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.

All posts created by BlackMoria

I am impressed. I only have one crafter at 20. The rest are still struggling through gates.
Assuming all works out well on Zog, when will this be rolled out to the Live Server?
It is as you say right now. Yet the world is empty of people. Your position is advocating for the status quo except a smaller world. The status quo is not working out all that well or we would have maintained a server population. And a smaller world may retain the current player base … or fizz and we continue to bleed people. But a smaller world is NOT going to bring new players in, which is by and large what the point of this entire thread is.

Hold onto your entrenched ideas if you must but offer some ideas more useful than a freshly repainted status quo.

Because "Come join the River Kingdoms! Now 50% Smaller!" is not a sound marketing pitch to new players. It is suicide.

You did not comment on my suggestion on an 'ante' system for solo/small gang PvP. I will quote you from an earlier post: "Well sorry, but there NEEDS to be something that MAKES OPTING IN for PVP rewarding and something you WANT to risk, as there being NO PVP is what is Killing PFO."

Ok, let's start here: My position is PvP is a chump's game. There is no rewards for me if I don't choose to be a bandit or aggressor PvPer. Those characters don't carry anything on them. You kill me, and you get the stuff I gathered or the mule I was mule running. If I kill you I get zip…zero…nada. Therefore, PvP will not be rewarding for me. The cost to reward ratio outright sucks. I am still burned by 40 hours of unrelenting PvP in one week and I had absolutely nothing to show for it. That makes PvP NOT WORTH MY TIME. That is part of the problem. Don't ignore what said I said. Address these:

1. Single character players - must choose between focusing on a PvP character or a PvE character. Trying to do both does not help at all against players like Xzzy with dedicated focused PvP characters. They will lose everytime.

2. Skewed Cost to Reward Ratio which favors bandit players. Unless the Cost to Reward Ratio is addressed, PvP will remain something that some players will actively avoid because their game time is limited and they want that limited time to be REWARDING.

3. Toxic PvP. It isn't right now, but it has been in the past as any long time player can attest and it can become toxic again in the future. That right there will keep some players from trying it. Sign up for a small scrap, get a full out war potentially. Tried that, got the t-shirt. Not interested in going down that road again.
Yeah, that attitude is sure to draw in lots of players. Seriously, that is not helpful. If the PvP adverse are going to be cut out of large parts of the game, they simply will not play… period, which leaves us exactly where we are now - with no real player base.

What about the idea of expanding the map a bit in one direction and make it a non-PvP zone. The non-PvP zones have everything the rest of the map, including settlements and monster hexes. The real PvP adverse can do stuff there and can do all the activities we do, so they are not adversely affected by being shut out of too much content.

So what is the difference between Carebear Land and the rest of the map. In Carebear Land, the cost are increased in everything. Crafting queue times are significantly longer. T3 crafting is out of the question and T2 may be capped at a certain level, for example. Gathering is also limited in yield and T3 resources cannot ever be found in nodes and monster hexes… perhaps certain valuable T2 resources also cannot be gathered. No enchantment resources are found anywhere in Carebear Land. Structures and holdings can be built but costs are much higher for resources and influence. Training cost are higher and also limited. For T3 training, they have to leave the kids sandbox and maybe T2 is capped somewhere. Escalations in monster hexes in Carebear Land are limited to middle T2 or lower. High T2 and T3 is only possible outside Carebear Land.

Now, the non-PvPers have access to a fair amount of the games content. It is just more expensive for them and certain things and T3 stuff in particular is not available to them. At some point, when they are comfortable, they will leave the sandbox into the real world. I think this will be the case because the truly anti-PvP players are simply not going to enroll a sub if they are 100% against PvP is a game marketed as a game with PvP. So most PvP adverse players are at least open to PvP if they feel that they can do it somewhat on their terms. I feel most PvP adverse players will avoid it at first but will warm up to it once it is clear that a slaughter fest does not await them once they step into the real world and that they have learned the ropes of how to control their risks.

And have real perks to draw them in. Like a faction system with tangible benefits to be part of the faction. And I mean tangible benefits - not simply another lame ass benefit system to justify always being flagged for PvP by opposing factions. The carrots have to be real carrots, not kale posing as carrots. As I stated in my earlier post, PvP now is chump's game - there is absolutely no reward other than survival for me. I am not a bandit player. I have everything to lose and nothing to gain right now by engaging in PvP. So make it worth my time and I will be game for PvP and so will other players who are PvP adverse.

