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

Bob
harneloot
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.

Didn't mean to imply that Pathfinder Online is an all-around meaty co-op RPG, just that some of the PvE pieces have enough meat on them (gathering, crafting, feat training, keyword matching, PvE combat tactics…smile that a person interested in one of those areas could keep busy and challenged for a good long time. If we can let people in who otherwise wouldn't play the game at all, and do so in a way that enriches the experience for the players who are willing/excited to PvP, then it's a shame to turn those players away unnecessarily.

At the end of the day, as a PvP-enthusiast, is it better to run into 5 players, 2 of whom are voluntarily and with full knowledge of the consequences flagged for PvP, or 1 player, who's flagged for PvP because that's the only option and they may or may not really be open to it? If the 3 non-PvP players would actually damage the experience for PvPers, then let's figure out what exactly would cause that damage and try to find ways to make it work. Better yet, let's find ways that those players make the sandbox more interesting for PvPers, even if they're not doing so as grudging victims.
Bob
Bringslite
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.

Yes, we've always planned that vaults outside of NPC settlements would be vulnerable. I believe the original plan was that all vaults in a player settlement would be turned over to the new owners whenever a player settlement was destroyed/conquered, and part of the reason for making it take so long to defeat a settlement was to provide time to grab your belongings and flee.

We haven't worked out the exact details for what we'd do in the short-term, but we do think that implementing some aspects of this would be a good counter-balance to adding Flag for PvP. One possibility we were considering was indeed saying that raiders would get a percentage of all the vaults at a holding, including personal and company vaults, rather than just a percentage of the bulk goods in the holding upkeep vault.

Of course, adding that vulnerability would also be a big incentive to not keep anything in those vaults, so the end result could be that holdings wind up with nothing in them other than the bare minimum of bulk resources anyway. To actually make this interesting, we might need some added incentives to storing things in holding vaults. At least there's already some incentive to keep spare ammo out in the wilderness so you don't always have to run back to town, but we might need a bit more than that.
Bringslite
@Bob

Great. Thx, Bob. Perhaps let us sell Bulk right from Holdings as incentive to keep stuff in them?

Is it planned that we'll be able to tell a "PVP flagged" character from a non flagged one, still be able to differentiate allies, etc… ? Like a new color on the mini map or such?
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
malmuerta
Sorry if this has been asked and answered somewhere earlier in this thread, but I did not catch it:
What will be the minimum time to switch a character back and forth from PvP-Flagged and Not PvP-Flagged?
For holding takeover raids we give two days notice. I would hate to see a world full of people opting out all time, only to opt in when the see a raid coming up. What about a one week (or one month?) window before any switch will take place? That will force those that want to hold territory to commit to being open to PvP for significant chunks of time.
NightmareSr
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, ….

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.
I see your point, even if triggering a group of nasty AI mobs, a player can out run them, whereas a low player can not out run a higher level player.
I was exaggerating to convey a point really, I just love the open sandbox style of the game and worry that adding opt-out options would go against that core basis of this game.
- Wandering gatherer (NightmareSr#2669 on discord)
NightmareSr
malmuerta
Sorry if this has been asked and answered somewhere earlier in this thread, but I did not catch it:
What will be the minimum time to switch a character back and forth from PvP-Flagged and Not PvP-Flagged?
For holding takeover raids we give two days notice. I would hate to see a world full of people opting out all time, only to opt in when the see a raid coming up. What about a one week (or one month?) window before any switch will take place? That will force those that want to hold territory to commit to being open to PvP for significant chunks of time.
Maybe let people switch to PvP active immediately but can't switch back to non-PvP for a week or month? I think that would be a good mechanic IMO.
- Wandering gatherer (NightmareSr#2669 on discord)
NightmareSr
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.
I would agree you have a better idea of how the PvP-averse players feel than I do. But I still think something could be done to appease these players and still make the world "player controlled" and not "PFO controlled".
- Player settlements could and do exist to be neutral and avoid PvP. Some, coughKPcough, take a stance of Nonaggression being among their core values. Players that do not want to be attack could just join up with others and avoid PvP by diplomacy? I for one do not enjoy PvP, mainly cause I am no good at it and like to have lots of in game items. Which is mainly why I play the game like I do and party up with whoever wants or needs help, and do a lot to stay out of strife.
- Maybe Thornguards could be hired like mules from any settlement to be bodyguards for those "PvP-averse" players and even if someone attacked a guarded player the guards would give the victim player a chance to flee. This would add in a manageable cost to being protected from PvP and still allow more player decisions than just a switch.

