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.

Flag for PvP

plopmania
How about instead of a direct pvp switch, the pvp flag would be tied to the characters settlement. If the character is tied to a npc settlement, pvp is off. If the player belongs to a player settlement, pvp is on.

Add some stricter restrictions to prevent flip-flopping between settlements. Belonging to an npc settlement already places fairly severe restrictions the player.
Bob
plopmania
How about instead of a direct pvp switch, the pvp flag would be tied to the characters settlement. If the character is tied to a npc settlement, pvp is off. If the player belongs to a player settlement, pvp is on.

Add some stricter restrictions to prevent flip-flopping between settlements. Belonging to an npc settlement already places fairly severe restrictions the player.

That's in many ways what we intended to do when we first started moving toward a more Opt-In PvP feel. In particular, we were heading towards what you can think of as Implicit Opt-In, where Flag for PvP would instead be Explicit Opt-In. Our original thought was that we'd largely protect players from PvP when they were first created near Thornkeep, but then taking certain actions (going to more dangerous hexes, joining companies, eventually joining factions) would steadily open the player up to more and more PvP, because those actions implied a willingness to PvP.

What we found was that a lot of prospective players are so PvP-averse that they really don't like the risk of accidentally opening themselves up to PvP when they didn't fully realize that was a consequence of their action. No matter how many warnings we throw in, those warnings can be missed for any number of reasons, so those players really want to have to explicitly say they're open to PvP before it can happen to them.

That said, we could certainly mix the two and say that you can't join a company unless you're flagged for PvP, or perhaps you can't join a player settlement company unless flagged and companies can't join player settlements unless all their members are flagged. That way every player would have explicitly accepted PvP before joining a player settlement.

The big question there is whether or not that's saying you really can't play this game unless you eventually flag for PvP. We've generally been saying that you can't really play Pathfinder Online unless you eventually join a player settlement, but we've also always assumed there'll be at least one major player settlement that will take in any non-toxic player, so we haven't considered that to be a roadblock for anyone (except for toxic players, where that's a feature, not a bug).

We've also found that most players enjoy the game a whole lot more when they join a player settlement, possibly to the point that saying you can't join a player settlement unless you flag for PvP means you won't have fun unless you flag for PvP. Not a great marketing message for PvP-averse players unless we add ways for them to band together in similarly-fun groups.
Bob
Kenton Stone
There are areas of the map that are set to low security for a reason, there are rare resources found only there and the escalations spawn there, If you are unwilling to risk anything you should gain nothing.

The tricky part there is figuring out exactly what content/interactions we can block PvP-averse players from without them very reasonably concluding that they can't really play the game without eventually flagging for PvP. Gatherers certainly have lots of valuable things to gather without ever gathering T3 resources, so maybe that's an acceptable line. Or maybe it's important that they can usually gather in monster hexes, but can accept being blocked from doing so while other players are actively defending some kind of temporary explicit claim to the T3 resources there. For escalations, it's hard to imagine PvE adventurers accepting that they can't go after escalations at all, but again they might accept that they can be temporarily blocked from doing so in particular places, as long as they're pretty sure there'll always be somewhere they can go to tackle an escalation safely.

Kenton Stone
We just "recently" got the ability to set security on hexes we control. Now that is being tossed out as now there will be a new "class" of scavenger able to move indiscriminately around the map with no ability to stop them from doing as they please in territory you "control".

Yes, figuring out a way for Security Settings to interact meaningfully with PvP flags is an interesting challenge, but we'd like to keep them in some form. We also don't necessarily want to say that you can't somewhat control gathering/adventuring in your territory, though we're hoping there's a middle ground that provides meaningful and consequential control without completely blocking PvP-averse players from your lands.

Kenton Stone
If you are unwilling to risk PVP at any level you should not have access to any T3 Mats, Enchanting Mats, or Victory markers. If you want them you will have to trade for them or buy them.

