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
Gross
Speaking as a non PVP gatherer owned, I think a 1 minute risk window would be better, its easy enough for me to stay alert enough that a 15 second PVP flag would not often expose me to risk, whereas a minute is so long that someone may have been in an adjacent hex and still wander in and see you flagged..

In general, we want to avoid incentivizing players to switch back and forth between flagged and unflagged. We don't want you to flag just to gather from that one node because you believe you're safe, but because you're truly willing to take the risk.

Admittedly, any incentive to flag for PvP is likely to result in some players doing so when they feel safe, like near their home settlements, only to discover they weren't as safe as they thought. That's why we'd also like to keep the incentives for flagging as irrelevant to PvP-averse players as possible, so they won't be tempted to bother, no matter how low the risk is.
Bob
Fiesta
Thats ok I suppose as long as the converse is true and if someone enters my High security hex it sets them to non-PVP until the next downtime. Any other result would show a clear PVP bias.

Just as we're avoiding flagging characters without an explicit choice, we're avoiding unflagging them without an explicit choice. However, while we haven't fully decided how security settings and PvP flags interact, the simple version would be that you can still keep a PvP flagged character from attacking anybody in your hex without an active feud or the like, since letting security settings continue to do what they already do is certainly the easiest thing to implement.
harneloot
Fiesta
harneloot
Any switching of your PvP flag should last until the next down-time at least.

No, they shouldn't be able to *wander through* either - you enter the hex, you get flagged for PvP. There should be no other rule for monster hexes than that. This should apply to any hex I set at low security and EVERY monster hex on the map (except for the monster hex near TK, and maybe the one near UC).

Thats ok I suppose as long as the converse is true and if someone enters my High security hex it sets them to non-PVP until the next downtime. Any other result would show a clear PVP bias.

Yes, the game is an open world territory control game, so it should show a PvP bias by definition. smile

If we just simply want more people running around then make the game free to play.

If you want enough people playing the game to make it feel alive & have the larger economic and political mechanics start working as intended, and have enough paying customers so the game pays for itself, then a new Unity Upgrade plus a huge change like Bob is proposing (that seriously changes the entire nature of the current sandbox pfo game) to cater to a non PvP crowd is probably the best bet (though it likely will not have the current swamp monster inhabiting it).

If you want the Tens of Thousands of paying customers around then I am not sure really how to get that done honestly….as much as it pains me to say it, maybe that bird has already flown?
Xyzzy - gatherer, yeoman archer, swamp monster.
harneloot
Bob
Fiesta
Thats ok I suppose as long as the converse is true and if someone enters my High security hex it sets them to non-PVP until the next downtime. Any other result would show a clear PVP bias.

Just as we're avoiding flagging characters without an explicit choice, we're avoiding unflagging them without an explicit choice. However, while we haven't fully decided how security settings and PvP flags interact, the simple version would be that you can still keep a PvP flagged character from attacking anybody in your hex without an active feud or the like, since letting security settings continue to do what they already do is certainly the easiest thing to implement.

So High Security trumps PvP flags but Low Security does not?

I want PFO to succeed - I guess that is probably obviously true for all of us who are still around….I do not know if I want to play the game that it seems like BOb et al is proposing it become however.

Maybe some feel like *anything is better than what is going on now* but I am not sure I am convinced of that. I have been holding on partly becasue of nostalgia, partly becasue of all the time and money already invested in the game, and partly becasue I have always hoped PFO would one day become the game that was promised when I pledged for it on the Kickstarter. So far the things I have heard proposed as the new/next direction for PFO do not sound like it will be moving the game closer to what was originally promised. Maybe Bob's vision will make it a more successful game, maybe it won't, but one thing that IS true is that all of our playing time is limited by real life…choices need to be made about how we spend our precious *gaming time* and I am so far not all all jazzed about the game PFO might become at the end of the new road-map. This is fine I guess - I want PFO to succeed more than I want to keep wanting to play whatever game it turns into if that makes any sense.
Xyzzy - gatherer, yeoman archer, swamp monster.
Bringslite
This is the greatest problem that challenges all sandboxes or even all "niche" Crowdfunded Open World games. Trying to figure out how to satisfy two extreme playstyles enough to survive as a functioning, playable, successful endeavor.

If PfO can pull it off, it will be one of very few (maybe the only one) to do so.

To me it seems the problem isn't as much "why won't more players engage in PVP games"? Rather, "why isn't PVP more attractive, within PfO, to more players"?

Because there are way too many "sticks" (for enthusiasts AND Anti PVPers) and any "carrots" feel/seem as intangible as possible.

Edit: Almost forgot. We have to remember that it seems like both things (some escape from unwanted PVP and some more interesting Territory PVP) are important and that Paizo realizes that (hopefully). The hard thing is still trying to do it all at the same time. Right now we need (want?) more bodies running around in-game.
Virtute et Armis
-Unknown
Bob
harneloot
Bob
Just as we're avoiding flagging characters without an explicit choice, we're avoiding unflagging them without an explicit choice. However, while we haven't fully decided how security settings and PvP flags interact, the simple version would be that you can still keep a PvP flagged character from attacking anybody in your hex without an active feud or the like, since letting security settings continue to do what they already do is certainly the easiest thing to implement.

So High Security trumps PvP flags but Low Security does not?

