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.

Pathfinder Online will be ending operations on November 28, 2021. For more details please visit our FAQ.

The Very Most "UnFun Thing"

Paddy Fitzpatrick
Well I would imagine someone who suddenly went from T3 to T2 level even if only temporarily would have enough of a deterrent, as would going from T2 to T1. With enough non anti social outlets for fighting the ones who still wanna go that route could get away with it for bit but you get depowered AND to actually do real harm you go through the rules for whatever system you are using.

A rep system like this would have teeth because it would literally take the teeth out of psychopathic manchildren. Usually most newbie griefers for example can get to a high enough level to make themselves demigods (or ay least that is the goal). A direct depowering of their feats would be the worst nightmare for a such a player because then they are taken down to newbie level support. Having that shiny T3 stuff dont mean much if your rep tanks your support enough to knock ya back to T1 feats. That dont even go in to the problem of fighting at T1 level in T2 or T3 gear and thus losing said gear faster due to being more killable.
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of Aragon Alliance and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
Flari-Merchant
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Well I would imagine someone who suddenly went from T3 to T2 level even if only temporarily would have enough of a deterrent, as would going from T2 to T1. With enough non anti social outlets for fighting the ones who still wanna go that route could get away with it for bit but you get depowered AND to actually do real harm you go through the rules for whatever system you are using.

A rep system like this would have teeth because it would literally take the teeth out of psychopathic manchildren. Usually most newbie griefers for example can get to a high enough level to make themselves demigods (or ay least that is the goal). A direct depowering of their feats would be the worst nightmare for a such a player because then they are taken down to newbie level support. Having that shiny T3 stuff dont mean much if your rep tanks your support enough to knock ya back to T1 feats. That dont even go in to the problem of fighting at T1 level in T2 or T3 gear and thus losing said gear faster due to being more killable.
You make it sound attractive. Downside being (possibly a downside) that you end up coding a system SO strong that you have no such characters as "Bloody Bill" at all in your MMO or you make Rep recovery so quick that there are hundreds such players. As much as I hate being ganked by surprise by someone for NO REASON, I do feel like we need that kind of possibility to add a little spice to everything we do. You just have to decide at what degree that you want things to be possible and stick to your Dev Guns and code it in…

Edit: I guess what I am saying is: If you do not want that kind of play at all in your MMO then just make it impossible. Don't waste coding dollars on discouraging feedback that completely kills the behavior. That way you don't have to spend 6 months balancing the mechanics.
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Well in any open pvp samdbox you will always get hundreds of such players in any decently sized one. The only other way to eliminate it for sure is to remove the Open World PvP aspect entirely. So instesd of that, you allow it but slap on a consequence that takes away the one thing newbie griefers will care about. Freedom of choice does not imply freedom from consequence, and personally I would rather see money spent on making a balanced mechanic for it rather than a pointless rep system (in which case you may as well remove it), or removong the open PvP aspect entirely (in which case you will not have "Bloody Bill" at all or open PvP of any sort). The fact is you will mever elminiate cruel players who prey on the weak to compensate for something entirely, that is just a fsct of open world pvp MMOs. You can however take away their power if they do it too much so they dont become unstoppable by having the game system gradually wesken them. The end result is either that player will have a hard limit to how often they can do it or they get weakened to the point where the gap between them and their prey shrinks.

Now of course this only works if ya got enough other PvP outlets to begin with though which we dont. My take is we need:

1) Dueling (like seriously why isnt this in here?)
2) Good faction warfare and faction rivalry mechanics
3) Actual Settlement Warfare, conquest, and raiding
4) Good ol fashiined feuds for companies in either setllements or factions who just wanna gank each other without restrictions.

Only dueling is consentual PvP out of these four and if you make all four of these solid that takes care of most of the types of PvP you will see. Wanna practice your individual PvP skills or host some fight club or arena? You got duels. Wanna do stuff all the time against some rival faction of the more big GvG style competitions? Factions do that for you. Domination, territory, conquest, and or defending others from conquest your thing? You got settlement warfare. Finally, you got some grudge against a player or group of players (or are just bored and wanna pick on someone) and ya just wanna gank em into oblivion when you feel like it (or die a lot trying which with my luck will be what happens to me), then ya got feuds.
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of Aragon Alliance and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
Flari-Merchant
I'm with you (Yer preachin to the choir) on all but 1.5 points. Not real comfortable with just going about to find someone to kill over and over when I'm bored and I am not sure about dueling. At least not dueling in the sense of having it be resolution to larger conflicts OR to being annoyed by repeated offers to duel that I have to click "accept" or "refuse" to in my HUD every few seconds if a guy/gal is being annoying.

