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

Gloreindl
MidknightDiamond
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.

-1

PvP was not supposed to be a huge part of this game, MEANINGFUL PvP was/is supposed to be part of the core game. Huge difference. PvP just for the sake of PvP is wrong for a Pathfinder inspired game, and even worse is random PK and griefing (such as repeatedly killing characters as they return to their husks, and/or at the shrines they are sent to following death). I have been a victim of this by well known griefers who should have been banned from the game a long time ago (and we all know of whom I speak).

Once Stand and Deliver is in place, those who wish to play bandits will have a chance to do so, and it will be up to the player confronted by the bandit(s) to decide to PvP or give in - in other words, meaningful PvP. If said bandit kills the mark, he/she will be flagged. Do it too much and they get banned, as that has now gone from meaningful PvP to griefing by way of exploiting an in-game system.

Stand and Deliver should have been one of the first "PvP"-centric system put in place. For whatever reason it was not, but a GW headed by Lisa can now fix that. My firm believe is that Mr Dancy decided to try and attract more players, hard-core PvPers to gain more revenue and disregarded his own words that PfO would not be a murder simulator, since he had to know that doing so would attract Goonies seeking to ruin the game. I, for one, want and hope to see Lisa return PfO to what it was intended to be - a place where PvP HAS to be meaningful of it isn't condoned. Those willing to play within the rules will still be able to PvP, while those who can't are sent packing to other games who don't mind disruptive players. Lisa and Paizo have more integrity than that IMHO, and for that I am glad Lisa is now acting CEO.
Wizard/Cleric; Chosen of Nethys and Yuelral. Magic is Life.
Tigari
Meh. It's crap like this that put the game in the situation it is in imo. Just because you didn't see the meaning in pvp that happened doesn't mean it wasn't there. also I can't remember how many groups of 10+ people Golgotha recruited, then they never subbed, because the pvp was too restricting.

there's not a single griefer who lays this game.
Baron Malthius
Well I'll be frank, I've always said how much I like PvP and all, but regardless of how I feel about PvP personally, the fact is the way it's done in this game has not worked. The fact that we all can't even agree as a community on what the term "meaningful PvP" even means and with all the implementation problems that have occurred was enough to convince me that maybe it's time to rethink some of this. Maybe it needs to drop the whole open world PvP sandbox thing, if at least in part.

The problem isn't just the PvP, it's the whole "player driven content" thing. I think that was a bad decision to take with an already established IP like Pathfinder. People coming to play this game first and foremost will be expecting to see Pathfinder related material. However, it never got any attention and the game oftentimes felt wooden and just didn't feel like Pathfinder. Sometimes I joked that you could call this "Generic Fantasy MMO" and it would barely change anything.

Besides, with the game in this state, I doubt that if it sticks with the current PvP scheme that it will be able to compete with other MMOs like Crowfall which are geared specifically for the hard core PvP crowd.

I have no problem with the hard core PvP stuff so don't get me wrong, but I think at this juncture it is no longer a viable route for a game like this. If it keeps going down this road it will be a game on life support competing with other MMOs with potentially more backers, higher budgets, and more experienced leaders at the helm that are specifically gearing their games towards the hard core PvP crowd. It is a market that PFO has little chance of winning.
Hobson Fiffledown
*heavy sigh* Meaningful. Can we just go ahead and change that to "subjectively valuable".

Open World PvP has been a major descriptor and selling point for the game since I've been around. Now, that's only since Alpha 7(?), So maybe it was a surprise for people who got in earlier…

Meaningful has always been subjective. The other bells and whistles (bounties, alignment, training) didn't get a chance to get into the game. Oh well. There's a lot of mechanics that didn't make it into the game. Deal with it.

This game is the most griefless PvP game I've ever played. When I joined up, there was one region from the forum that jumped out as an easy enemy. They were jerks, whiners, very angry and controlling on the forums. Their game and future play declarations, as well as in game actions, made it so they would be a natural role play enemy as well (which worked well, I'm not a meta fan). Early on, it was evident that they couldn't deal with PvP in any way. I ended up respecing 15 different characters I had all set up for some guerrilla warfare back to crafters…

There were no real options left for PvP. Social consequences kiboshed conflict in a major way across the server. Half-done mechanics and gating took the fun out of the rest of PvP. If there was anything alluring about the PvP in this game, the forever war might not have ever happened (or at least it would have been over a lot quicker). People would have quickly been burned down in a meaningful way, forced to cope, and normalized to conflict and repercussions, and maybe even learn some negotiating and cohabitation skills along the way.

Blaming the anti-PvP crowd or the pro-PvP crowd at this point for the GW going in to crisis mode is just silly. The loss of funding described is bigger than any realistic sub income. If it's a population issue, or a make-up of the population, only GW is to blame.

Feel free to whine about people not playing a game how you want them to, but blaming a particular play style for GW's situation is just…say it with me…silly.

GW has always been overwhelmingly silent on most of the forum drama. I guess they were hoping we'd figure it out on our own and thus fulfill the meaningful interaction parts ourselves and organically create the conflict level appropriate for the server. That's a neat idea, but have you met us?
This space for rent.
Nihimon
Being at risk of PvP while Gathering, etc. is a critical feature. The failure was in not attaching appropriate costs to the aggressor to constrain how consistently they were able to attack.
Nihimon murmurs in sheer ecstasy as the magic courses through his veins
Hobson Fiffledown
I dunno, we had all of the social tools in place. Known bandit types were put on almost everyone's KOS list. Random banditry fostered a sense of alertness and a run on sight reaction that permeated the server. People were much more cautious about loot runs (even became more fun for some people like myself, timing 5am cross-server runs with GPs worth of loot). People became much more aware of encumbrance, banking loot quickly, and communication standards. All of this resulted in a reduction in number of easy targets and a loss of average loot value.

