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

I'd prefer to see PvP continue to be possible, but with real consequences.

1. Reputation - Make having Low Reputation (-2,500 or below) mean you have no Settlement Support, and make the base Support be Level 5 (Rank 3 Attacks).

2. Feuds - Make them refund some portion of their Influence Cost based on how successful they were. If an Outpost is Overrun, you get a 25% Refund. If a Holding is Threatened, you get a 50% Refund. If you Capture a Holding, you get a 100% Refund.

I expect those would be fairly simple fixes. While they're not perfect, they're a lot better than the current situation.
Nihimon murmurs in sheer ecstasy as the magic courses through his veins
Baron Malthius

It's an interesting thought. Although I don't think we need to eliminate PvP completely. Adding more TT content and keeping consequence oriented PvP in the game are not mutually exclusive things.

This is where I come back to my insistence on implementing Factions, Deities, and the like (yeah, I would expand the Faction system to apply to deities as well). These things give a more natural, in game RP and mechanical reason to fight each other that lines up well with TT content. This provides a foundation to build both simultaneously.

The thing is regarding PvP we need more in game reasons for fights to happen, and Factions & Deities would fill that kind of need.

It isn't going to be the same type of PvP we've grown accustomed to, but I would be willing to try this out instead given the state of the game under the current PvP model. The way PvP designed IMHO needs a significant overhaul.

After that, add more PvE content, and make some of that open PvP zones as the team sees fit. This doesn't need to be an either or thing, there can be some of both, but there needs to be some compromise on both sides.
Duffy Swiftshadow
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.

If anything they should just leave it as it is for now, it's arguably not super debilitating at the moment and work on all those PvP systems they had talked about in the past. The type of PvP game they sold has not yet emerged, the overlapping systems required to balance out and make relatively 'constrained' PvP different from straight toggles or free for all never manifested entirely.

People are always gonna argue for their preferences but either way what was planned hasn't significantly made it into the game yet, so I'm of the mind they should stop the PvP content where it is if not shutoff feuds if any problems really occur. In the meantime they need to start bringing in the day to day content and start working on some of these other less high level (non-settlement destruction related) PvP systems to bring breadth to the options players have for conflict and day to day content.

Once that's all in place they can go finish up Settlement Warfare level content as the big capstone to PvP.

All of course assuming they get funding, none of this is manageable in anything resembling a timely manner with only a few people.
Fanndis Goldbraid
I get the original sales pitch Ryan had in the earliest threads on the old Paizo forums. The problem with the PvP roots is they alienated the largest majority of the TT Pathfinder players who might have been interested in a Pathfinder: Online. Making it an open PvP world ran off (my guess) 75-80% of the potential adopters of the PFO game itself. That 75-80% of those Kickstarter backers (close to 10,000 total) backed the Kickstarted for modules, minis and extra stuff to use in their tabletop game and never had any interest in PFO due to its proposed PvP rule set.

You can try to keep PvP as it is, but if you do you will never get any crossover players from the tabletop. There are too many open PvP games now for the limited number of open PvP gamers. Otherwise Darkfall, EVE Online, Mortal Online and a few others would be swollen with players, and none of them are. This is just my opinion, but if GW (what's left of it) wants more players, then open PvP has to change, and drastically.
Fanndis, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't EVE Online have a rather large player base (or at least exponentially larger than the current PFO player base, heh)?

But I reckon you're right about the Kickstarter. I'm certain there's a large number of accounts out there that would never have activated a subscription - even if GW delivered an exceptional final product at OE.
IMO, the old argument about what is "meaningful PVP" is much like the old argument about what is "MVP". Both of these are old and tired arguments. The systems that are in the game now are just not meeting the criteria of either side in each of those debates. Both are too subjective to individual preference. Also IMO, GW's definition of "meaningful PVP" is (or at least was in theory) closest to the mark.

