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

Flari-Merchant
In less esoteric terms, I would just say that meaningful conflict boils down to one particular version of capture the flag and that it gets old. MMO PVP is such an abstract form of warfare that I am unsure if much can be done about that.

Part of PfO's problem has to be that too few players are trying to manage too large areas to control effectively. Many have multiple accounts and so can project force fairly well, responding to multi-pronged attacks but that has turned out to be a bit more hectic than fun for some reason. We are set up in a competitive game, in a larger than is feasible to defend required spread of holdings(must have Bulk and must have high level settlements for convenience, at the least), with a low population. This really is an unfortunate condition and not an optimal one for the mechanics that are available. Not that it is anyone's direct fault. It just is what it is. You can't realistically design a for profit MMO for 100 active players and you can't blame players for taking over everything that they can which is easily within realistic reach. It's what humans do.

I may have a delusional memory, but it tells me that conflict in PfO was supposed to be much more diverse than strictly about Holding attack and defense. Some of what I see in the current Roadmap will, I believe, help with some of this. At least it could possibly. Nothing is going to work right until the population is grown significantly. Six active players does not a Kingdom make. Twelve active players does not a Grand Alliance make.

As strange and as abstract(not the same as Duffy means) as MMO PVP and warfare is by nature, such large amounts of territory and so few players to control it only leads to this even more strange situation that the game is in right now. There needs(besides players) to be more reasons to fight than Holdings control. There are SUPPOSED TO BE MORE COMPELLING REASONS for conflict.

I think that GW's plan to look at resource distribution will help a great deal with the lack of "reasons" for conflict. At least it will be their chance to add a few compelling reasons for meaningful conflict. There are enough varieties of materials to spread out and concentrate a bit. Concentrate scarcity to promote trade, transportation, political maneuvers, banditry, privateering, area defense(besides just Holding conflict), also-known-as CONTENT.

Certainly the Influence and Company systems were meant for much more than simply a vehicle for Holding warfare. The reason that they do not work as well as intended is because they are not being used (or the opportunity/incentive/compelling reasons are not there) as they were conceived and the foundation principles were designed for…

This roadmap and more players will help with that, but it is not a short road.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Flari-Merchant
Bob
Bringslite of Staalgard
A question(with a lil bit of a parameter set :p) for GW:
When you look at the last year or so of participating player base(hangers-on) and how they play and what they say they want, do you see PVP enthusiasts or PVE/Crafting/Gathering/Merchant type PVP enthusiasts?

It's hard to really gauge percentages, but certainly it's clear that a fair amount of our current players (as well as our potential players) have a limited appetite for PvP combat. That's why a lot of the tasks on our roadmap which at first appear to be primarily about PvP or settlement-level issues are really about making it easier for players to manage their own PvP risk. For example, letting settlements choose a 3-day window for PvP means knowing that there's no need to defend your holdings/outposts for 4 days each week. Letting companies set the level of PvP allowed in their hexes lets players control the amount of PvP allowed throughout their territory, while protecting hexes that are neighbored by allies on at least 4 sides makes reducing that territory a much slower process.

That's also why we're moving toward a more opt-in feel to PvP. Our goal is to let players know when the actions they're taking open them up to PvP, and to what degree, then let them decide whether or not to take that risk.

Thanks Bob. I am looking forward to reading how exactly these ideas are put into mechanical operation. Pretty sure I grasp how some are meant to work, while others are unclear. At least in the devilish details. smile

As far as the specifics of the features and the order of implementation, that is very much a matter of WHAT you feel you can do and What Order you think is most likely to be feasible for GW to undertake. I get that. I am a bit puzzled at why it seems so difficult (or unnecessary?) to examine and fiddle with the Influence/Feud system, but I am on the outside looking in. Not the best vantage point.

Edit to add: It seems to me that a mix of playstyles will be needed to get a sufficient slice of the niche market share to make the game a success. Both PVP and PVE ers of some degree. What you have now as a system to foster meaningful PVP is generally disliked by BOTH ends of that spectrum. That seems like a bad apple that needs removal from the barrel. It is going to wreck the other apples no matter what until removed.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Flari-Merchant
A question(with a lil bit of a parameter set :p) for GW:
When you look at the last year or so of participating player base(hangers-on) and how they play and what they say they want, do you see PVP enthusiasts or PVE/Crafting/Gathering/Merchant type PVP enthusiasts?
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Flari-Merchant
goldenradish
Read through the email..

It's really unfortunate that goblinworks is continuing down this demonstrated path of failure. It's not really that hard to understand: The existing and outlined future feature set has not and will never gather a sufficient population to make this game a financially viable product or service.

Attempting to "finish" the feature set that has not gathered a sufficient population in an attempt to make this game a financially viable product is just throwing good time & money after bad. I see no logic in it, and I will tell everyone I know to stay away until someone else purchases/licenses the Pathfinder intellectual property and makes a product worthy of the Pathfinder name.

