Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Friendly Fighter

GrumpyMel's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Society Member. 1,417 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Pathfinder Society character.


1 to 50 of 267 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not going to argue about EvE. I haven't played it but more succinctly EvE has a particular set of behavior involving scams that it defines as "fair play". Ryan has made it clear that PFO will not be following EvE's definition of that. Heck, maybe it even makes some sense being that EvE is supposed to be a dystopian sci-fi game.

In Pathfinder, a players character would logicaly know perfectly well whether they are handing over 1 gold coin or 1000 because they are physicaly handling each coin paid. If the interface doesn't make that information perfectly clear to the player, then that's the game's fault not the players. Taking advantage of a flaw in the games code or UI to do something your character would not logicaly be able to do in the game world is an exploit as far as I'm concerned. I believe GW is taking a similarly disapproving stance of it.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Again not seeing the problem here guys. War isn't a structured badmitten match....it's a state where one side is throwing out the rules of Diplomacy because it thinks they aren't going to serve it's goals anymore.

The Agressor pays a cost for going to and maintaining a State of War, if they aren't gaining something valuable by doing so then they are just hurting themselves.

The Defender has the option of determining how much of thier economy they are going to devote to thier war effort. If they think the Agressor isn't a credible threat then they don't need to devote much of thier economy to the effort.

If the Defender thinks that turtling up and trying to avoid provoking an engagement is the best Strategic option for them, then that's a perfectlty viable approach that should be allowed.

If the Attacker drops thier DoW and the Defender wants reperations then they are free to demand them and can use threat of thier own DoW against the Agressor as a goad.

I hate to say this, but I think in this case you are trying to introduce mechanics for things that aren't needed.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Nihimon,

Whats to stop the Defender from simply issuing thier own War Dec back at the attacker in that case?

Ruses are legitimate millitary strategy, IMO, as are cutting ones losses after encountering stiffer then expected resistance.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I have no problems with scams and knavery in general but they should not take advantage of mechanical deficiencies or shortcomings in the UI to do thier work. GW does have a responability to correct these when uncovered but players also bear a responability to not use them while GW is working on those corrections.

Example of fair play scam "Hey listen, you can save on contract fee's, escrows and all that rot. Just give me your load of furs, I'll take them to market for you, sell them and give you the money minus a comission" <takes off never to be seen again>
- The players loss is entirely due to his excersize of poor judgement

Example of unfair play scam. Player knows that in a certain interface, the font used makes a comma seem nearly identical to a decimal so he uses that interface to sell a dagger to a player for 10,000 gp rather then the 10.000 gp the player thought he was paying.

- The players loss is due mostly to a flaw in the game interface that should never have been allowed to exist in the first place.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't think it's much of an issue. If the Defender wants to continue a conflict that the Agressor does not (presumably because the Defender is winning and counter-attacking), they can simply DoW the Agressor in return to renew the conflict. I'm not sure any special mechanics would be neccesary to handle such usage cases.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Actualy, I think wars/feuds SHOULD be relatively expensive precisely because you don't want them used frivolously to circumvent the other PvP systems GW has put in place.

A company/settlement should have to consider whether there is actualy something worth justifying the costs of going to war before declaring war.

You don't want small or new companies routienely and automaticaly curb-stomped simply because they are small and new. That's bad for the game. If they have something valuable or are doing something directly threatening....sure....but every single time an organization should consider whether it's really worth the cost to Feud/DoW them.

The Kingdom system is really where you can have much larger scale wars....as these are larger scale political entities.

Perhaps you could even have a system where there is a declared War (or Feud) which is an object itself and where player organizations can pay a single cost to join that conflict as a belligerent as one side rather then having to individualy declare war against every belligerent on the opposite side.

What you don't want, IMO, is where War/Feud is cheap enough that an organization can trivialy DoW a ton of neutral organizations that have no interest in becoming belligerents. That kinda defeats much of the core design of PFO, IMO.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
That's because the SAD has the cost of training, whereas maintaining a settlement and its territory is a free activity bereft of any costs.
LOL...lets say just for the sake of arguement that we stipulated that the exact same costs as SAD be neccesary... what then?