Really there should be more options and I like the crowdforging and discussions as long as we can get some more ideas in here and not too much arguing, we should be able to find a good middle ground.
- Wandering gatherer (NightmareSr#2669 on discord)
Bringslite
For it to work right, the game needs to be structured in a way that it is complete for all players whether they are flagged for PVP or not. The two extremes need to be able to "function" at least as a whole game.

As for loss of complete Territory control (i.e. open game on players you see in your hexes and any T3 hexes) I really like the idea of some kind of "auto tribute" or tithe if player "owners" can meet some sort of control minimums for hexes. High Sec should not get tribute, Medium Sec should get a medium tribute, Low Sec should get top tribute from players that harvest there. As long as you can meet the reqs that prove you are Boss there. Other ideas might work as well.

#1. Let's try and keep in mind that the majority of the PVP that was originally intended was supposed to be territory related and in the mode of struggling over taking and losing territory.
#2. Some PVP was expected in the form of intercepting resource movement and gathering.
#3. Finally some was expected as "just for fun" (which IMO is the most detested by anti-PVPers, after #2) and has always been the least desired to get very prominent. Correct if I'm wrong but I was here reading blogs from near the start.

Plainly, the original idea was for PVP to be about Territorial Conflict more than it was to be PVP all about Targets of Opportunity.

That #1 is still in here except non flagged players will not be able to aggress or defend any territory that they want. They will lose out on that deal. They will occasionally be flagging up or hiring other players to do so for them. #2 and #3 are what are getting the "real hit" here and though #2 was wanted and encouraged honestly, the least wanted of all was #3 being far the least encouraged or to become super common.

TD;LR: We aren't really losing the heart of the game with a flagging system. We may be trading some features for others but they may turn out to be more interesting.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Bob
Bringslite
Perhaps let us sell Bulk right from Holdings as incentive to keep stuff in them?

That's an interesting thought. Between the player shops and the auction house tier/upgrade restrictions, we've got the basic groundwork in for allowing limited sales at specific buildings. I don't think it would be a trivial addition, but probably not too hard to make it work. Could be worth looking into if both buyers and sellers think they'd make use of it fairly often.

Bringslite
Is it planned that we'll be able to tell a "PVP flagged" character from a non flagged one, still be able to differentiate allies, etc… ? Like a new color on the mini map or such?

Yeah, we're assuming we'll need to beef up our use of colors and tooltips on the maps. At the simplest level, unflagged wouldn't show up as red because they couldn't attack or be attacked. However, it probably needs to be obvious that someone coming toward you is flagging up, so we probably need to use a specific color (or other visual cue) for that.
Bob
malmuerta
Sorry if this has been asked and answered somewhere earlier in this thread, but I did not catch it:
What will be the minimum time to switch a character back and forth from PvP-Flagged and Not PvP-Flagged?
For holding takeover raids we give two days notice. I would hate to see a world full of people opting out all time, only to opt in when the see a raid coming up. What about a one week (or one month?) window before any switch will take place? That will force those that want to hold territory to commit to being open to PvP for significant chunks of time.

The details are definitely up for debate. Personally, I'd been thinking in terms of minutes for flagging and unflagging, because my main concerns are that flagging too quickly could lead to surprise attacks, and unflagging too quickly could lead to harassment attacks that get abandoned without penalty when attackers realize they'll lose.

One thing to keep in mind with really long delays is that they can lead to gaming the system. That's why we don't have reputation go up when you're not logged in, because we knew some people would bottom out their rep, then just play on a different character until their rep built back up. We're not 100% happy with that solution, since players can still get their rep back by parking somewhere safe and staying logged in, but it's better than nothing.

We're pretty sure a fair percentage of players are fine with the more organized PvP during PvP windows in contested territory, but aren't cool with random PvP. If the system just drives those players to have one PvP character and one non-PvP character, the end result is pretty similar to just letting players flag on and off at will.

This seems like a good opportunity to mention another idea we've been tossing around: Characters earn bonus influence (or only earn influence) when flagged for PvP. We're basically saying that the territorial control game involves PvP, and influence is basically just used for territorial control and feuds (which themselves are basically PvP), so this doesn't seem like much of a stretch. Could be a good way to incentivize flagging up as often as possible if you're willing to PvP, while not punishing players too much if they're just not willing to flag up for occasional play sessions, and completely PvP-averse players wouldn't feel like they're blocked from a part of the game they're deeply interested in. Would also be relatively easy to implement, since we're similarly blocking influence generation for Free Trial accounts.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post