Mitigation of PVP for the unwilling could be partially resolved by zones as well. Zones with lower amounts of available basic resources and mobs. A combo of zones and a Rep to skill penalty system? Part of the thing that was originally aimed for was "open" PVP from which there was no total escape. We have seen enough negative comments about that to know that it is a major deal breaker for a significant % of possible players.
Midnight
If there is faction PvP that you can enter from day one, you probably won't see the PvP out of boredom that you see from Zycor and other folk who get twitchy when bored. (He used to shoot his own party when he got bored during escalations).

Give PvPers the ability and a reason to be active with consenting folk (via factions) and the ability to feud/war companies/settlements that cross them, and you'll reduce newbie killing to an incredibly small percentage of sociopaths that you can give humongous penalties/disincentives to without complaints from even the most PvP-centric players.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Midnight
Bringslite of Oz
Part of the thing that was originally aimed for was "open" PVP from which there was no total escape. We have seen enough negative comments about that to know that it is a major deal breaker for a significant % of possible players.

If you have safe havens, you will give people who deserve to be killed a place to retreat to after committing whatever "atrocities" their opponents want to punish them for. This removes the consequences of "meaningful choices".

Note, the things someone might want to kill me for could be as simple as harvesting in (or even setting foot in) their claimed territory. If I can disregard your rules or claims until you finally notice me, and THEN play in a safe haven until things cool down, you are going to feel quite frustrated. Especially as I rotate through each of my characters to repeat the same behavior.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
Flari-Merchant
Midnight
Bringslite of Oz
Part of the thing that was originally aimed for was "open" PVP from which there was no total escape. We have seen enough negative comments about that to know that it is a major deal breaker for a significant % of possible players.

If you have safe havens, you will give people who deserve to be killed a place to retreat to after committing whatever "atrocities" their opponents want to punish them for. This removes the consequences of "meaningful choices".

Note, the things someone might want to kill me for could be as simple as harvesting in (or even setting foot in) their claimed territory. If I can disregard your rules or claims until you finally notice me, and THEN play in a safe haven until things cool down, you are going to feel quite frustrated. Especially as I rotate through each of my characters to repeat the same behavior.

Not going to argue that would be pretty frustrating and all those things would likely be hard to code against. Isn't that kind of like how things really work anyway? Those particular named character can find sanctuary in non PVP zones. but they have to stay there or take risks to leave them. The people that turn "the heat" onto someone are also the people that decide when the heat abates and if it ever does. Leaving the "safe" zones into other polities and how that plays out between those groups is also content. Besides, you will eventually run out of alts that you are willing to put on that list, but the list can be as long as is needed.

What I am saying here is that like many things that could be fun or perhaps useful working systems often get shot down "because they may cause frustrations" or "there may be ways to work them to advantage". As long as the advantages are not game breakers and the frustrations are normal universal frustrations, I really see no sense in dismissing them. It has crippled ideas and discussion around here for years now and I know that I have probably helped with that many times.
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Midnight more or less summed up the things I have been getting at here. There is one thing I have to add on safe zones though and whatnot.

In a game like this the only place I could see a safe zone with PvP disabled working is in the newbie settlements like Thornkeep. You make it disabled in those three hexes but even then you gotta make some exceptions. If someone is flagged red they can still be pursued until the timer wears off. People with low rep to where the guards attack you on sight can also be hit at TK. Stuff like that wouldn't be too bad I would hope. It would close the most likely exploits up pretty well.

As to "may cause frustrations", ya gotta ask "for who?" before going any further? The few misanthropes who wanna just kill off the experience for new players anyway or someone who just wants to compensate for something? If those are the people we are worried about causing "frustrations" for, then the follow up question there is "who cares?"

As has been said several times now, you give enough good and balanced PvP outlets and most of the hardcore PvPers will play within the system you give em. Day 1 faction PvP will give most people their fixes, duelists like myself who are ultra perfectionists about their builds and how they fair against others can have their duels (btw, the solution to the guy annoying you by spamming duel requests is adding an ignore feature that should be in here anyway), feuds for companies to take out beefs on each other or host Olympic Style games like our Capture the Mule championships, and Settlement stuff for guys who crave power, like nerd raging about in game politics and going for conquest, base building, and large scale military battles. With all these options for play at your disposal, who cares if someone who doesn't want to invest in any of these and just wants to be a psychopathic manchild complains that the game won't let them do what they want?