Why don't we wait and see the further fleshing out of the Marshal system?

But, if you want all of the mechanics of the SAD, then let go of your hang-up over the name, and use it. That is the only argument some people have against it. They don't like gage fact that it can be used for both chaotic and lawful means. Or the real problem is, it does have a skill and slot cost, and some want a freebie.

You can't use the argument that you have a settlement with its costs. Your settlement also gives you every advantage in power as well.

It's like you are writing a letter using the most advanced word processing program, complaining that someone else is writing a letter using crayons.

A pretty weak argument.

There are multiple reasons why SAD itself can't be used...as I've illustrated perhaps 3 times now Bludd.

- If a settlement wants to make banditry illegal then it needs to make one of banditries prime mechanisms.. SAD illegal as well or it's got a huge gaping hole in it's laws to be exploited. If it makes SAD illegal then it's law enforcment can't use it as a mechanism to stop banditry as that would make thier use of it a CRIME.... catch-22.

- The goal of SAD is to extort wealth from people to enrich yourself. The goal of something like tresspass would be to get people to leave your territory so they don't attack innocents doing business in your territory. The two goals are not remotely the same.

- It would be very easy for a bandit to bypass SAD being used on them by simply having no material wealth or coin on them and letting a handler character hold it all for them. It would be completely exploitive to allow SAD demand more wealth then a character possibly has or can pay. Thus all a bandit need do is pay the 1 copper the character has to his name when SAD'd by law enforcment, nullifying the ability to use it as a tool to keep him away from his prey.

- SAD likely involves CHAOTIC shifts. Law Enforcement is, by it's nature, a LAWFULL activity.

All these, as I've explained several times already, render SAD unsuitable for this function. A mechanism that works along similar general lines to SAD would be functional but not SAD itself. It is not simply the name that is unsuitable but the nature of exactly what the mechanism is designed to do.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What I struggle to understand is how someone can on the one hand argue FOR the existance of SAD which allows one to engage in banditry without negative reputation or alignment consequences BY ANYWHERE in the game allowing the BANDIT to extort money from the target or force the target into PvP with no negative consequences for the bandit...

AND At the same time...

Argue against allowing law enforcment a similarly effective tool which ONLY in Law Enforcments OWN territory, allows Law Enforcment demand the target exit said territory or be forced into PvP without negative Alignment or Reputation consequences for Law Enforcment.

It boggles the mind how anyone can support the former and in the same breath argue against the latter.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:

How exactly will they be perma-flagged for PvP?

We are talking about throw away low rep alts right?

GrumpyMel wrote:


...and under what logic is a Soveriegn entity not legaly allowed to enforce who is allowed into it's territory?
Im kinda missing this point... I said if you have people in your settlement who will not proactively enforce the laws, then fire them and find someone else who will.

No your arguement is that Law Enforcment must resort to continualy breaking the laws in order to enforce them, which will result in thier inability to enforce the law within thier own settlement. You are arguing for a catch-22 situation which is unresolvable and I'm rather suspecting you know it at this point.

The only effective recourse a settlement will be left at enforcing it's laws under this paradigm is to utilize UnAligned Criminal Alts to do so.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:

Xeen,

If your purpose building ALTS to prey on merchants/crafters and non-PvP characters then any advanced combat training would be completely superflous if not entirely wasted. Why would you need advanced PvP skills to engage characters who had no PvP skills slotted and little to no experience using them if they did?

I believe this notion is even fully supported by Bludd's comments about running around in EvE flagged Red and never getting engaged by non-PvPers.

Under this paradigm....the only characters that advanced PvP training would be usefull against (Law Enforcement/Millitary) can't legaly force a combat engagement.

You dont need the high end skills in that situation, but when you run into someone who does you will die.

The thing is, with your arguments, the characters that are built for this very subject will be perma flagged for PVP. So Law Enforcement will be fully capable of engaging them consequence free.

If you cannot engage consequence free... Then engage with consequences, If Law Enforcement will not enforce the law, no matter what... Then I suggest finding someone else to enforce the laws.

How exactly will they be perma-flagged for PvP?

