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 Flari-Merchant

One thing that has not been tried is allowing some control over what kind of PVP that PLAYERS ALLOW(through mechanical options rather than physical) in the areas that they control. These game designers have been trying and trying to get a fantasy sandbox off the ground and still ALL of them make the same decision to have flat PVP rules. Most expect the Anti Random PVP Enthusiasts to step up and make areas safe for their people. Well that doesn't work. At least not for very long.

Edit: At least, as Lisa pointed out, PfO is taking a step toward this. How big and how that will play out? Still very much looking forward to details.
It's a good post, Radish.

As far as I can tell, we agree on everything except excluding PVP from this sandbox. There are plenty of "Builders" that are willing to play in a game that includes what their version of "meaningful" PVP is(look at me), but will not play in this one because they do not consider random PVP to be "meaningful PVP"(not my personal take on PVP). Now if their "area of control" or territories could be safeguarded against random PVP, I feel that a larger slice of anti PVP players might be persuaded to try it and even come to like PfO. That sort of thing(if it came about) would have to be pretty clearly communicated, but if it was and they could grasp it beyond the plain "there is PVP in this game I'm looking at" It might be a winner.
Lisa Stevens
I do want to point something out from the "Road Forward" blog.

"Opt-In PvP
Allow more PvP in Monster hexes.
Allow less PvP in Shield/NPC hexes.
Give Holding owners control of PvP rules in their hexes."

This is coming in EE12 in less than a month. If you control the hex, you will be able to control the PVP rules for that hex. This speaks to a lot of what Bringslite is talking about in his original post.

Thanks Lisa! As a "Crazy Theorist" it is VERY nice to see that you read these forums.
Details on this have been scant. Any chance that someone can find the time to elaborate on it? "Too busy right now but soon is fine !" smile
From an in-universe viewpoint, if the guards are being paid in coin they don't care who controls the holding, and anyone with the coin can hire the guards to keep the peace. If they are being paid for by their use of the holding itself, that should be sufficient.

From the design viewpoint, having to pay for control both by PvP and then a supplemental payment is two different costs. The cost to control an area and determine 'security level' there should not change based on the desired security level. (They maybe should change with location, level of opposition, or some other factors not considered).
With a higher "security rating" or in other words more effective guards charged with more complete and specific duties, you really do not feel that they would cost more in ANY world?

Edit: Also, though I don't recall GW confirming this, some players have theorized that Thorn Guards(for example) do not interfere in feuds because they are not really in the employ of The Settlement. Which I think is mistaken. Guards obviously defend Company Holdings. I am proposing that some level of player protection be available in the employ of ALL The Settlement whether it be players or NPCs or a combo. Just that the option be there rather than expecting Players to play Cops and be enthusiastic about it. It isn't easy(by any regular means) to catch hooligans in your territory. It certainly is frustrating to try. I'll grant that much.
@ New Guy

That is pretty much exactly what I meant, sans the carebear comment. These games seem to want and expect ALL players to embrace ALL facets of PVP. At the minimum they think that Enough players should/will embrace it to keep aggressive random PVP fans out of their territory. OR that it will be considered enjoyable gameplay for all to TRY.
I posted this in the sub forum that I did because it is a topic that is about a more general concept than just PfO.

@ Harad Navar

Those are great ideas for the crowd of players that WANT TO ROLE AS SHERRIFF TYPES. There are those out there and I think that they are likely part of the niche crowd that might be attracted to PfO. There never seem to be enough though to keep these games from eventually turning into wastelands with nought but wolves vs. wolves, do there? I just feel that there are also potential players out there that would be content to pay for and play a game that they can go about their business in within a safer, more "lawful" zone, even if they have to work harder or pay more to have it through means alternate to random PVP.