As for "work them to advantage", well you always get the possibility but part of the issue is resolved by patching the exploits that are becoming problematic (and admittedly sometimes ya just don't see one till it happens) and heading off some of the more obvious or easily broken ones ahead of time. Just because some person can use some obscure aspect of a system their advantage is not enough of an argument to say the system itself is completely broken right off the bat. Sure the systems are pretty broken right now but that's cause they ain't fully done and there are many things that need to be fixed beyond just an exploit or two here and there. If it is just a minor exploit then my counter argument is the same, who cares? You're never gonna get the "perfect" system but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to make the system at all.
Paddy Fitzpatrick - Rí Ruírec of Fianna, roaming bands of noble warriors!
Member of Aragon Alliance and home of bandits, privateers, and anyone looking to get away from the shackles of law.
Find us on PFO Discord
Duffy Swiftshadow
Bringslite of Oz
What I am saying here is that like many things that could be fun or perhaps useful working systems often get shot down "because they may cause frustrations" or "there may be ways to work them to advantage". As long as the advantages are not game breakers and the frustrations are normal universal frustrations, I really see no sense in dismissing them. It has crippled ideas and discussion around here for years now and I know that I have probably helped with that many times.

That's the thing, if we can say that X allows Y that is typically a 'bad' outcome, we're being polite, I assure you beyond a shadow of a doubt at least I will use every system to my legitimate advantage in any way shape or form that is not mechanically prohibited, not a bug/cheat, or blatantly banned by the devs. Couple of people apparently already strongly dislike me for doing so a few times; that is likely to keep happening for me and others without strongly defined mechanics governing things. Those that join us later will have no issues taking advantage of what I would consider loopholes and as the population gets bigger and bigger things that aren't hard mechanics will quickly become unmanageable.

Everything has a ripple effect. Just in the example we've been talking about: a full faction supported character that can come and go between safe zones is effectively invincible (not in the sense of character can't die, in the sense of nothing can stop them). Even if they are taking rep hits and losing support temporarily, you ultimately can't have any sort of longterm effect on the character. Killing/blackballing a character is really only a punishment if they lose something significant or can't get something they need, in the scenarios we outlined so far you can't. It's a tricky scenario. Now multiply that 'problem' player by some not insignificant portion of the population and it can easily turn into a 'problem'.

Now I'm not saying their aren't some good ideas in there regardless, just that we may need to go a few steps beyond the basic premise to plug any potential holes that could be used to a not insignificant advantage.
Midnight
Bringslite of Oz
Midnight
Bringslite of Oz
Part of the thing that was originally aimed for was "open" PVP from which there was no total escape. We have seen enough negative comments about that to know that it is a major deal breaker for a significant % of possible players.

If you have safe havens, you will give people who deserve to be killed a place to retreat to after committing whatever "atrocities" their opponents want to punish them for. This removes the consequences of "meaningful choices".

Note, the things someone might want to kill me for could be as simple as harvesting in (or even setting foot in) their claimed territory. If I can disregard your rules or claims until you finally notice me, and THEN play in a safe haven until things cool down, you are going to feel quite frustrated. Especially as I rotate through each of my characters to repeat the same behavior.

Not going to argue that would be pretty frustrating and all those things would likely be hard to code against. Isn't that kind of like how things really work anyway? Those particular named character can find sanctuary in non PVP zones. but they have to stay there or take risks to leave them. The people that turn "the heat" onto someone are also the people that decide when the heat abates and if it ever does. Leaving the "safe" zones into other polities and how that plays out between those groups is also content. Besides, you will eventually run out of alts that you are willing to put on that list, but the list can be as long as is needed.

What I am saying here is that like many things that could be fun or perhaps useful working systems often get shot down "because they may cause frustrations" or "there may be ways to work them to advantage". As long as the advantages are not game breakers and the frustrations are normal universal frustrations, I really see no sense in dismissing them. It has crippled ideas and discussion around here for years now and I know that I have probably helped with that many times.

All of that is fair, and many games haves succeeded despite a lack of players being able to exert power against each other globally. But PFO is a low budget sandbox, so if it's appeal to our inner autocrat is weakened I'm not sure what it has left going for it.
He who wrestles with us strengthens our nerves and sharpens our skill. Our antagonist is our helper.
-Edmund Burke
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post