...and under what logic is a Soveriegn entity not legaly allowed to enforce who is allowed into it's territory?

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:

You are not getting around the system, you will take rep and alignment hits and you will not have high end training.

@Grumpy Mel - Sure, they can not be feuded. Im not sure that matters anyway... Those will be the guys you do not want to feud anyway... as it will just cost you.

The point is Xeen, they won't be ENGAGE-ABLE by Law Enforcement while operating in Law Enforcement's territory no matter how many past crimes they've commited in that territory.

What I want to prevent is this scenario...

Day 1 - Bandit SAD's non-PvP merchant in owners territory. Escapes before Law Enforcment can respond.

Day 2 - Bandit SAD's non-PvP merchant in owners territory. Escapes before Law Enforcment can respond.

Day 3 - Bandit SAD's non-PvP merchant in owners territory. Escapes before Law Enforcment can respond.

(All of the above perfectly fine so far....the problem comes the next day)

Day 4 - Law Enforcement intercepts bandit skulking in thier territory.

- Law Eforcer "Get out. If you've commited banditry in this territory every day this week. You aren't welcome here"

- Bandit "You can't make me. I haven't commited a crime in the last 20 minutes in this territory so as far as the system is concerned I'm completely innocent...and I'm unaffiliated with any settlement or company so you can't lawfully target me...hence you have nothing you can do to PROTECT your merchants from me. I'll hang out until you logoff then attack a merchant when I feel like it...and the only way you can stop it is become a criminal in your own territory"

What I want to stop is the above scenario. It's patently absurd that a settlement owner has no ability to exersize soveriegnty over who is allowed into thier territory without being subject to hostile action by thier millitary/law enforcment. They have that ability if the intruder is affiliated with a company or settlement (through War or Feud).....they lose it once the intruder is not. It's patently absurd that they can't effectively enforce the law in thier own territory without becoming a criminal there themselves.

If we really wanted to make this realistic....once a person commited a crime in a territory they'd remain a criminal there forever after...unless absolved by the settlements own justice system or laws. While not advocating to do so....as banditry should be a viable path within the game.....law enforcment/millitary should not become automaticaly handcuffed simply because a character chose to remain unaffiliated.

Finally the bandit really doesn't suffer much due to lack of high level training because thier desired prey will usualy be merchants/crafters with no PvP training or experienced....once they run into people with serious combat capacity, most of them will not want to engage in the first place or run if they are already engaged.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

@ Grumpy Mel,

Your assumption that these tactics are solely "bandit modus operandi" is actually limiting the the scope of the usage.

Many settlements, particularly the more aggressive ones will use these "Monsters in the Basement."

A Bandit Company, made up of main characters, will use feuds and or faction to create their pool of consequence free targets. Raiding outposts will also be another source, where reputation loss is still unlikely and the alignment shifts if any are not undesirable as long as not paired with low reputation.

My usage of "bandits" here is simply descriptive of the type of activity the character/alt was engaged in rather then the type of organization they are supporting.

I'm sure there will be some bandits and bandit companies that operate differently then described. They are not as problematic as those I describe since (at least in theory) they can be held accountable for thier actions...as they will pay a price for feuding and they can (theoriticaly) be held accountable for thier activities by being marked as targets of feud in return. There is some mechanism within the system as we currently understand it to make things work there.

What I infer, is that absent any other compensating control, there will be a very strong motivation for unaffiliated bandits precisely because they would circumvent some of the controls that would ordinarly be in place to help make them accountable for thier activities and allow settlement owners to counter-act said activities.

If your company starts raiding or engaging in banditry against a settlement then at least theoriticaly that settlement could feud or declare War upon you....and thus not have to wait until your company members initiate a first strike while raiding to engage them in battle. Then it's all about, IMO, whether the cost of Feuds is reasonable enough to give the average settlement some chance at counter-acting such tactics.

With no company affiliation and and an NPC settlement membership.... there is nothing one can target for feud or war.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeciusBrutus wrote:

What reputation and alignment shifts would be ideal for a known false-flag operation, and how could those be easily exploited?

