I think the quick and easy summary would be that most settlements punish and exclude people for not contributing. TEO will reserve the rewards unlocked through contributions to those who contribute, and keep everything else openly available for all who are not against us. We will be using the carrot instead of the stick.
It's our hope that this will pay itself off many times over in the additional members and good will it should generate. If it does not, we still haven't incurred any great losses and we are not opposed to making sacrifices that benefit the community.
I believe TSV holds a similar position.
I'm not sure if you did this intentionally or not Bringslite, but you just made my case for why I hold a much deeper resentment for those who target me out on the forums than I do for those who target me out in game. The "just a game" argument is much easier to apply when someone is targeting your character (or your checkers) instead of personally targeting you.
Because he is wrong to consider Eve's vast space the same as the limited space we already know about for PFO.
I don't consider them the same, however it does seem like the best basis for comparison. I think it is very unlikely all forms of all resources will be so rare that we won't be able to offer some of it for free to people looking to harvest in our territory without a negative impact on ourselves. While we may be dealing with a smaller map, we are also dealing with a much smaller population so the end result should be about the same.
If I am wrong, and all resource consumption comes at a cost to us we will simply begin at a state where we charge a fee for harvesting rights at a level that will negate any negative impact on our organization, and actively contributing members will not have to pay it.
Most of this is based off speculation. In EVE resources are technically limited as well, however there is generally a significant amount of wasted harvesting potential in null-sec because of the hoops you have to jump through to belong to an alliance with the rights to harvest.
When I lived in null-sec, I did nothing but cherry pick arkonor when it came time to mine because there was more arkonor than there were people willing to harvest it. Meanwhile in high-sec, entire systems were emptied of every asteroid. And there is a great amount of ore more valuable than anything in high-sec that isn't arkonor.
If it comes to a point that we don't have enough resources to give free access to, and we are expanded as far as we feel comfortable expanding in terms of points of interest, we will probably start selling harvesting rights to our territory based on the cost to us of letting people harvest there, but until there is a noticeable negative effect on our own operations, access will be free.
My guess is that if you are coming into our territory looking for lumber or iron ore, there will probably be plenty to be had, but we won't likely be letting you hit the mithril and gold veins.
Great point. People wanting to PvP are a dime a dozen. And not really worth that dime if you don't have gear to supply them, and they won't supply it themselves.
A crafter who regularly donates gear to the cause but refuses to join in the defense is far more valuable than a PvPer who won't supply their own gear.
In EVE terms, everyone will be welcome to come and rat and mine in our territory regardless of contributions or even citizenship status because there is no downside to allowing them to do so. But only those who help defend or produce items needed in the defence of our territory will have rights to cherry-pick arkonor from our belts.
So far there has been no word on a limitation on the number of players who can live in a settlement, though I do recall some reference to the fact that the skill training offered by settlements will not be available to an unlimited number of players.
So really, there is no downside to having pacifist players join. I do not see participation in our defense or the creating items needed for it when ordered to as mandatory parts of belonging to TEO or Brighthaven.
However, when it comes time for us to decide who is going to get access to finite resources such as skill training and or harvesting rights for scarce materials, we will probably give first rights to the members who contribute the most. When I say contributions, this is not limited to PvP, especially when it comes to gathering rights and non-PvP related skill training.
This doesn't weaken our position at all. We can allow very casual free spirited members to enjoy the safety of our area without any pressure to fulfill obligations to the greater whole, and we can reward active/loyal/contributing members with first rights access to the benefits they help us earn and protect.
There will always be PvP. The question is if it will be a steady enough source of income to keep you geared, fed, and stocked with consumables without other revenue sources. I'm sure everyone is thumping their own chests and saying "I can, because I'm a bandit/mercenary/bounty hunter!"
For almost everyone, the answer will be no. Expect to put in some PVE/Gathering/Crafting if you want to PvP.
I expected once CotP / TEO was officially announced, we'd see more of them on here. They average roughly 100 members active per day.
This is not a priority for our organization. Our representation on these forums is sufficient so while all TEO members are welcome to join the discussion on the boards we are focusing our attentions on promoting contributions to positive programs in the PFO and CotP community.
From a purely mechanical perspective a contiguous map is best. I like the idea that there could be some areas in the game that are literal hours from other areas of the game, and I think the River Kingdoms area should constantly be expanding with the player base.
Variety in setting is a staple of the fantasy genre though. I think early on we are going to be happy to have anything to play at all but they should be developing with the idea that there will probably be other areas at some point.