As mentioned/implied above, I'm not 100% convinced that you should have to risk PvP to ever gather/loot T3/Enchanting mats, though you're absolutely correct that those resources could always be traded for, and I suspect there's a middle ground to be found on those items. Victory Markers, on the other hand, are something I could more easily see not being granted at all unless you're flagged for PvP. After all, their only use is for crafting items used in territorial control.
Bob
Bringslite
However, I have not seen anything about this that would either encourage new PVP fan players or incentivize it. Just frustrating interactions in the future. Why not trust your Security Settings mechanic, educate possible new players better about it, encourage more fun PVP(loot-n-stuff))<which reread shows you are somewhat, my bad> to get some of those people as well? No one wants Kill Fest but no one wants Care Bear Sanctuary either. You can't really have all from both sides of this old dilemma. Just a better measure from both.

The short answer is that too many prospective players, particularly the ones we get to sit down for demos at cons, ask almost immediately about PvP and make clear that they won't play if there's any risk they'll get killed by another player, or if they have to restrict their gameplay severely in order to avoid even the slightest such risk. When it comes right down to it, you can't fight someone who's not playing the game at all, but you might eventually get to fight someone who gets comfortable with the idea after playing for a while, or maybe you can fight their friend who joined later.

And yes, we do want to add more features over time that will incentivize PvP-averse players to give it a try under controlled circumstances, and to attract more PvP-oriented players in the first place. But initially, it's just really sad to see players walk away purely because there's a technical/theoretical risk of getting killed in PvP, when the reality is that it probably won't happen to them at all, at least at the moment. With a few exceptions, much of the gameworld currently operates as though players can decide whether or not to flag for PvP, at least if they get to know the safer parts of the world, the safer times to play, and/or find the right people to play with. Flag for PvP layers a technical guarantee on top of that, though we recognize the need for some balancing features to make sure the good aspects of the PvP that is happening continue to add flavor to the world.
Bringslite
Thanks, Bob. I can see your reasoning here. When extreme attitudes are mixed in a game, nothing is going to please every attitude.

I hope that you can figure some type of workable benefit to "wanting" to flag up so that you get some benefits, like a 5-10% skill boost or something like that. Encumbrance, speed, skills, etc… Maybe even xp?
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Stilachio Thrax
Bob, have you considered revisiting the consequences of PVP? Why I ask is that I recently tried getting a former squadron mate from Star Wars Galaxies to give the game a spin. This was someone who PVPed extensively in SWG (space, not ground). His reaction to how PVP here works was "if I lose, my gear takes damage and everything I was carrying is likely gone. If there is a drawn out, somewhat even battle, I'd likely have no gear left." When I confirmed that, he said "No, thanks." This isn't someone who dislikes PVP, just someone who doesn't want to be taxed and punished for providing content to other players.

To an extent, I agree with him. Star Wars Galaxies originally had significant decay to gear when you were killed in PVP. As a result, no one used their best gear. And once people realized how crappy PVP could be when using subpar gear, no one really PVPed. SOE eventually changed things so there was no more decay from PVP deaths, and PVP did pick up as a result. I know people want to avoid zerging but when you are PVPing, you are asking other players to be your content. I think it is worthwhile to entice them to be that content, rather than penalize them for essentially doing you a favor.
Virtus et Honor

Steward of Ozem's Vigil, Lord Commander of the Argyraspides Iomedais
Bob
Bringslite
I hope that you can figure some type of workable benefit to "wanting" to flag up so that you get some benefits, like a 5-10% skill boost or something like that. Encumbrance, speed, skills, etc… Maybe even xp?

Possibly, though it's amazing how easy it is to start thinking of those boosts as essential, and then to feel "nerfed" when you're not flagged for PvP. Still, there may be some boosts that don't feel like too big of a sacrifice compared to risking PvP, but are enticing enough to get someone to flag for PvP on occasion.
Bob
Stilachio Thrax
Bob, have you considered revisiting the consequences of PVP? Why I ask is that I recently tried getting a former squadron mate from Star Wars Galaxies to give the game a spin. This was someone who PVPed extensively in SWG (space, not ground). His reaction to how PVP here works was "if I lose, my gear takes damage and everything I was carrying is likely gone. If there is a drawn out, somewhat even battle, I'd likely have no gear left." When I confirmed that, he said "No, thanks." This isn't someone who dislikes PVP, just someone who doesn't want to be taxed and punished for providing content to other players.