Please, don't give an answer to the effect of "I want false-flag operations to be Easy Mode." the intended goal is that it is unclear if the costs and risks exceed the value, which will result in some people doing false-flag operations and others not.

Decius,

What's shifts or other mechanical ramifications that might be desired doesn't really matter in this case. The game has no way of understanding that the thugs used to conduct the "false-flag" operation are in any way associated with the characters it's being conducted to benefit. In other words "false-flag" operations are impossible for the game systems to detect....even if they are patently obvious to the players.

As such the only type of mechanical penalties that the game system can allocate are to the thugs conducting them. However there is a very decent chance that those Thugs are simply "throw-away" Alts...so penalties don't matter much. Even if they aren't....I think the people using them are pretty much expecting that they are going to suffer from the same sort of mechanical penalties that "thugs" not innvolved in Flase-Flags are.

Heck, since the goal in such operations isn't really to do alot of effective material damage just incite tensions and shift political allegiances...the actual effectiveness of the "thugs" is kinda incidental.

This is one area where there are no mechanical controls the system CAN impliment, even if it was desired. The real control was if the target or any of the other powers in the area found out that it WAS actualy a False-Flag and who was responsible for it. THAT would be the only really effective cost toward the power running the False-Flag, the ramifications that might result from discovery of the operation.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
Edit: Making it manualy applied should give folks like Bludd who want to play bandits have the opportunity to do so even in a controled hex. They just have to avoid the PC patrols that can manualy apply the condition to them. You could even make it a trained/slotted ability...so it really does become law enforcment/millitary that can apply it, not neccesarly his merchant targets.

This may in fact be the way that the Marshal position Tork was talking about works.

As long as it has costs, requiring training and or slotted skills, I would welcome it. It would be a reasonable counter to the SAD, and or any person you "suspected" to be of criminal intent before they actually committed a crime.

It would also create reciprocal hostility states and allow both sides to square off without reputation consequences, should the "criminals" choose not to accept the demand to leave.

Or... You could train and slot the SAD mechanic and do the same thing, just that you won't be limited to your own lands or tie up a settlement title to do it.

You see it keeps on coming back to the SAD. People on these forums want to use the mechanics of it, but not the name of it. I have to wonder, is it really the name or is it the cost?

You Grumpy Mel, at least mention that there needs to be a cost with your idea.

I've explained elsewhere the reasons why SAD can't be utilized. It could be an ability SIMILAR in function to SAD but not SAD itself. In brief...

- If SAD is utilized as a method of commiting banditry, which it will be and you outlaw banditry, then law enforcment can't use SAD to stop banditry as they'd have to make SAD (and by extension banditry) LEGAL to use and thus eliminate any just cause they had to use it in the first place. Creating a catch-22 situation.

- SAD involves CHAOTIC alignment shifts. If anything law enforcment acting to enforce law and order in thier own territory should be a LAWFULL not CHAOTIC activity.

- The goal of SAD is to extract money. That is not the goal here, the goal is to get the target to leave the territory.

- Bandits typical modus operandi would be to not carry much money or items of value but leave that to handlers. It would be exploitative to allow an SAD'er to demand more from a target then they owned....thus it would be rendered ineffective for the purposes desired here.

Note, I don't believe it would be of much/any real practical value if such an ability was limited to a single character per settlement. That simply creates an impossible situation since the game is live 24/7/365. You would need multiple characters within a settlement that had such power. I'm willing to accept that it be a trainable/slottable ability.... I wouldn't accept any cost in DI or anything like that per application of it's use. Unless there is some sort of cost in Influence, etc to engage in banditry (or SAD) then there shouldn't be any costs of that nature for PLAYER CHARACTERS to be able to engage/combat bandits.....now if you want to talk NPC guards or Guard Towers, etc sure...but not PC's....the only cost that would be reasonable there would be to require some training or slotting to have access to the ability.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

So like I said, two exiles could commit crimes against each other and there woukd be no effect on the settlement corruption / unrest scale.

Since company members can defend other company members, without penalty, once a company ends up in thus exile list they can head to that settlement zone. They hunt down other exiles, or even arrange to meet there and now they have a consequence free mosh pit.