Here is my thoughts on making it worth my time. A "bandit player" wants to do some PvP. He now need to ante up coin and/or resources to the PvP "account". The amount is Tier dependent and can be crowd sourced. Now that PvP player can do PvP with the tier he has anted up for. He finds someone and wins - good for him. His ante remains and he can continue. Ah, but lets say he loses. The ante goes immediately to the character who defeated him, transferred via the game mechanic which controls all this. And the PvP fairy (the mechanic that controls all this but lets call it a PvP fairy for this discussion) pops up a dialogue box and ask the player who lost the PvP to re-ante some more coin/resources to the PvP account or he can't PvP anymore until he does so.

Feuds and Territory PvP would be exempt this. This is for the lone or small group gank gangs who want to attack anyone they meet. I like this as an idea because the "bandit" does have something to lose. He needs to ante up to do what he wants and his victim, if his victim wins the fight, get a pay day out of it rather than the disappointment of yet another bandit player with empty pockets resulting in a PvP fight that the victim finds completely meaningless. Getting some bandit's ante if I win is meaningful enough if the ante is significant. Us victims want a pay day too, you cheap bastards! smile

There - some ideas to forward the conversation because "It makes it simple, in a PC settlement, your a PVP target." is not going to bring in any new players, IMO.
Most people who have not done a steady diet of PvP will be risk averse for a number of reasons:

1. They will consider themselves bad at it. Why opt in for it if the experienced PvPers are just going to plow you and take your stuff? It takes dedication and a long time to make a great PvP build. For players who may only have one or two characters, they may not what to invest the XP and time to make a PvP character if the PvE is their principal activity. There is a reason a majority of people don't want to tangle with Xyzzy. Because he has build a real good PvP character and the majority of people find out they just lose repeatedly to him unless they invest heavily to make a competitive build. So, no one is going to opt for PvP if they feel they will be the victims to the dedicated PvPers all the time.

2. Incidents like the Forever War and the Blackwood Glade incident show the egos and personalities of the personalities can drive the PvP to a level of toxicity that drive people from the game. Sure, a lot of people left when the development of the game stalled due to the money running out but I also know quite a number of people left the game as fallout of the Forever War. There is nothing to stop a simple act of PvP spiraling into a bigger conflict dragging in companies or even settlements if everyone is willing to go for the nuclear option. Sorry, count me out. Being in a settlement with a minor role in the Forever War but suffering it full effects left me with a very bad taste in my mouth. Why the hell would I risk putting my company/settlement at risk if any potential conflict can go nuclear at the drop of a hat. That has to be addressed in whatever the solution is. Trouble is, if egos and personalities at at play, it is simply impossible to keep PvP going to a toxic level. And the long time players can all recount cases where PvP did go to a toxic level. So your problem becomes this - if someone opts in some interesting low intensity PvP, can you promise that person they will not get a "war" instead?

3. PvP is a chump's game, IMO. If you are a bandit where you can largely control the variables of PvP as to where and when it occurs, it is great game for the bandit. Not so for the victim. I didn't sign up for PFO to be a bandit. But recognize this - I also didn't sign up to be the victim. Which is why agency of being to opt in and opt out is important. No one is going to sign up for this game of they are going to be the designated victim whenever some PvP/bandit player feels like it. As to why PvP is a chump's game, IMO - here is… I fought in the forever war. Even spent 40 hours in one week alone defending my settlement and my settlement alliance mates. Forty hours in one week! And it didn't put even one frigging copper piece in my pocket. Forty hours I could have been gathering resources or doing escalations or nearly anything to further my character or my company and settlement. Because, most PvPers, expecting a fight, make sure they got nothing of value on them. I killed a few bandits in those day and … empty pocket ismy reward. So a bandit jumps me while gathering or running a mule and if he kills me, he makes bank. But if I kill him, my reward is nothing. So, a chump's game with me being the clump. Why would anyone sign up for that unless they were the bandit?

Level that playing field somehow and maybe there is an incentive for a PvP shy person to opt in. But as it stand right now, there is far greater reasons to avoid PvP. And the PvPers would not like my suggestions at all, which is why I am not offering any.

