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.

Fun With Content

Rynnik
Bob
Rynnik
I can't stand MMOs with pvp opt in flags as it destroys the only truly interesting element of a virtual world, the unpredictable interaction with other players.
We haven't completely finalized the exact way Flag for PvP would work, and it's probably not worth a deep-dive until we're closer to working on it, but a couple quick points that might make you feel better about it.

First, one option we've been talking about is the ability to permanently flag yourself for PvP, so for those who do enjoy that unpredictability, it's not something you'd necessarily have to do manually each time you log in or every time you want to start a fight.

Second, we do still plan on putting restrictions on players who don't flag for PvP, though we haven't decided on the exact restrictions. The more an action or its benefits feels connected to Territorial PvP or risky behaviors, the more likely that we'll require explicitly flagging for PvP. In particular, gathering/looting in unfriendly territory is likely to require flagging for PvP. We may also restrict influence based on being flagged, since influence is used to claim territory and start feuds. This all still requires a lot more thought, don't take any of it as written, but do know that any unflagged character you run into will be restricting themselves in some way in order to avoid PvP.

At its core, the real question is whether you'd rather run into X other characters each session, with Y of them unflagged, or X - Y (or less) characters each session. The ability to remain unflagged really is focused on those players who won't play the game at all if there's any risk of PvP, and we'd like to make it possible for those players to enjoy a reasonably-complete form of the game wherever doing so doesn't interfere with the enjoyment of those players more willing to engage in PvP. Where it does interfere, we'll put in the necessary restrictions.

Sounds good, Bob. We will see what plays out and what actually does get implemented. Appropriate restrictions to characters opting out of the game world is a good way to approach the problem.

BlackMoria
Flari-Merchant
Is coming across a character pulling a mule along and killing the character and mule to see whats in there a "random" gank?
Is coming across a character alone and killing her to see what is in backpack inventory a "random" gank?

Is it just the word "gank" that is the problem?

To your first question - yes
To your second question - yes

Modify the first and second question as follows.

Is coming across a character 'of a company that my company is feuding' pulling a mule along and killing the character and mule to see whats in there a "random" gank?
Answer - No

Is coming across a character alone of a company that my company is feuding and killing her to see what is in backpack inventory a "random" gank?
Answer - No

Why the difference - in your questions, the target is anyone, anywhere and therefore, meets the criteria of 'random'.
In my modifications of your questions, it isn't random. It is specific targeting and fully within the bounds of the feud system and therefore is not, by definition, random.

So, let's look at another situation.
Xyzzy has declared the swamp monster hex his territory. Most players know that. He has proclaimed in forum posts and more than a few times in General Chat.
Another player goes into the swamp monster hex and gets killed by Xyzzy. Was this a random gank? The answer is NO. Anyone who as spend some time in game knows about his claim. He has proclaimed it his territory and has proclaimed the consequences of going into there. So, someone getting killed by Xyzzy in the swamp is a known outcome of trespass into the territory he has proclaimed as his. So, not random. Expected.

Random is fine unless you limiting PFO to only be a game for 'lawful' and making sure only 'good' play the game. It is supposed to be a diverse universe. Things get boring and people leave the game if only one player type is attracted to the game.

If you leave your 'safe space' you should be aware of the expected chance to interact with a player of any alignment. It makes games like this tick.

Feuds are NOT the only eligible targets in PFO. The reputation system works and was implemented for a reason.
Not a member, representative, or supporter of Brighthaven Alliance.
Bob
Harad Navar
Suppose when a player creates a character they can choose non-PvP or PvP as an option? The non-PvP character would spawn in Fort Inevitable (which would require FI to be put into game). This would make that character under protection of the Hell Knights, making the roving bands of Hell Knight bounty hunters a more believable part of the game story.
I suspect there will always be players who change their minds and want to switch, but it wouldn't hurt to make an initial decision upfront that could be changed later.
Bob
Flari-Merchant
Is coming across a character pulling a mule along and killing the character and mule to see whats in there a "random" gank?
Is coming across a character alone and killing her to see what is in backpack inventory a "random" gank?

Is it just the word "gank" that is the problem?
Part of the problem is that you'd get different answers depending on who you're talking to. For a fair number of players, it doesn't really matter whether or not a particular kill would qualify as "ganking," they just don't want to be killed by other players unless they've specifically accepted that risk at that moment. Our goal is to let them play as much as possible, while still acknowledging that they can't do everything without flagging for PvP. Fortunately, there are a lot of activities available in Pathfinder Online that would only need reasonable restrictions to be allowed without flagging.
NightmareSr
I think it could add to new players trying the game if there was more info available to them on how often PvP actually occurs. Maybe with some published stats or just with less emphasis on the open world PvP function in the player guide. (Not to mention that guide is horribly outdated and I don't think it requires any coding from Cole to update it) smile
Might be a dumb question, but Why does there need to be a constant risk of open PvP in this game?
Could the system be simple shifted a bit to have the default be a "Challenge to PvP" request like we do trades and the target player can accept or decline, then have an "Always accept challenge flag" available and those who enable the flag get some benefit of better drop rates or extra influence generation rate? Basically can we somehow leave non-PvP alone and give a significant buff/bonus to the PvP players, or is this a case of nerf or nothing?
- Wandering gatherer (NightmareSr#2669 on discord)
– Cauchemar is a Greater Nightmare – cauchemar.pfo@gmail.com
Rynnik
NightmareSr
Might be a dumb question, but Why does there need to be a constant risk of open PvP in this game?
Because Player versus AI games are INCREDIBLY expensive and intensive to maintain. WoW taught gaming companies pretty quickly that NO MATTER how 'difficult' or intense new content was on release it would be devoured by players in less time then it took to develop that content in the first place. Thus the rise and fall of the themepark MMO. If PFO ever went straight PVE it wouldn't have a chance of competing or coming back in this game market.