Now that may not have a mechanical effect on the settlement DI, but the reputation of the settlement hex would be that the place runs red in rivers of blood.

Except that Exile/Tresspasser wouldn't neccesarly make them HOSTILE to ANY individual....it could simply make them HOSTILE to settlement MEMBERS/LAW Enforcment/Millitary. You'd also run into the same exact issue with CRIMINALS.

Exile/Tresspasser really needs to work consistantly with the same rules of engagement for any other criminal.

The whole corruption thing needs a little more baking, since it becomes pretty easy to exploit.

My suggestion is that rather then having someone engage in criminal activity (which could include tresspassing/exile) fire off corruption. It starts a TIMER on the character which when it counts down to 0 will kick off a corruption tick but that the TIMER gets DELETED whenever the individual leaves the territory, logs off or gets killed.

This methodology eliminates a whole host of exploits such as SPAMMING, BORDER HOPPING, LOGGING, etc and better represents what "corruption" generaly is understood to be...which is not that crime happens but that the authorties are unwilling or unable to respond to crime.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
...

1) One cannot make the same mechanism to fight banditry as is used to commit banditry.... that would make it impossible to make banditry a crime or require that the only people who can enforce the laws of a territory be criminals in thier own territory.

2) The goal of law enforcement is NOT to rob the criminals, it's to prevent the criminals from preying on lawfull citizens in ones territory.

3) We know full well that Bandits will be Alts who have no monetary assets or material wealth in thier own name. It will all be held by handlers. It would be entirely EXPLOITAVE and against the purpose of why SAD is allowed in the first place to allow the SAD'er to demand a sum of wealth greater then the target actualy has or could possibly pay. That circumvents the INTENT of PFO's PvP systems.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Lets be perfectly clear about how MOST Bandits/Brigands will operate.

- Most bandits/brigands will be ALTS specificaly designed for the purpose of banditry.

- Most bandits/brigands will NOT be members of any company so there will be no way to feud them (at any expense) and no way to hold them accountable for thier actions.

- Most bandits/brigands WILL be members of the NPC Starter Settlements so no way to declare WAR upon them (at any expense) and so that they will be able to use legitimate newbies as cover for thier operations.

- Most bandits/brigands will NOT have a copper to thier names nor any material goods and the minimal equipment required to do the job. All wealth they aquire will immediately be transfered to HANDLER characters who have no official association with them so the bandit/brigand has little of material value to lose if any does take action to hold them acountable for thier activities.

- Most bandits/brigands will NOT flag themselves for PvP while anyone is around that is capable of fighting them. They will wait till they can engage a soft target at minimal risk with little possability of armed reaction against them.

- Bandits/Brigands WILL take advantage of SAD in order to enjoy PvP against other characters with little mechanical penalty against themselves.

Note, no one here is expressing that banditry or brigandry (sans griefing) should NOT be a legitimate play style within the game. But lobbying that it should enjoy the advantage of engaging anywhere/any time completely at it's liesure without any risk of proactive measures from law enforcment is simply arguing for too huge an advantage for it.

If Outlaws want to engage in Outlaw behavior then they should run the risk of PvP from law enforcment every time they enter a territory with strongly enforced laws. They still have the ability to use stealth and mobility to avoid law enforcment patrols when entering said territory and to enjoy the advantage of engaging at thier liesure in any unclaimed or lawless hex.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Proxima Sin wrote:

@Nihimon The burden is on the low rep character and you expect them to faithfully execute this responsibility because... they're such upstanding citizens?

As I originally said, problematic.

I want to put my part of the bickering to rest.

Nihimon and like-minded are so lawful they trust GoblinWork's (still unwritten?) computer code to be an infallible judge of moral fiber* and trust their victims will want to know specifically why they were attacked.

I don't hold either of those faiths. I'm going to catch dipwads in the act and smash their faces when possible whether or not they're flagged hostile to me so they feel an instinctive causal connection between acting like a jerk and getting beat up and losing their stuff.

Neither of us are bad people.

*GW's CEO doesn't think it will be an infallible indicator of toxic behavior. He mentioned multiple nuances in a recent interview and posted about squads of low-rep alts having a legitimate game use for settlements.