I think people are on to something in that not all these areas need to be settleable though.
I suspect the opposite may be true. With rep and alignment apparently not planned to be implemented until late EE or early OE I suspect there will be a market for "I Survived The EE" t-shirts.
Pax Pagan wrote:
I'd like to see the portals inside unconquerable NPC cities and have more than one per region. For instance the portals in the River Kingdoms would be at Fort Inevitable, Fort Riverwatch, and Thornkeep. If The Shackles are opened up there would be Thornkeep <-> Pirate Town, Riverwatch <-> Steel Falcons Fort, Inevitable <-> Chelaxian Slaver Town portals.
Ultimately I prefer the islands approach. There are a lot of interesting regions of Golarion and The Inner Sea region we will never see otherwise. Pretty much I can tell you what we'll see to the south east of the River Kingdoms. Rivers, forests, marshes, plains... everything you would expect to find in a not particularly mountainous temperate region.
If we connect to other areas there are grand mountains, ranging seas, deserts, frozen tundras, exotic jungles, the world wound...
People are going to get tired of the River Kingdoms eventually. We're all marked by Pharasma and confined to a small region of the world. The idea of this occurring to other places and allowing us to travel between them seems pretty appealing.
To me the big question is where should the first portal lead. To which the obvious answer is The Shackles. ;)
There will be places for high reputation players to go where it won't be held against them. I guarantee it.
Neither do I. I suspect there won't be any advantages to the settlement past +5000.
It could make that settlement a very valuable ally. I would certainly fight to preserve such a settlement if we were in good relations.
If a settlement is populated solely by players more concerned about their personal reputation than serving what their settlement needs, their settlement will likely suck for different reasons.
But the settlements that will suck the most will be ones that allow their members to expend reputation points on purposes that do not have a direct/noteable advantage to their settlement, as that penalizes what buildings they construct and skills they can train. Any serious settlement is going to start kicking fast if their members are spending rep points because of the color of hat someone is wearing or simply to show them that "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition."
Ryan Dancey wrote:
Formation combat should be a totally different kind of experience than what anyone has attempted in an MMO before. A well coordinated, cohesive unit acting in formation should be superior to almost any random force of zergs. The tradeoffs have to be significant though else everyone will try to do everything in formations. I suspect that the biggest tradeoff will be that we'll limit where formations can form and where they can move.
I've always envisioned the biggest trade off being speed and maneuverability and the gain being a massive boost to defensive and offensive capabilities.
It makes sense when you consider how they will be applied. A little band running around trying to gank people in formation won't be able to catch them but when you're marching on an enemy city it's not going to run away, and so your enemies are likely to form a counter formation.
Beyond that I would just set a minimum number of players needed for a formation. If you make it 20-30+ then you'll never see it outside large group combat anyway. I'd like to see formations pop up unexpectedly in unexpected places sometimes though. The fight over an outpost or gusher escalating to the point that hundreds take the field on each side.
If a swarm of high rep, LG noobs are over harvesting the resources in your settlement and then they ship it all off to somewhere else. What will you do, if they don't listen to reason? What if they refuse to stop harvesting within your territory, to the detriment to your own harvesters?
Make harvesting without authorization a criminal action. They get flagged, you kill them, problem solved.
I think we can wrap this debate up. Only Pax and individuals authorized by Pax may kill anyone in Pax territory outside self-defense. No matter what crimes they are found guilty of by other entities. Killing outside those circumstances is a criminal action.
As far as mechanics go those who break Pax's laws inside their territory should be flagged as criminals, and that Pax's authorities should be able to kill them without penalty to their reputations.
Are we all in agreement here?
Qiang Tian Zsu wrote:
No, I'm saying that lawful-good and pacifism, while good, aren't the only expressions of good and you should stop trying to project your narrow view of good onto me.
Pax Areks wrote:
No. I don't. So criminal flag me and kill me without rep slide. PLEASE. That's what I want.
No, it's just based on the same world and system of morality as the TT. If you don't like wandering crusaders/vigilantes in your lands, you kill them. Just like I will kill any murderers and villains in my lands.
Vigilantes and crusaders are just as meaningful and integral to the Pathfinder universe as bandits. If bandits can rob and murder people without reputation slide because it's meaningful content then why should those who hunt them suffer it?
Any player who regularly initiates aggression should be a free target for other PvPers in terms of reputation. That includes players like me.