As both a theory craft experiment and REAL honest data examination, take it back to square one. If you can't recognize a significant number of vectors within each of those: "MVP" and "meaningful PVP" that intersect for a population of about 200,000 MMO players, CHANGE YOUR DEFINITIONS (as a company) OF WHAT THOSE ARE UNTIL YOU CAN. You might then get 50,000 subscribers.
Virtute et Armis
I'm going to throw in my $0.02(US). First, I am not opposed to any sort of PvP. Frankly, when I started reading about PFO, I envisioned a game set in Golarion where the only GM was the mechanics running the rules behind the scenes. Players would be free to go about their business as a mercenary, crafter, gatherer, adventurer, warrior, caravan guard, protection specialist, bandit….whatever floated their boat. I knew something like this would take a long time to develop and I am a patient person.

That said, the game mechanics don't currently control sociopaths (and you know they exist in every single game) who are hell bent on killing for the sake of killing. But, the system failed to adequately address that, so you had a lot of players immediately turned off by a few bad apples (and I do mean a very few) who simply wanted to ruin other players' days.

Here are some additional thoughts, which should probably carry over to Crowd Forging:

1) I think that the Thornkeep (and perhaps the surrounding training hexes) should be off limits for PvP. First, this gives new players a little time to get their feat under them (yes, pun intended.) Once upon a time, there was a such thing as "peace knot" where weapons would be secured while visiting castles or other sacred areas. In meta terms, this could be applied to certain hexes to simulate the idea that no fighting is allowed because there is a mutual understanding that it's not acceptable.

2) I would like to see some indicator that shows the power level of other players. If you're close enough to see that someone is wearing Tier 3 armor and you are in Tier 1, you are already dead. Due to graphic limitations, there is no way to make that judgment at a reasonable distance. But in RL, I could certainly see someone 30 or 40 feet away and know if I want to turn tail and run because I'm simply out matched. So, I would like to see something like the monster names, where names are color coded to indicate player strength.

3) I would like to see systems put in place that give PvP a reason. Bounties, contracts, banditry, wars. All reasons to go after other players for game related play. Not just for the sake of ganking. Provided development continues after E11 (and I certainly hope it does), I'd like to see the PvP aspect become a focus. That and Line of Sight targeting. Oh, and water! smile

Again, just my $0.02.
Double post.
IMO, the old argument about what is "meaningful PVP" is much like the old argument about what is "MVP". Both of these are old and tired arguments.

Ain't that the truth.
Let me clarify what I was talking about with the idea of "turning off" some of the PvP. I'm thinking a few different levels of "turning it off":

Level 1) Turn off feuds - just let things sit the way they are for a while
Level 2) Turn off bulk resource generation and upkeep
Level 3) Remove outposts/holdings (perhaps refund recipes and perhaps refund ingredients)
Level 4) Set all influence to zero, remove generation of influence (to be boot-strapped again later)
Level 5) Remove husks/looting

Perhaps a level or two in-between, but you get the point. I'm thinking that if we had a whole lot of PvE stuff to do, we could roll it all the way back to Level 5, and re-visit combat/PvP/Flagging from the ground-up. You know, stuff like establishing a criminal flag, visiting the SAD ideas again, Line of Sight, soul binding, item threading … all of those more "fundamental" PvP systems that (in my opinion) should have went online LONG before we started needing to worry about our settlements burning to the ground.

If that's a bit too extreme, and people want to keep the husk looting in for "the thrill" or some-expletive like that, then roll it back to Level 4.

I know Goblinworks put in countless hours working on all this wonderful settlement warfare stuff, but I think a large majority of the community could agree that we were missing some more fundamental game elements that should have been prioritized before it.

And my off-the-wall proposal was to literally disable all that hard work, archive it, and roll the PvP game back to where we can work on the fundamentals again. Right now, too much of the developers' precious time resource is probably going to be consumed by "fixing" all the settlement warfare stuff, rather than being able to get back to basics and implement new fundamental PvP systems, or at least fixing the ones that exist already.

And I can see both sides of the argument (to keep it all online, or to roll it back), but I wanted to see some healthy debate about it.
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post