You know how to make a financially viable product or service, and yet deliberately choose not to? Why would anyone continue to support such a path? smile The lack of financial responsibility is frankly astonishing to me.

Disagree and probably for reasons that you won't like.

We all have our own ideas on what we think would be best for a "Road Map" and priority features. I for instance feel that absolute focus should be on day to day play and experiences, leaving all of the settlement management stuff for the far end of the Road Map. With the exception of a massive overhaul(or shut it down for the nonce) on the feuding system, ASAP. Lots of focus on tools to make quests and PVE content: contracts, quest design tools, GM RP events, etc.., etc… I feel that serious focus should be on what will RETAIN new players(and I suppose more attractive to PFRPG players), first, yet that is largely subjective. BUT as Lisa and Bob always have to point out, there are limits to what they can do and what is possible so some calls have to be made.

Something is being planned that is pro active and forward thinking beyond waiting for the "White Knight" investor. For that alone I support this and wish them the best.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Flari-Merchant
Bravo! A Plan and a Road Map.
Please publish that somewhere on the site here. Wonderful news!
Thank you, Guys!
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Flari-Merchant
Duffy Swiftshadow
Even if they fix it up now, if things pickup with new investment it will just spiral back out of control again, so it's still kinda of a neutral tweak in the end. So ya know, w/e.
Probably true. What feuds ended up being really are acts of war so it would probably be best if they were a Settlement level function.

There must be some fairly easy way to take Influence either out of Company Mechanics or to make it for other purposes that are NOT feuding. A single Company that is JUST FOR PVP for each settlement or Alliance. A perma feud, or rather simply non PVP rep penalty for those groups to fight each other. Still of course, some rewards for PVP would be nice incentive also.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Flari-Merchant
Duffy Swiftshadow
Mistwalker
I am not seeing how removing non-active accounts from influence makes the game more fun right now.

This will probably make it so that there is no high level training available anywhere - likely there won't be any settlement that will have enough resources to constantly keep it up near 20 (where a fair number of folks are playing right now, especially with crafters). Crafting times will get longer.

There are so many other things that I feel have a higher priority than this.

It's really only being brought up because Siege Warfare is another system that gives disproportionate power to existing groups. So if they're gonna insist on piling on the bad systems, if they can clean up the bad system a little bit might make it worthwhile.
That was the idea'r. What I had not considered was the impact on the smaller groups that have not so much influence banked up. I am not exactly sure if that is a significant number or not. What I was thinking is that it would be more fair than letting groups with MANY holdings and Faux Influence to keep on trucking and piling the Bulk higher.

It isn't a move to Solidify Forever The Big Group Advantage(muahaha!) as some might think. It would be as impactful to my own group as any other. Still, I would not mind seeing how Influence works with honest numbers and without being falsely inflated. Most times when a game Dev Co sees an exploit they order it stopped. They make it not work anymore. They remove the advantages given by it as much as they can. The game goes on…

It seems like there are so many of players still engaged that have multiple accounts that it would be workable somehow.

Edit: How is letting it continue a better option than putting an end to it?
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Flari-Merchant
Time to pound out a script that puts abandoned and inactive characters out of the equation for influence cap. Outside of wiping or closing the game down, there will never be a better time to do this. Give us a month of warning and run the script.

Just get it over with. There are no more free trial accounts to abuse the Influence System. Do it to see how the system functions without being unduly exploited. Then we can better judge how badly the system works when it is properly used.

PLEASE JUST DO IT.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Flari-Merchant
Paddy Fitzpatrick
Maybe I am missing something…

So my understanding was epow/epro was in there in addition to the keywords. I also thought that one major keyword had already been worth something like four minor keywords anyway before factoring epow and epro.

So if that is the case, shouldn't the keyword differences be enough before adding epow and epro?

If I am wrong, then maybe I need a refresher on how it fits together.
One of the main problems, IMO with striping out Epow and epro that I can see: HoTs and DoTs and buffs/debuffs are built to affect things in percentages of either total or remaining(current) values. Take away the 'E" and suddenly your T1 "spells" are much more effective. There is an iota of balance built into the system that would be set wonky.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com
Flari-Merchant
The worrying about Blobs and about conflicts being largely about superior numbers is kinda going down a rabbit hole instead of facing the real issues. Though there probably are some issues that are needing tweaks or work there.

One of the REAL ISSUES is why would a group abandon a perfectly good Holding rather than fight for it? Why is a Holding so without value? That is partly what Bob and GW are trying to address with siege mechanics, IMO.
"I buy Azoth for 5sp/ea. I will trade Enchanting or other rare materials/anything for Azoth. Contact me if interested. GET YOUR COIN EASY!"
uotopia@msn.com