To an extent, I agree with him. Star Wars Galaxies originally had significant decay to gear when you were killed in PVP. As a result, no one used their best gear. And once people realized how crappy PVP could be when using subpar gear, no one really PVPed. SOE eventually changed things so there was no more decay from PVP deaths, and PVP did pick up as a result. I know people want to avoid zerging but when you are PVPing, you are asking other players to be your content. I think it is worthwhile to entice them to be that content, rather than penalize them for essentially doing you a favor.

That's an interesting point. The tough part for us is how much of our design is dependent on equipment churn. Changing that up would take a lot of thought, and probably require rebalancing multiple systems.

That said, we have occasionally talked about some kind of dueling system, where players could participate in PvP combat primarily for the fun of it, or possibly for rewards that only really mattered to those participating in dueling. Since it would be intended to be relatively consequence free in terms of the other game systems, we wouldn't necessarily need to care about equipment damage or inventory loss.
Bringslite
Bob
Bringslite
I hope that you can figure some type of workable benefit to "wanting" to flag up so that you get some benefits, like a 5-10% skill boost or something like that. Encumbrance, speed, skills, etc… Maybe even xp?

Possibly, though it's amazing how easy it is to start thinking of those boosts as essential, and then to feel "nerfed" when you're not flagged for PvP. Still, there may be some boosts that don't feel like too big of a sacrifice compared to risking PvP, but are enticing enough to get someone to flag for PvP on occasion.

Not a huge fan of PVP so I only argue these things because they are important to an untapped, non enticed, valuable market segment. I do want to see more players around even if some of them are PVPer's.

I also enjoy the sense of danger keeping me on my toes. That isn't everyone's cup of tea. BUT you have a territory Control game here and you are nerfing the heck out of those player's agency to control that territory. Restricting the power to PVP "intruders" or "contest" resource "trespassers" and/or resource "protectors" is like a punch in the Pride Glands.

IMO, you could mitigate that a bit by making it hurt less. If the direction is simply sliding toward a non (or little) PVP game and catering mostly to that style then so be it. Seems like a great deal of content is being eliminated though. I truly do hope it works out.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Bringslite
Bob
Stilachio Thrax
Bob, have you considered revisiting the consequences of PVP? Why I ask is that I recently tried getting a former squadron mate from Star Wars Galaxies to give the game a spin. This was someone who PVPed extensively in SWG (space, not ground). His reaction to how PVP here works was "if I lose, my gear takes damage and everything I was carrying is likely gone. If there is a drawn out, somewhat even battle, I'd likely have no gear left." When I confirmed that, he said "No, thanks." This isn't someone who dislikes PVP, just someone who doesn't want to be taxed and punished for providing content to other players.

To an extent, I agree with him. Star Wars Galaxies originally had significant decay to gear when you were killed in PVP. As a result, no one used their best gear. And once people realized how crappy PVP could be when using subpar gear, no one really PVPed. SOE eventually changed things so there was no more decay from PVP deaths, and PVP did pick up as a result. I know people want to avoid zerging but when you are PVPing, you are asking other players to be your content. I think it is worthwhile to entice them to be that content, rather than penalize them for essentially doing you a favor.

That's an interesting point. The tough part for us is how much of our design is dependent on equipment churn. Changing that up would take a lot of thought, and probably require rebalancing multiple systems.

That said, we have occasionally talked about some kind of dueling system, where players could participate in PvP combat primarily for the fun of it, or possibly for rewards that only really mattered to those participating in dueling. Since it would be intended to be relatively consequence free in terms of the other game systems, we wouldn't necessarily need to care about equipment damage or inventory loss.
Part of the problem is the expense of the gear, time wise. T3 gear taking less time to craft would likely mitigate a great deal of its cost/concerns in both coin fears and ability to replace said gear.

Edit: I feel like it would be more playable (game wise) if a War Golem (Devastator Class) took 1 monthto craft and a T3 suit of armor/robes took 10-15 days.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post