We are in total agreement on that point. Breaking laws should move you toward chaos and flag you as a criminal. When Pax tracks down vigilantes breaking their laws they should be able to kill them without law-chaos or reputation drift. I'm only arguing that good-evil and reputation shouldn't apply to killing murderers and villains.
Really I think reputation slide should only apply to killing players who do not frequently initiate aggressive actions / those who break contracts etc.
To be clear here, I'm discussing how mechanics should work, not the policies of TEO and Brighthaven. If players residing in Pax controlled territory have attacker/murderer/villain flags is killing them evil? No, not if you're going by the system of morality established within the table-top.
Is it meaningful PvP? Yes (well... maybe not for heinous/villain characters but I'm sure they'll fix that). They got those flags for taking aggressive actions against other players, so bringing them to justice is meaningful player interaction.
So it shouldn't penalize you on the good-evil axis, and it shouldn't penalize your reputation.
Does that mean TEO will do it? Probably not. I'm sure there will be organizations much more sinister than Pax to occupy our attention.
Duergar are LE, some settlements already announced for PFO are LE, do you think they would find your choices moral or stupid? Morality on Golarion is either based on natural law or divinity...and there are lots of choices for divinity.
I'm sure they would not agree with my moral ideas. Notice they are evil though. I'd like you to take a look at two character philosophies. The first is lawful-good and the second chaotic-good.
Those positions which are recognized as good, seem to be in complete agreement with my point of view on violence.
I am a big fan of the attacker flag, as well as the more long-term murder flag you get if you get it enough times.
I am also a fan of the nearly identical criminal flag for actions like SADs. If some similar flag is attached to any unprovoked aggressive action outside feuds, wars, and the policing if your own territory I will be content.
I threw it put there because Pathfinder is identical to how most of you will answer this. Using violence to intercede and stop a worse violence is always commendable, and the setting doesn't matter. That's why paladins carry weapons. Anyone trying to force a pacifist view or lawful perspective on the PFO morality system does so in error.
Pax Morbis wrote:
Let's take this out of the context of the game.
You, or someone you love is getting robbed at knife point, brutally attacked, or even killed by a random attacker in a back alley in Chicago.
I, not knowing you, intercede using the level of force needed to stop the attack. Remember this is a real life scenario, and I just saved you, your spouse, your grandparent, your child, whatever. I am a hero am I not?
Change the setting to a desert island with now government or laws. Am I still a hero?
Change the setting to Nazi Germany, and you're a Jew being lawfully abused by a Nazi. Am I still a hero?
Don't answer from your characters perspective. Answer from your real perspective. When someone stops a random/violent attack on someone else, does it not make it even more noble if they do not know the person, and does the setting change the morality at all?
The only axis this should possibly effect is law/chaos because it is a good action and very meaningful PvP.
Any system that allows you to take un-provoked aggressive actions without getting flagged is incredibly flawed. I would hope when the mooks are burning your field you can go stop them without losing rep or alignment, I would hope when the mooks are burning your neighbors field you can go stop them without burning rep or alignment, and I would hope that when the mooks are robbing and attacking people in the nearby (uncontrolled) forest you can go stop them without losing rep or alignment.
What should separate the knights from the mooks is that if you aren't put there taking un-provoked aggressive actions, the knights can't touch you without sullying their honor but the mooks can and will. That's what makes them mooks.
I'll throw out there, that I actually did play the original Guild Wars for the combat. It wasn't as reflex intensive as a lot of good games, but it appealed to me in very much the same way as Magic The Gathering and Table Tops. It was extremely fun to customize your build and find creative ways to get the edge you need to win. Then learn your strengths and weaknesses through playing the build and continually try to improve upon it based on what you learn.
I think the point being made is that some decisions that pull you toward chaotic/evil/low-rep will be meaningful and not just things people do to be jerks even though many of them will be.
Players will have to decide for themselves whether each action they take is really worth dragging down their rep/alignment which in turn drags down their settlement.
Each group will have to decide for itself what balance of chaos/evil/low-rep is worth the freedom they desire to fight in the manner they wish or how much freedom to act they'll sacrifice for the benefits of good/law/high-rep.
I'm a fan of inquisitors though I've never played one. Just seems like a very cool concept. I've been most successful with rangers. They are a great class for dishing out damage if you build them right but also have a lot of other applications like scouting and tracking.
In PFO I'll likely go with something fast or stealthy due to the big time advantage of being able to ambush/chase down opponents or retreat/avoid detection based on the situation. Ranger and barbarians both seem like powerful choices but barbarians seem a bit overly simplistic while I enjoy the complexity of a ranger and melee generally isn't my style in a tab targeted game. I'd absolutely love an inquisitor but who knows how long we'll be waiting before that comes out.