Sorry for the verbose post but I offered my view from the very cheap seats. I honestly tried at PvP in this game and I came into this game knowing it would be a game with PvP in it. But it was punishing enough in ways I outlined above that I avoid it now. Address that and we may be getting somewhere. Because I am not the only person who feels that way.
No PvP mechanic is possible that will make EVERYONE happy. When this game of musical chairs is done, there is going to be people without a chair to sit down on.

The 'Bandit' players really aren't here for a territorial warfare PvP game because, dah…Bandit. Doesn't go with what traditionally the bandit lifestyle is about. And yet, at its core, that is what PvP mechanics support - territorial warfare.

So, PFO has an identify crisis on it hand in regards to PvP. Is this supposed to be a 'Game of Thrones' style game or a 'Welcome to the Bandit Kingdoms. Hold tight to your purse" style game? Can it be both? If both, will the mechanics be robust enough to make the territorial warfare and the bandit PvP folks happy?

I think the start of the discussion should be here first, rather than discussing the 'how to' before the 'why' is nailed down. So…what is this game about PvP-wise?

Now the other part of the equation - player agency. For PvE, the player knows the risks and accepts the risks if he chooses to plow into a mob. There is a risk to reward decision being made in the player's head. It is completely voluntary.

Now, being attacked by a player bandit takes away the player agency for one side - the person being attacked. The bandit player has made a risk to reward calculation in this decision to attack another player. The other player does not have a choice, it is forced on him. And most players don't like the content they don't like rammed up their butthole in this way. This is why people don't like this type of PvP forced on them and why people leave the game or will never sign up for the game in the first place. Which is a PROBLEM. The population needs to grow because I, for one, having been here since the beginning is tired of seeing a empty world and moving around and not seeing anyone. The perception of an EMPTY world will also turn people away, which is why we are in this type of limbo.

I have some ideas for another post on what could possibly work, but I would like to see some discussion of WHAT IS THIS GAME ABOUT. Because, if I were a betting man, I don't think even the PvP people will even agree on what PvP in this game is about. And that, is a problem…
My re-billing time is coming up in the next few weeks for my accounts and I usually pay with the yearly option. Obviously, this discussion encompasses factors which impact that.

So, will these changes (whatever is decided) happen within a year? If so, if I want to add more characters or reduce the number of characters on a subscription to the non-subscription model within the next year, what happens? Or am I better to go on a monthly plan, in which case, what is the approximate time frame that such changes to the character subscription model most likely happen?

I have several DT accounts and several single character accounts. Will we be able to consolidate accounts? In particular, I would love it if I can consolidate my single character accounts together.

Edit: I suppose that this could have been put in the Free Trial Account thread as it probably is more relevant there, but, meh, I asked here. Move this there if it more relevant there.
I will present my case - I think Axiomatic and Anarchic are way overpriced being at T3. Perhaps even Holy and Unholy, though there is greater utility there… weapons based on good and evil axis are far more useful that weapons based on chaos and law axis.

1. As it stands now, alignment is not really a thing in the game, so none of these weapons are functionally useful right now.

2. Holy, Axiomatic and Anarchic do holy damage. My experience is holy is really not that useful, except full damage against Nhur. Is that the criteria for holy damage being a T3 enchantment…because it is useful against Nhur? As I said, my experience is Holy damage is not a silver bullet. Against most mobs, I can't really differentiate if holy damage is doing anything more to them than physical damage.

3. The real kicker is they are T3 weapon enchantments that can only go on a T3 weapon. Which means, unless you are a high enough player, forget being able to use these weapon enchantments.

Here is the smell test.
A Sarenrae cleric can get a T1/T2/T3 Flaming weapon with the Fire keyword, as Flaming is a T1 enchantment. Fire damage is good against everything except mobs with fire resistance or fire immunity.

Now, a Gorum cleric can only get the Anarchic keyword and Anarchic on a T3 weapon. Anarchic 'Holy' damage is good for…what exactly?

So the question to Bob is, what is the justification for Anarchic and Axiomatic being T3 enchantments? My Gorum cleric is looking at the Sarenrae clerics with envy and no small degree of anger.. smile
And to weight in on what Gross said, we need an non-evil Charm domain god. Candidates are Cayden Cailean, Calistria and Shelyn. My vote is Shelyn or Cayden if we can only have one at this time.