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 harneloot

harneloot
Edam, who are these gangs of scrappy small-group skirmish PvPers? I only kill people who enter my territory (territorial control) and only those who are not allied with my Settlement.

Black Moria - who are these dangerous *Bandit players* that are only interested in killing people and taking their stuff? Not sure if Harad's PFO Atlas is up to date, but when he gets it so again, I think you will see who the most active group in *territorial control* is.

Bob - you have mentioned twice now how having to 1) Leave the Thornkeep area and 2) join a Settlement can opens people up to the possibility of unwanted PvP. Well, if the whole purpose of the game is Territorial Control, isn't joining a Settlement kinda mandatory??? PFO is not, nor was it EVER meant to be, a solo-able game - and neither is freakin Table Top Pathfinder! If you want people to feel safer longer, then expand the ring around TK of Ultimate Safety Hexes. Include a monster hex that goes through the normal random escalation rotations (like the one near UC), Place guards all along the Crusader Road, like there are near TK. Then, if you CHOOSE to leave this larger High Sec area, you know the risks. Have it delineated by the Blue Force Field (one you can pass through) effect so there is no question about when you leave High Sec. There is still plenty of gathering, crafting, monster killing etc to be done in the larger TK protected area. Joining a Settlement or Faction SHOULD open you up to PvP - otherwise, as Black Moria says - what kind of game is this?

PvP only happens in this game for three reasons as I ever see:

1) Stay out of MY hex! (territory control - easily avoided)

2) I want your hex (Holding Warfare/territorial control - easily avoided just don't show up to defend)

3) Fighting over escalations and who gets to kill the boss. (easily avoided - run away or stay out of monster hexes with T3 escalations running, which most new players will anyway)
Xyzzy - gatherer, yeoman archer, swamp monster.
harneloot
Shields are not armor in PFO so they should not be able to be enchanted with Armor Only enchantments. If you want to do so, then you need to reevaluate the entire shield attack tree. I have PvP'd against a high level shield user and I can tell you first hand they do not need any more advantage smile
Xyzzy - gatherer, yeoman archer, swamp monster.
harneloot
Can "unflagged Bart" follow me around, like a henchman, and heal and buff me whenever I decide to defend a holding, or attack a holding, or attack another player?

Having PLAYERS Flag & Unflag themselves does not seem to be an elegant solution to the problem of getting more players playing the game. If you want tons of Pathfinder TT players to play PFO, then maybe you should make a new/different game?

Only way to save (what I see as a poor idea) is to make the Hex decide when you are flagged or not, in whatever way you decide to do that. EVE Online handles it this way, and it works pretty well in my limited experience I have with the game. You should seriously consider this approach rather than the MESS that can potentially be created by putting it in the player's hands.

Seriously, besides the idiotic Forever War, when has there EVER IN THE WHOLE LIFE OF THE GAME been a problem with PvP? And, if it is an *image* problem (as you seemed to have indicated), then changing the game's raison d'etre seems to be a very poor/heavy handed way to go about fixing that.
Xyzzy - gatherer, yeoman archer, swamp monster.
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.
    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.
    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
    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).
    Xyzzy - gatherer, yeoman archer, swamp monster.
    harneloot
    This was all I could find at the moment, but it was linked to the Threading plan:

    "Characters will be able to soulbind to a Smallholding so it will act as a resurrection point, without requiring the character to deploy a Thread to establish the soulbinding."
    Xyzzy - gatherer, yeoman archer, swamp monster.
    harneloot
    Wasn't there supposed to be an important mechanic called Soul Binding that allowed you to pick where you would appear after Pharasma raised you? Let subbed toons Soulbind to certain places like Faction Centerns, Company Holdings, Monster Hex shrines or something and let Free to Play toons have to reappear where the game thinks is best and log into only the closest NPC settlement? I thought Soul Binding was supposed of be one of the perks of those expensive player bought taverns too…
    Xyzzy - gatherer, yeoman archer, swamp monster.
    harneloot
    Maxen
    The comments above about builds and flagging for PvP remind me that in this game, the players are the content. There is no GM or DM. There is no story line. This is a fantasy setting with risks for going out into the River Kingdoms. When I signed on to this game, it wasn’t in hopes of playing Pathfinder “The Game System” Online. I wanted to play in the world of Golarion where I could meet adventuring companions or meet enemies within the element of the unknown, because these companions and enemies have real people driving them. Not some predictable AI on the other end.

    So, to be fair to players that are PvP adverse, yes, there should be a way to enjoy the game and feel like your getting your money’s worth, but not at the expense of the true nature of this game, which is an open sandbox with risk around every corner. If you have a non-combat build and you want to adventure and gather in an area that has premium items, you should buddy up with someone for protection. Fighters gotta eat too. Would your non-front line combat PC do anything different if it was a tabletop session?

    I cite again my very first PvP experience ever. I was moving down to Hammerfall and as I entered the settlement, Doc attacked and killed me almost instantly. I said, “Wait, I’m a member of this settlement!”, naively thinking he was too. He whispered me and said “Nothing personal. I’ll just take a few of your items”. Sure I was shocked and a little upset, but I’m still here today.

    Well said!

    Even though I bark about it in General Chat, I do not engage in (or even really enjoy) PvP for PvPs sake. I only attack my enemies or those that (back when there was actually this thing called Scarcity in the game; Enchanting Mats notwithstanding) I feel are *stealing* from my claimed territory. As Maxen describes, this is what makes the game interesting & exciting to me and I have a seriously hard time imagining playing PFO if everyone was running around with a No-PvP flag up. That would be just some kind of multi-player co-op RPG (maybe that's what a Theme-Park MMO is?) or something but certainly wouldn't be an open world territorial control sandbox game set in the River Kingdoms.

    Barely ANY PvP has happened in the game in the last two years or so - but the simple fact that it could happen is a major driver of much of the *content* (such as it is with so few players) that exists in PFO. Without that possibility, what is really left? An interestingly complex combat and advancement system with a fairly interesting gathering, refining, crafting system that will all be in the service of…..playing the recipe roulette game with AI mobs???

    Maybe Factions & Alignment being really important & meaningful choices is the answer? I don't know…
    Xyzzy - gatherer, yeoman archer, swamp monster.