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

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.
@Bob
As things are right now most equipment churn is from PVE and especially New Player PVE, not from PVP. This will only increase as more players join so there may be little to gain towards equipment churn even if PVP does increase as pop increases.

Here is a radical idea, make what you will of it. What if death by other players does not wear on gear?
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Bob
Bringslite
As things are right now most equipment churn is from PVE and especially New Player PVE, not from PVP. This will only increase as more players join so there may be little to gain towards equipment churn even if PVP does increase as pop increases.

True, though that's largely because there's so little PvP happening. On the rare occasions when PvP does occur, equipment certainly gets damaged more quickly than it typically does during PvE.

In general, there's not nearly as much churn as was originally intended. In large part that's because there's not as high a percentage of time spent in PvP as we'd planned, but it's also partially because we'd intended for there to be more time-pressure on PvE, and thus more risk-taking. You saw a bit of that during the race to be first to complete the Nhur Athemon Sequences, and it sure seemed like gear churn picked up as part of that.

On the other hand, that level of gear churn was supposed to result in characters mostly running around in T2 gear, and we might be better off target a churn/replacement balance that feels a bit more like the game's economy does today, where it takes some effort and care to stay equipped with T3 gear, but it's feasible to get your equipment replaced as it wears out.

Bringslite
Here is a radical idea, make what you will of it. What if death by other players does not wear on gear?

Could be done, though right now gear damage is a pretty central factor in determining winners and losers in extended PvP battles. Die too many times and you've got to go re-equip before returning to the fight. Without that, we'd really need to look at some of the other features we've long intended to add, like increasing respawn delays and limiting shrine access, to make each death mean more than just another 60-second run back into battle.
NightmareSr
Bringslite
Bottom line is that more players running around will put life into the game short term. Much PR work will be needed to turn what the Internetz thinks PfO is though.
So maybe a PR campaign should be attempted before putting a "Superman is my body guard" switch?
- Wandering gatherer (NightmareSr#2669 on discord)
Bob
NightmareSr
I might be completely wrong, but seems like opting out of anything in a true sandbox games sort of ruins the idea of a sandbox doesn't it?
Can I "Opt-out" of being attacked by ninjas until I am in T3 gear? smile

There's definitely some truth to that, and at a certain point letting players opt-out from being affected at all by the actions of other players would be in opposition to the idea of an MMO, much less a sandbox.

On the other hand, you actually can, to a surprising degree, opt-out of being attacked by ninjas at all, simply by avoiding them. Even if they were patrolling, which we still hope to get working, the idea there is to just mean that you'd have to pay a little extra attention to run through a hex they'd invaded, and that maybe you wouldn't be able to gather safely in that hex while they're running around. But once you've seen the ninjas on your map, it's almost always up to you whether or not you fight them. There are consequences to not fighting them, like not being able to gather from a nearby node, or having to go several hexes a way to find an escalation you can handle, but you still have loads of other options to pursue at that moment, and you can go back to that hex when the ninjas are gone. I can practically guarantee you that you can play just about every aspect of Pathfinder Online, with the exception of the few things directly attached to fighting ninjas, without ever being killed by a ninja. Honestly, you could probably play the game super-conservatively and avoid ever being killed by a mob, while still eventually working your way through the vast majority of the game's content.

The difference with PvP is that once another player sees you, there's a good chance they, or their friends that you haven't seen yet, can catch you and kill you. To truly avoid PvP, a player has to stick to only High Security hexes or above and never join a company, much less a settlement, at which point we're really admitting they can't play much of the game without risking some PvP. We want to give those players access to more of the game without risking PvP, but don't intend to make that a consequence-free choice. Crowdforging is how we figure out which consequences will strike the right balance.
Bob
NightmareSr
Bringslite
Bottom line is that more players running around will put life into the game short term. Much PR work will be needed to turn what the Internetz thinks PfO is though.
So maybe a PR campaign should be attempted before putting a "Superman is my body guard" switch?
Sadly, I don't think PR will do the trick. We just run into a lot of potential customers who won't play the game at all if there's any risk of ever being killed by another player. That sentiment has only gotten stronger as we've transitioned to an official Paizo product, since our even-more-obvious-than-it-already-was natural audience is Pathfinder players.

We don't want to up-end the whole game to make room for PvP-averse players, but there's a really meaty game here that many of them would enjoy but for the risk of PvP. Ideally, every player is still content for every other player in an important sense, so these new players still make the game world richer for everybody, they just won't be content in the sense of being potential PvP targets.
Bringslite
Bob
NightmareSr
Bringslite
Bottom line is that more players running around will put life into the game short term. Much PR work will be needed to turn what the Internetz thinks PfO is though.
So maybe a PR campaign should be attempted before putting a "Superman is my body guard" switch?
Sadly, I don't think PR will do the trick. We just run into a lot of potential customers who won't play the game at all if there's any risk of ever being killed by another player. That sentiment has only gotten stronger as we've transitioned to an official Paizo product, since our even-more-obvious-than-it-already-was natural audience is Pathfinder players.