What I described is just the simplest answer, if we do no other work to mitigate the downsides of adding the Flag for PvP system. We're using this discussion to decide what mitigations are essential, and the security settings are definitely part of that discussion. Low Security in particular seems to lose out without any additional changes, so it's likely we'll need to make some tweaks related to it.

In terms of trumping the PvP flags, it's not that current version of High Security would trump flagging for PvP. As currently proposed, flagging for PvP doesn't mean "I'm open for even PvP all the time, whether feuded or not, regardless of the security setting." Instead, it means "I'm open to PvP as defined by the existing PvP rules."

In other words, we wouldn't be adding a new Flagged for PvP state to the game that opens you to more PvP than before. Instead, we'd be adding a new Unflagged for PvP state that closes you off from PvP, and that would be the default state until a character undoes it by flagging for PvP. I suppose calling the system Flag for PvP makes it a bit confusing, since it sounds like we're adding the flagged state, implying that's a new state with new rules. It would probably be more accurate to call the new system Block PvP Until Flagged, or something like that, focusing on blocking PvP as the new state.

It's also possible that we could include an additional state, something like Flagged for Open PvP, that did mean "I'll fight anyone anywhere," or maybe "I'll fight any non-ally anywhere." Such a setting would be intended to override any security setting restrictions, but wouldn't mean much until running into other players who were similarly flagged.
Harad Navar
After playing the Kingmaker arc in TT it was clear that the River Kingdoms was a wild and dangerous place. I think that having specific areas of PFO that are more "dangerous" than others make a valid link between PFO and the Kingmaker story. I think that turning expanding escalations back on would help with that "dangerous" feeling. But this is a PVP thread.
  • I think that PVP is also a valid way of making PFO feel more dangerous, even if I am not good at that.
  • I think making gathering in monster and monster home hexes only possible when PVP flagged is a valid way to make the game feel more dangerous.
  • As long as there is enough open (unclaimed) gathering hexes it might be reasonable to require a PVP flag to gather in claimed hexes if and only if the player has to actually agree to being flagged PVP before any gathering can be done, and if and only if the company/settlement which owns the holdings/outpost in that claimed hex sets a game flag turning this option on.
  • I do not think that it is reasonable to require players entering/passing through a claimed hex without gathering to be flagged as PVP.
  • Knowledge can explain the darkness, but it is not a light.
    malmuerta
    +1 on all bullet points.

    Harad Navar
    After playing the Kingmaker arc in TT it was clear that the River Kingdoms was a wild and dangerous place. I think that having specific areas of PFO that are more "dangerous" than others make a valid link between PFO and the Kingmaker story. I think that turning expanding escalations back on would help with that "dangerous" feeling. But this is a PVP thread.
  • I think that PVP is also a valid way of making PFO feel more dangerous, even if I am not good at that.
  • I think making gathering in monster and monster home hexes only possible when PVP flagged is a valid way to make the game feel more dangerous.
  • As long as there is enough open (unclaimed) gathering hexes it might be reasonable to require a PVP flag to gather in claimed hexes if and only if the player has to actually agree to being flagged PVP before any gathering can be done, and if and only if the company/settlement which owns the holdings/outpost in that claimed hex sets a game flag turning this option on.
  • I do not think that it is reasonable to require players entering/passing through a claimed hex without gathering to be flagged as PVP.
  • harneloot
    malmuerta
    +1 on all bullet points.

    Harad Navar
    After playing the Kingmaker arc in TT it was clear that the River Kingdoms was a wild and dangerous place. I think that having specific areas of PFO that are more "dangerous" than others make a valid link between PFO and the Kingmaker story. I think that turning expanding escalations back on would help with that "dangerous" feeling. But this is a PVP thread.
  • I think that PVP is also a valid way of making PFO feel more dangerous, even if I am not good at that.
  • I think making gathering in monster and monster home hexes only possible when PVP flagged is a valid way to make the game feel more dangerous.
  • As long as there is enough open (unclaimed) gathering hexes it might be reasonable to require a PVP flag to gather in claimed hexes if and only if the player has to actually agree to being flagged PVP before any gathering can be done, and if and only if the company/settlement which owns the holdings/outpost in that claimed hex sets a game flag turning this option on.
  • I do not think that it is reasonable to require players entering/passing through a claimed hex without gathering to be flagged as PVP.

  • I agree, +1 on all bullet points Except the last one.

    Lion Hexes are not short cuts to anywhere really, so there is no need to go *running through one* without being prepared to DO something in the hex (fight mobs, harvest resources, PvP) so there isn't really any reason why anyone entering a Lion hex shouldn't immediately be flagged for PvP.
    Xyzzy - gatherer, yeoman archer, swamp monster.
    Harad Navar
    harneloot
    Lion Hexes are not short cuts to anywhere really, so there is no need to go *running through one* without being prepared to DO something in the hex (fight mobs, harvest resources, PvP) so there isn't really any reason why anyone entering a Lion hex shouldn't immediately be flagged for PvP.
    I made a run through the game recently were I made a point of entering each and every game hex (except Fort Inevitable future hexes). I was collecting data for the Atlas, but someone could just be wanting to see what is there.

    It occurs to me that a true bandit settlement would attack anyone, flagged or not, because they are bandits. Would true bandits care about reputation loss if it would not affect their use of their own settlement (or did I missed a game mechanic to the contrary)?
    Knowledge can explain the darkness, but it is not a light.
     
    You must be logged into an enrolled account to post