Proxima, from what I've read, there are only a very narrow set of circumstances under which a person CAN be flagged "Hostile" to you. Such action must have happaned immediately prior to the Flagging and the person so Flagged would recieve a WARNING that they were about to be Flagged before being allowed to continue the action which would Flagg them.

Frankly GW's proposed mechanisms err's VERY MUCH on the cautious side of NOT Flagging people HOSTILE outside of a very narrow scope of actions. Nihimon, IMO, is actualy being rather generous in affording High Rep "Hostile" flagged characters the opportunity to try to explain why they were so Flagged...and I support that.

Low Rep and Hostile Flag to you is almost an assurance of a character upto no good, IF GW's mechanics are working even partialy as intended. If not and they are completely off the wall (a possibility I'm sure), then I'm sure folks like Nihimon will make allowances for that until such time (if any) as GW can get them working reasonably as intended.

No one here wants to go around attacking people without just provocation. If "Hostile" isn't a very, very strong indication that the person is actualy "Hostile" toward you, then the game has very fundamental, game breaking, mechanical issues...because GW's entire game design premise kinda rests on that.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
Xeen wrote:

Now that Ive posted, let me rephrase it...

No

At least in my case, if you exile me and make me consequence free to kill... then you should be consequence free to kill as well.

Why do you assume that you have some inherent right to enter territory that you don't own? and that the owners of the territory should have no right to expel you from that territory...or should be considered criminals, chaotic and evil for enforcing millitary control over thier own territory?

The very definition of Ownership implies the right to exclude others from access or use of the Property Owned. By seeking entry when you have been prohibited, you are engaging in a criminal act.

They pay lip service to the river freedoms, but as soon as someone tries to hold what they have, they get upset. Defending your territory is wrong, didn't you know?

I have the right to enter any territory I wish. You must force me out.

Lip service, lol.

You are conflating ABILITY with RIGHT. You have the ABILITY to enter any territory in the game. No one is proposing that the game restrict you from doing so. You do not have the Legal Right to enter property that someone else ones within thier own Soveriegn jurisidiction. Those are part of the very definitions of Soveriegnty and Property Rights.

The fact that you would insist that a Soveriegn Realms own Law Enforcment should be flagged as Criminals, Chaotic and of Low Reputation for thier OWN Laws in thier OWN Soveriegn Territory is beyond absurd. Yes, I must physical force you out...but there is no way in heck I must be CRIMINAL or CHAOTIC or LOW REPUITATION in order to do so in my OWN Settlements Territory, If my settlement desires it be illegal for you, XEEN, to enter.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Drakhan,

I believe they see it as a threat to thier prefered modus operandi. They know that most prosperous settlements will see members of thier company as generaly undesirable due to thier prefered vocations. That means they'll be exiled/tresspassed from most such hexs. That takes away the huge advantage they have to engage defenseless targets entirely at thier own leisure. They now have to deal with the fact that local Law Enforcement or Millitary patrols can engage them at a time not entirely of thier own choosing.

Essentialy they want to live the Outlaw lifestyle but not have to deal with the natural consequence of being Outlaws.

The thing is they are still perfectly free to engage in thier prefered behavior with the full advantage of engaging at thier liesure in every other hex on the board aside from the settlement hex's that people OWN. Sorry guys, seems perfectly balanced to me.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:

Now that Ive posted, let me rephrase it...

No

At least in my case, if you exile me and make me consequence free to kill... then you should be consequence free to kill as well.

Why do you assume that you have some inherent right to enter territory that you don't own? and that the owners of the territory should have no right to expel you from that territory...or should be considered criminals, chaotic and evil for enforcing millitary control over thier own territory?

The very definition of Ownership implies the right to exclude others from access or use of the Property Owned. By seeking entry when you have been prohibited, you are engaging in a criminal act.

Edit: Since the game has no mechaism for ARRESTING or DETAINING individuals....that leaves attacking.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Bludd,

What Andius is advocating for is simply the right for a Hex's legal owner to excersize control over which individuals have a legal right to enter thier territory. It makes entry into that hex without permission a CRIME and therefore the individual in question becomes a valid target for law enforcment and millitary forces of the owner to engage WITHIN THE OWNERS TERRITORY without suffering alignment or reputation hits themselves.