I'll make my final choice as we learn more about the game though.
Drakhan Valane wrote:
The militia may or may not handle that task. Depends on how bored they are really, because a good merchant can run through straight up hostile territory and make it out fine 90% of the time. But if there is a banditry problem, the primary task of our dedicated military will be finding and destroying their hideout.
I suspect the reason bandits won't choose to operate within our territory isn't because they expect every merchant to be surrounded by a small army but because there will be nowhere for them to operate from.
The fact you think babysitting every caravan that enters your territory is the most useful purpose to put your soldiers to highlights how critically unprepared you will be if you go against opponents who have fought and won wars in this kind of environment before.
Smart merchants can handle themselves. You only put dedicated guards on high priority shipments. Your enemy's holdings in ashes sends a much stronger message than a dozen guards picking their nose alongside every shipment of onions.
You seem to think you have unlimited manpower to throw at everything. I'm used to taking down much larger organizations with a handful of dedicated men, so I operate with efficiency in mind.
And I'm sure you would be focusing on getting ways to beat up on the weakest individuals possible and then crying loudly if the veterans of your opposition were willing to give up all their protections to get even half the tools you have. Such courage. You are truly a man to be feared.
Fine. Apparently you are ok if they take your kickstarter money promising Pathfinder Online and deliver My Little Pony Online.
I hold people to their promises, especially after I pay them hundreds of dollars to deliver on them.
Holding them to their promises, years before even the MVP has been tested is not a fair judge of them or their game.
I highly disagree. They have speculated as to the implementation of gathering, crafting etc. they've told us it's all subject to change.
They have promised this game will be a sandbox. They've promised this game game will be based in the Pathfinder universe. They've promised this game won't be a murder simulator.
They didn't put it across as suggestions or theory-crafting, they said this is how our game will be. I will be holding them to those promises.
I know you would decry them as liars and walk (as would I) if the cut Open World PvP after promising it like they have. This is no different.
A few years ago it wouldn't have been a deal breaker for me. With another great Open World PvP MMO like Star Citizen due to launch it's dog-fighting module next month, and shaping up to be a more interesting game in many regards...
Yes, if GW gives superficial alignment/rep I see no reason to waste more time with it, and feel GW employees would be better off signing on with a title that can deliver on it's promises.
I don't see that happening though. GW has delivered few messages more consistently or clearly than that this game will not be a murder simulator catered to sociopaths like EVE.
I would be the third member of TEO I'm aware of to switch over to Star Citizen by the way. Waruko and Solemor Farmen already have. This game is competing with all other sandboxes. Few care about genre enough to suffer through inferior mechanics.
I have faith that Ryan Dancey and GW won't disappoint me. I don't believe this title is inferior to SC, just different. This will be a great game If they stick to their guns, and deliver what they have promised.
In an MMO, once a mechanical advantage is discovered, Min-Maxers will flock to it and strip it of any true meaning it was supposed to have. That then leads to "Cookie-Cutter Builds" and the player standing around shouting LFG, but because he does not have a particular skill, he is left standing there.
Following your logic to it's fullest extreme we should all have identical characters with identical skills, feats, alignment, gear etc.
The solution that's been around since the dawn of customizable characters is situational advantage. Different choices make you better for certain purposes in certain situations. Your rogue can utterly destroy most sorcerers in an ambush but toe to against a fighter he stands no chance, and that sorcerer is better than either when facing a cluster of enemies trying to push through a choke point.
Just like you can't tell me which class is the "best" you can't tell me which alignment is the "best". It all depends on your tactics and playstyle. Reputation was never meant to be balanced. High rep > low rep, but low rep is an option if you just can't constrain yourself. If everyone chooses to play a 5000+ rep character, that will not be a problem or negatively effect meaningful content.
Apparently truer words have never been spoken. How sad.
At least the developers seem to understand reason.
But I don't think it should just be a social mechanic. I think Neutral-Good by the graph I just showed is perfect fit for me. There is a chance I could shift to Chaotic-Good in that system, and I'm fine with that.
I'm with Ryan:
Ryan Dancey wrote:
I just don't know how much more plainly I can state this. I'd rather shut down the game and quit than run a simplistic murder simulator for the enjoyment of a tiny fraction of sociopaths.
There will be rep and alignment or there won't be a Pathfinder Online. Deal with it.