The choice to continue banditry despite all of those issues is "meaningful" and really quite RP based for some people. If we want a true open world sandbox, we have to allow all playstyles. The same people who are saying screw the rep and negatives will always say that. Being upset that there aren't more shutdown mechanics in place for PvP is fine. I can be just as upset about the lack of resource sinks giving some groups early and temporary advantage until those systems are in place. (I'm talking about a lot of PvP in general, feuds, WoT, and every other individual gate system has its own issues)

I'll admit, the feud system is pretty terribad. Most of the PvP gating mechanisms are pretty bad, in my opinion. However, in a social game with "meaningful" play, I don't see any players that aren't in a situation of their choosing, and I don't see any players without a choice to continue playing the game. That doesn't mean the players can see it.
This space for rent.
Decius
Nihimon
Being at risk of PvP while Gathering, etc. is a critical feature. The failure was in not attaching appropriate costs to the aggressor to constrain how consistently they were able to attack.
I was expecting that there would be people aggressively calculating the reward/time value of hunting gatherers versus gathering themselves. That DOES result in an equilibrium where some people gather and some people prey on gatherers.

But that has yet to happen to my knowledge. It might be because hunting gatherers is not more efficient than gathering anywhere on the map, or it might be because nobody wants to do the boring parts of banditry.
Daeglin
Hobson Fiffledown
*heavy sigh* Meaningful. Can we just go ahead and change that to "subjectively valuable".

Open World PvP has been a major descriptor and selling point for the game since I've been around. Now, that's only since Alpha 7(?), So maybe it was a surprise for people who got in earlier…

Meaningful has always been subjective. The other bells and whistles (bounties, alignment, training) didn't get a chance to get into the game. Oh well. There's a lot of mechanics that didn't make it into the game. Deal with it.

This game is the most griefless PvP game I've ever played. When I joined up, there was one region from the forum that jumped out as an easy enemy. They were jerks, whiners, very angry and controlling on the forums. Their game and future play declarations, as well as in game actions, made it so they would be a natural role play enemy as well (which worked well, I'm not a meta fan). Early on, it was evident that they couldn't deal with PvP in any way. I ended up respecing 15 different characters I had all set up for some guerrilla warfare back to crafters…

There were no real options left for PvP. Social consequences kiboshed conflict in a major way across the server. Half-done mechanics and gating took the fun out of the rest of PvP. If there was anything alluring about the PvP in this game, the forever war might not have ever happened (or at least it would have been over a lot quicker). People would have quickly been burned down in a meaningful way, forced to cope, and normalized to conflict and repercussions, and maybe even learn some negotiating and cohabitation skills along the way.

Blaming the anti-PvP crowd or the pro-PvP crowd at this point for the GW going in to crisis mode is just silly. The loss of funding described is bigger than any realistic sub income. If it's a population issue, or a make-up of the population, only GW is to blame.

Feel free to whine about people not playing a game how you want them to, but blaming a particular play style for GW's situation is just…say it with me…silly.

GW has always been overwhelmingly silent on most of the forum drama. I guess they were hoping we'd figure it out on our own and thus fulfill the meaningful interaction parts ourselves and organically create the conflict level appropriate for the server. That's a neat idea, but have you met us?
I can't + this enough. Thanks Hobson, I never figured out how to say this.
Good… Bad… I'm the guy with the bow.
Yrme
Gloreindl
Stand and Deliver should have been one of the first "PvP"-centric system put in place. For whatever reason it was not, but a GW headed by Lisa can now fix that.

The old Stand and Deliver threads gave me the impression that that concept was particularly complex. It would require party-on-party flagging and was full of edge cases. iirc, the last SAD thread based on the blogs basically ended with the devs saying that they might have to implement bandit and merchants as factions to allow bandit-like play. Of all of the early design concepts, SAD was the one that seemed most difficult or impossible to program.
At some point, crowdforging suggestions seem to be like fan fiction. Some good, some bad, some repetitious and predictable. But maybe there are some gems out there.
Kitsune
I hate to continue down this rabbit-hole of discussing the PvP aspects of the game, but I'll bite. Sorry, OP.

Id' be curious to see what would happen if, as part of some sort of restoration/reformation of the existing game, the Devs were to completely shut-off most of the PvP systems in the game? Before hastily posting "I'd quit!" or some other meaningless post, please humor me for a minute and think of the idea.

I know that there would be probably a couple hundred "hardcore PvPers" that would stop playing. But would we retain and/or gain many others in their place? Could we gain back the TT crowd that left? Could the PvP-oriented crowd just chill out for a half-year while the game is triaged?

I'm not proposing that any of this happens right now. Obviously, EE11 is going to happen, bringing some of the "final" Settlement Warefare systems online.

But what if PFO is picked up by a larger studio? Or, what if after EE11, the existing Devs begin working exclusively on PvE systems/content and stuff like Dungeons? Could they literally "shut off" a lot of the PvP systems "temporarily" to make the game more hospitable for the "less PvP-oriented crowd"?

Just thinking out-loud, here. Entertaining a few of the "what-ifs" in my brain this morning.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post