@ Duffy

It is true that every game example that I offered is one that is failed or struggling for a variety of reasons and would have a very tough time making it despite my conceptual idea of a "fail tendency" in larger PVP scope. Yet consider: How great the PVP is or even how good the PVE is really is small potatoes to many MMO players if the building, crafting, and trading is adequate. They are primarily "The Builders". They may or may not be an important slice to these smaller Indie Developer's design mindsets… but I feel that they are missing something here. I certainly am not suggesting that they should be a group free from being conquerable by players. These players also want sandboxes. They also have entertainment money to spend.

@ Decius

What/how would "freedoms" be limitable in a sandbox like I described? Certainly players would have to know that their NPC guards do not protect them outside their own lands. Having to pay higher "taxes" would surely be a bit limiting. Any other ways or suggestions?

@ All

Fantasy Sandbox MMOs are Wanted. That is plain as day by looking around the internet. They are wanted by a variety of player types. Why do they always devolve to Open World PVP fests and never really get successful except for maybe one example(which is Sci Fi)? It could be inexperience in design, lack of money, poor concepts, but I think it is that each alienates too many of the possible "niche base" of potential customers with too narrow an Open World PVP concept. That can be said for going TOO FAR in either direction.
I know, the topic's been done to death! Yet the TRUE problems have never been addressed by anyone(Developers) with ALL of the issues in focus.

#1: Trying to build with a lack of funds leading to buggy, feature lacking, graphically/(eye/ear candy) inferior results.
#2: Trying to build with adequate funds but still missing a key clue, below.

#3: Expecting that because it is "Sandboxy" the "Builder Players" should have to be the ones that PHYSICALLY (themselves) enforce Orderly Society in their areas of operation. <—Then they are repeatedly surprised when this fails to be a game that meets minimum expectations in income and return on investment.

The creators of EVE Online are perhaps the closest to getting this "complete package" right. They fail(IMO) because HISEC space is not player controlled space which could be conquered and made(sandbox style) into any XSEC space that players want.

My thoughts along this line are simple, but as far as I know, untried. First, territory is taken, held, or lost in the same way that PfO wants to do it. Through Meaningful PVP. Here is the difference: When you control territory, you are allowed controls over how much "Order" or "Law" or whatever you want to call it that you want for yourselves. Meaning from completely open PVP to Paid For guards that instantly enforce protection from random PVP. I'm talking NPC guards here, OLD SCHOOL ULTIMA ONLINE STYLE. The catch is that the players living in these areas have to PAY these guards for the level of service that they want. Pay being ingame coin or materials. There is room here for anything from open lawless PVP to some rules and some player self enforcement to "We pay out the A$$ to make sure that players are not murdered randomly in our demesne."

So, for these smaller operator games like PfO, Mortal, Shadowbane, Darkfall that can't seem to get a "successful" leg up in the market; KEEP THE SANDBOX WAY OF THNGS. Just do not expect ALL of the players that Dearly Beg for sandbox fantasy games(builders yet not really wanting to randomly PVP) to really WANT to police their territory with their characters. Your expectations of your players are holding you back from having a reasonable successful game.

That is, assuming you can deliver enough of the stuff that takes $$$ to make a game which can compete on the other levels.
Bringslite of Staalgard
So… is it fairly safe to assume that EE12 will be coming in the later days of May?

We're shooting for around the 19th, but the final date will depend on how testing goes.
Ok well good luck no pressure. Just want to be able to plan better at my own end. Don't slay yourselves with deadlines! Long way to go and long distance runners should only sprint at certain points. smile
Hi Bob,

So… is it fairly safe to assume that EE12 will be coming in the later days of May?
@ Bob

Any chance of getting the Warden's Outpost in early if you do several Test Server publishes for EE 12? Big update and I was hoping(along with mini test publishes) to learn early as possible if that will be added.
Bringslite of Staalgard
@ Bob

Any chance of getting "settlement" or "company" level vaults, for allies, in player settlements?

I haven't tested it out yet, but when granting permission to someone to bank in your settlement and at your holdings, you're also granting that person permission to access their company vaults at those locations.

Settlement vault access at multiple locations would be trickier to add, so we didn't really explore that. I'll file a feature request to look into it when we can.
Thanks Bob!