We don't want to up-end the whole game to make room for PvP-averse players, but there's a really meaty game here that many of them would enjoy but for the risk of PvP. Ideally, every player is still content for every other player in an important sense, so these new players still make the game world richer for everybody, they just won't be content in the sense of being potential PvP targets.
Was going to chime in that Anti PVP players appear to be the least likely type to compromise about unavoidable combat PVP situations. Bob beat me to that. smile
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Bob
Smitty
So this opt in PvP thread says you are wanting to turn off the only token/carrot you gave pro PvP players over the last few years- escalation hexes being low security and rep hits in medium…… and make things official by saying that this is an opt in PvP game..

Kind of, though we do still want to say that PvP is hugely important to the territorial control aspect of the game, if not the deciding factor. If nothing else, by not opting in to PvP, you make it difficult, or even impossible, to meaningfully participate in that part of the game. Because that aspect of the game is so tightly connected to PvP, and pretty much needs to be, we have no problem requiring players to opt in to PvP to participate in it. In that sense, you don't have any choice but to opt in if you want to fully play every single aspect of the game.

Of course, even the other aspects of the game have tendrils into the territorial control game. Fortunately, those connections are more indirect, and we think there are balanced ways players could participate in them without opting in. There should be reasonable consequences for opting out, and/or some reasonable limits that those willing to opt in can enforce without actually killing those who opt out, but players could quite reasonably choose to opt out of PvP and still participate meaningfully and relatively completely in those aspects.
Maxen
I’ll throw my $0.02 worth of suggestions into the ring.

Shield hexes - PvP free zone. New players can travel to each edge of the map sticking to shield hexes. You can gather low level mats and fight low level monsters. Zero risk of PvP, but minimal reward as well.

Non-shield hexes - PvP is controlled by the security level with tweaks. High security = no PvP, but needs to come at high cost to the hex owner. Medium security = conditional PvP. You actions determine your PvP flag. Just passing through? No risk. But stopping to kill monsters or harvest nodes activates your PvP flag for a short period of time. Low security = open PvP. But holdings are raidable without a feud (with reasonable rules in place, i.e. no company can raid an individual hex more than once per day.) After all, there are only a few guards about to defend it.

Broken, Home, and Meteor hexes - Opt in PvP. Have a countdown timer at the border that indicates it’s an open PvP zone. Enter at your own risk.

Settlement Core 6 hexes - Automatic high security hexes. This gives new players who join settlements a playground close to home before venturing into the deep end of the sandbox.

Feuds - Trumps all hex security levels. If you are in a feuding company, you are fair game. Also, one hour timer on dropping from a company and adding to a new one, so no dropping/switching companies to avoid feud PvP.

I also support the notion that the defender in a PvP battle didn’t necessarily ask for it and therefore should not be fully penalized. Perhaps the player who lands the first blow is flagged as the agressor. If the agressor defeats the defender, the agressor gets 25% of the defender’s loot, but the defender suffers no durability loss. If the agressor loses, they suffer the standard durability loss and lose 25% of their carried goods to the defender. Would make it more interesting if threading was in place and there was a real chance to lose a weapon or set of armor too.

Everyone should be able to adventure and have fun, but this isn’t Farmville.
harneloot
Bob
We don't want to up-end the whole game to make room for PvP-averse players, but there's a really meaty game here that many of them would enjoy but for the risk of PvP. Ideally, every player is still content for every other player in an important sense, so these new players still make the game world richer for everybody, they just won't be content in the sense of being potential PvP targets.

Ummm…don't mean to be rude but PFO is NOT a fabulous on-line co-op RPG by any stretch of the imagination. The meat of this game lies in the open sandbox nature of it. You start allowing people to opt out (even more than they already can with High Sec hexes) and all you will have left is tasteless & overly chewy grizzle.

Some good suggestions/ideas Maxen….
Xyzzy - gatherer, yeoman archer, swamp monster.
Bringslite
@Bob

So, unless I am mistaken, there is a positive thing for PVPers (which has been asked for) inside all of this.

Holding Vault contents are going to be more vulnerable. Perhaps that means that Raiding will be more interesting and rewarding. Though I suspect that active players will just leave those vaults much more empty.
Could we get some info on this? What does "More Vulnerable" mean? Will this vulnerability include Holding Vaults of inactive players? Lots of goodies are likely out there abandoned.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post