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.

Minimum Viable Product

Brighthaven Leader
All of that hurts to look at, lol
Brighthaven is a Neutral Good settlement focused on defending its citizens and its allies from negative fringe based PvP (Player Killing and Griefing) while striving to become a large and shining beacon for Good. Whether you wish to benefit from this protection or you love PvP and wish to assist in providing this protection, Brighthaven aims to be the home and support center for you!
QMan
Bringslite
Nice to see you posting Mr. Q!
Hi! *waves* smile
Fanndis Goldbraid
Zycor
I think GW ran out of time. The article is accurate, I think GW tried to target the wrong audience. If they made the game more PVP/conflict driven, and advertised like EVE did "Become a pirate, or a miner!" then they would have attracted more big named guilds. Also, if they had the time/money/investment to dev it internally then released EE. But instead they rushed it out the door to a non-receptive public.

As the game being dead, I doubt it. This game can run on life support for a while, look at EMU servers, it just depends if Lisa wants to put it out of it's misery.

I think the complete opposite. If they had abandoned the open PvP aspect of the game they would have had many more players. Most players that come into a game with "opportunities" for PvP will partake. It is having hostile PvP jammed down your throat that lost the huge bulk of player of TT who might have expressed an interest in a Pathfinder Online game.

Suppose PvP was an on/off toggle. So gathering was safe, and running from one place to another was safe. However, factions, holdings and outposts, settlement wars, and other larger, organized PvP events required attackers and defenders to be vulnerable by forcing the toggle to be on if those players wanted to participate. There are many more non-PvPers here, even now, that there are PvPers. Just the way the numbers fall. That's one reason there are so few open PvP games compared to non-PvP games. The market for that is quite small.
vyal
Fanndis Goldbraid
… Suppose PvP was an on/off toggle. So gathering was safe, and running from one place to another was safe. However, factions, holdings and outposts, settlement wars, and other larger, organized PvP events required attackers and defenders to be vulnerable by forcing the toggle to be on if those players wanted to participate. There are many more non-PvPers here, even now, that there are PvPers. Just the way the numbers fall. That's one reason there are so few open PvP games compared to non-PvP games. The market for that is quite small.
IMHO: That single mechanical change would have made the game a success, from a financial perspective.

And ran completely contrary to Ryan's vision of the game, evidently. smile
Gloreindl
Fanndis Goldbraid
Zycor
I think GW ran out of time. The article is accurate, I think GW tried to target the wrong audience. If they made the game more PVP/conflict driven, and advertised like EVE did "Become a pirate, or a miner!" then they would have attracted more big named guilds. Also, if they had the time/money/investment to dev it internally then released EE. But instead they rushed it out the door to a non-receptive public.

As the game being dead, I doubt it. This game can run on life support for a while, look at EMU servers, it just depends if Lisa wants to put it out of it's misery.

I think the complete opposite. If they had abandoned the open PvP aspect of the game they would have had many more players. Most players that come into a game with "opportunities" for PvP will partake. It is having hostile PvP jammed down your throat that lost the huge bulk of player of TT who might have expressed an interest in a Pathfinder Online game.

Suppose PvP was an on/off toggle. So gathering was safe, and running from one place to another was safe. However, factions, holdings and outposts, settlement wars, and other larger, organized PvP events required attackers and defenders to be vulnerable by forcing the toggle to be on if those players wanted to participate. There are many more non-PvPers here, even now, that there are PvPers. Just the way the numbers fall. That's one reason there are so few open PvP games compared to non-PvP games. The market for that is quite small.

Well put sir! +1
Wizard/Cleric; Chosen of Nethys and Yuelral. Magic is Life.
PFOFIREFIGHTER
+1
Baron Malthius
+1

Although I would add that one or two exceptions should be made. I personally think assassinations (once assassin mechanics are implemented) and specific locations being open PvP hexes should be those exceptions. The latter kind of goes back to something Bluddwolf said about having Tier 3 hexes being open. I would also add hexes with gushers as well, though I am not sure how easy it would be to implement dynamically opening PvP hexes based on whether a gusher has been located.

I think people who don't wanna PvP should be left in peace for the most part. However, they shouldn't be able to avoid all risk if they want the best stuff.
The Eternal Balance
Agreed, but right along with that, please put in factions and SAD banditry options ASAP.
It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.
Gross
Baron Malthius
+1

Although I would add that one or two exceptions should be made. I personally think assassinations (once assassin mechanics are implemented) and specific locations being open PvP hexes should be those exceptions. The latter kind of goes back to something Bluddwolf said about having Tier 3 hexes being open. I would also add hexes with gushers as well, though I am not sure how easy it would be to implement dynamically opening PvP hexes based on whether a gusher has been located.

I think people who don't wanna PvP should be left in peace for the most part. However, they shouldn't be able to avoid all risk if they want the best stuff.

+1. I am functionally a care bear, mostly due to my time zone, only ever killed 1 in pvp and only killed 4 times in 7 months (and 3 of those were Tink and Tig in 1 day) so my character is developed now purely for PVE mob killing but without risk to give the edge it's less interesting, and making T3 and high reward gushers contestable would give a risk reward equation that made sense.
Mercenary monster hunter from Forgeholm
War priest of Angradd… patiently waiting on Goblinworks to deliver him (and greataxes, Dwarves need 2 handed axes).
MidknightDiamond
-1

The pvp was always supposed to be a large part of this game. Isolating it like that would destroy part of the core game itself in my opinion.

There should be more risk, not less.
Aurora Silverstar, Pathfinder University Quartermaster & Explorer
Kiernan Silverstar, Aurora's lazy & good-for-nothing younger brother who just likes to blow things up.

PM MidknightDiamond on Paizo Forum
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post