PvP types. You forget this is a game and both sides need to have fun to keep the game going. That doesn't happen often however when an opponent turns away from the fight or never wanted to fight at all, thats when more pile on to destroy the "noob" or "carebear".

+1
Tyv Blodvaerd of Aragon
PFOFIREFIGHTER
Jakaal
See that is exactly what I'm talking about, you're willing to destroy the only group that has been willing to play with you. What are ya'll going to do if they pack up and yield the field to you? Fight amongst yourselves or go down the path Zycor was on?
This is my biggest problem with PvP types. You forget this is a game and both sides need to have fun to keep the game going. That doesn't happen often however when an opponent turns away from the fight or never wanted to fight at all, thats when more pile on to destroy the "noob" or "carebear".

+1

Having the wrong leaders has consequences.
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
Jakaal
Tyv Blodvaerd of Aragon
Having the wrong leaders has consequences.

This isn't about leadership, this is the differences between PvE and PvP players. Yes they tried to step in and engage in PvP but it tends to not be nearly as fun or at least as often if you're just doing it on the side as opposed to it being your main enjoyment of a game. The PvEer engaging in PvP tries to do something else and the PvPer keeps right on PvPing. Leaving the PvEer nothing else to do if they are not wanting to PvP right then but to leave the game.
This IS one of the things I think GW has failed on, they want to bridge the gap between PvPers and PvEers but I'm not seeing shit that actually attempts to do that. Not effectively anyway.
PFOFIREFIGHTER
Jakaal
Tyv Blodvaerd of Aragon
Having the wrong leaders has consequences.

This isn't about leadership, this is the differences between PvE and PvP players. Yes they tried to step in and engage in PvP but it tends to not be nearly as fun or at least as often if you're just doing it on the side as opposed to it being your main enjoyment of a game. The PvEer engaging in PvP tries to do something else and the PvPer keeps right on PvPing. Leaving the PvEer nothing else to do if they are not wanting to PvP right then but to leave the game.
This IS one of the things I think GW has failed on, they want to bridge the gap between PvPers and PvEers but I'm not seeing shit that actually attempts to do that. Not effectively anyway.

+2
Tyv Blodvaerd of Aragon
Jakaal
Tyv Blodvaerd of Aragon
Having the wrong leaders has consequences.

This isn't about leadership, this is the differences between PvE and PvP players. Yes they tried to step in and engage in PvP but it tends to not be nearly as fun or at least as often if you're just doing it on the side as opposed to it being your main enjoyment of a game. The PvEer engaging in PvP tries to do something else and the PvPer keeps right on PvPing. Leaving the PvEer nothing else to do if they are not wanting to PvP right then but to leave the game.
This IS one of the things I think GW has failed on, they want to bridge the gap between PvPers and PvEers but I'm not seeing shit that actually attempts to do that. Not effectively anyway.

I understand your dilemma, but the devs were pretty clear that the PVE content in PFO was not designed to be particularly in-depth and its primary purpose was to support the main feature of the game, settlement conflict. What they failed to do was to be more explicit and actually say, "Gathering and Crafting are support roles for PVP, which is the main focus of this game."

Other Developers have said that for games that are PFO's contemporaries and main competition, and the numbers of interested players and actual players in alpha are between 30 to 40 times as many as PFO has. The thing is, my opinion of course, GW may have targeted the wrong consumer base.

The MMO market, largely tired of Theme Park MMOs, is looking for an Open World Sandbox PVP MMO, and although GW claims that is what PFO is, it's really not.

Something Ryan had said long ago was that he did not want to start off with a large and potentially toxic community, only to have to curtail it later with more controls. Albion Online, did the exact opposite, and they allowed for their forums and game to be a toxic cesspool and slowly over 3 alphas they cut back on some of the toxicity. The result was by the third alpha, they had 20,000+ players and a road map for Close Beta that will tweak further some of the toxicity control while expanding even more ways to participate in PVP.

In Albion, there is no illusions in the fact that PVE is secondary to PVP. In some guilds the crafters and gatherers are treated like nothing more than slaves, and yet they join those guilds in droves.

I expect Crowfall to exceed Albion's numbers, substantially. It is following the same model of PVP focused, PVE secondary support and conquest is the only win condition.
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
Jakaal
You've convinced me. I'm out.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post