Players versus Player however is an endless provision of 'free' content from a development perspective. The design and programming balance then moves to endlessly tweaking and refining of the set of rules the players interact in, a much easier and achievable set of goals for a development team. A long term model is then possible within the world the players of the game create without the content being 100% development driven.

PFO doesn't have the budget or scope to be a game sustained solely on the amazingness of its PvE, it DOES have good fundamental bones for a PvP sandbox. Open PvP is utterly critical to its survival imo.
Not a member, representative, or supporter of Brighthaven Alliance.
Flari-Merchant
Pretty much in agreement with Rynnik on this even though I am personally not a random player ganker, ever plan to be one, or really love getting ganked. When I saddle up a large load of raw mats or "crafteds" and have to move them a long way I do enjoy the feeling that I am doing something potentially dangerous.

Yeah, if I feel that way I can just opt to flag up. Why would I or the average trader do so though? That, I feel, will lead to many getting the "easy street" they "think they want" and consequently getting bored from the total lack of risk involved..

It is nice to "feel" something other than completion of a time killing chore. Besides, if I can transport valuables willy-nilly and without risk, it would really screw with any active populated economy.
Flari-Merchant
Rynnik
Random is fine unless you limiting PFO to only be a game for 'lawful' and making sure only 'good' play the game. It is supposed to be a diverse universe. Things get boring and people leave the game if only one player type is attracted to the game.

Might be very interesting and possibly even subscriber attractive if the alignments actually had some "meat" on their bones. I'm NOT talking about depictions of torture or baby killing for "evil" types. If Evil types could seek out and bust escalations of "good" NPCs and both could attract NPC guard/soldier types more representative of alignment. Spells and crafted items tied to aligment and actually system enforced, etc…

Let Evil play their natural bad side a lil bit and let Good be their more direct opposition.

Just an idea but might be a great way to make the game more exciting and open up more definition to play styles. Would be kinda unique too and might attract more TT players, if done well.
Rynnik
Flari-Merchant
Pretty much in agreement with Rynnik on this even though I am personally not a random player ganker, ever plan to be one, or really love getting ganked. When I saddle up a large load of raw mats or "crafteds" and have to move them a long way I do enjoy the feeling that I am doing something potentially dangerous.

Yeah, if I feel that way I can just opt to flag up. Why would I or the average trader do so though? That, I feel, will lead to many getting the "easy street" they "think they want" and consequently getting bored from the total lack of risk involved..

It is nice to "feel" something other than completion of a time killing chore. Besides, if I can transport valuables willy-nilly and without risk, it would really screw with any active populated economy.
This is a really good post.

Flari-Merchant
Rynnik
Random is fine unless you limiting PFO to only be a game for 'lawful' and making sure only 'good' play the game. It is supposed to be a diverse universe. Things get boring and people leave the game if only one player type is attracted to the game.

Might be very interesting and possibly even subscriber attractive if the alignments actually had some "meat" on their bones. I'm NOT talking about depictions of torture or baby killing for "evil" types. If Evil types could seek out and bust escalations of "good" NPCs and both could attract NPC guard/soldier types more representative of alignment. Spells and crafted items tied to aligment and actually system enforced, etc…

Let Evil play their natural bad side a lil bit and let Good be their more direct opposition.

Just an idea but might be a great way to make the game more exciting and open up more definition to play styles. Would be kinda unique too and might attract more TT players, if done well.
That is a cool idea 'down the rabbit hole' what that means or how it would be implemented I'm not sure, but I like the style.
Not a member, representative, or supporter of Brighthaven Alliance.
NightmareSr
nevermind
- Wandering gatherer (NightmareSr#2669 on discord)
– Cauchemar is a Greater Nightmare – cauchemar.pfo@gmail.com
Edam
Bob
Edam
The Eternal Balance
What was the original intention of the Solider and Officer skills? Maybe that intention could/should be realized?
TL&DR … I believe the original skills were relevant to a style of large scale PvP that the game moved away from a long time ago and will never go back to
Correct, the primary function of those skills was providing bonuses to Formations, a feature so far off our radar now that we have no issues with repurposing Soldier and Officer for something else instead.

Yep …

My main interest in this game was the large scale formation PvP and it was the only reason I contributed to the kickstarter. I came from EVE not pathfinder tabletop. Not 100% sure why I am still here, the game can be oddly addictive at times.

I actually really liked the original plans for PvP which basically were large scale formation PvP and faction wars between groups like the merchant faction and the bandit faction with chaotic (EVE losec) style random jumping people being severely restricted because as a play style it is too easy, too optimal, has minimal downsides.

I still think the "chaotic bandit" play style in most games is far too optimal, you can go fishing for the weekend get home hit the pub with your mates for a few hours and then after a few beers randomly log in and see who is about you can fake role-play (EVE Code for example) a reason to kill then log out again for a week. Meanwhile the defensive aspect of it all involves guarding everything 24/7 on the off chance that sometime or other this week someone might decide to attack you smile

It is somewhat sad the game evolved away from that original vision but it is what it is. I gave up years ago fighting the inevitable.
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post