It is one of the most basic aspects of Soveriegnty...the right to determine who is allowed legal access to territory one controls.... without it the Kingdom building aspect of PFO would be pretty much broken.

It is ENTIRELY different and far more limited then WARS, FEUDS or SADS. WARS, FEUDS and SAD'S can be applied to targets ANYWHERE within the game, regardless of the targets actions or attempts to avoid them. EXILE is applied only to the target WITHIN THE BORDERS of the OWNERS HEX. The target can easly avoid it, at ZERO cost to themselves by simply not entering that one HEX.

What this means in practical terms is that if you have an ALT who is a member of an NPC settlement and has a KNOWN past criminal history or KNOWN but unofficial association with the owners enemies, you don't get to waltz into thier territory and be untouchable. At the same time, the OWNER can allow genuine newbies or other peacefull members of that NPC settlement into thier territory if they choose.

You can still hang around outside the OWNERS territory waiting to pounce on anyone you like. You can still enter the territory to commit your ill deeds, just that you'll be a valid target to the settlement owner for doing so. You can still use ALTS that are unknown to the OWNER and therefore not exiled. You just can't be a NOTORIOUS individual who is affiliated with and NPC settlement and says "I haven't commited a crime in the last 20 minutes.....so you have to wait till I am ready to start raiding here before you who OWN this hex is allowed to take any action".

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Basicaly if users of an internet application can do something, then they will do it. The only way that you can impose rules that have some effect is to tie those rules to real world consequences. For example if a player needs to invest significant real world $$ and real world time to build a character to the point where they can effectively do something within a game...then the consequences of having that character/account trashed actualy holds some consequence to many players.

However if a player can create a character under a F2P model for no investment of time or $$$ and PvP even semi-effectively against other new/low-level characters then the idea of rules and consequences pretty much flies out the window since the player can void all that simply be creating another character/account ad infinitem. They get to do an end run around the only consequences they might care about....which is something alot of Developers simply don't get.

Even with $$$ and time investment to lose, you still have some people who are willing to invest that simply to mess up someone elses day. So there is a risk there.

Frankly what PFO is attempting to do is pretty risky. It'll be interesting to see if it works. Almost ALL Developers of FFA PvP games have historicaly set out with the exact same design goals surrounding PvP that GW has....and almost ALL of those Developers have completely failed to meet those goals. Not saying it can't be done....but the historical track record has not been good, as the article points out.

Again, it'll be interesting to see how things work out. GW certainly has the drive and talent to make it work if anyone does, but it's a tall order.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Drakhan Valane wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
Andius wrote:
You still have to hold it for 10 intervals of 10 minutes.
I find it unlikely that numbers of participants will not make a difference in the time it takes to destroy an object. Five sledge hammers do the work of one, five times faster.
If you have to hold something for 10 minutes, you have to hold it for 10 minutes.

That is now on paper, but what will it be after testing?

I think that there should be a minimum amount of time and manpower needed to perform a task, but adding additional manpower to that task should reduce the time it takes to complete it.

Granted it would not have to be a 100% increase for each additional manpower unit added, you can factor in a certain amount of inefficiency, but 5 x will always do the same job in less time than 1 x.

Are structures any different than monsters? Or will one sword take 10 minutes to kill the monster, and adding 4 more swords will make no difference in the time it takes to kill that same monster?

I think some of you would argue an ice cube is warmer than the Sun, if I claimed the Sun is warmer.

Except in meatspace, there are just so many swords (melee weapons) that you can reach a single monster with. Same with most formation combat, the front rank or 2 are doing the fighting, the rear ranks are waiting to fill in for casualties or rotate out those who are exhausted.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
The Dev Blog was pretty clear that making outpost raids illegal was not really a good idea.

You do so love to read things your own way, don't you?

You do love avoiding Dev statements that don't support yours.

Please read the Blog sections "Going - a - Viking" and "Hostility" and then read the posts suggesting that it is not really wise to pull NPC guards from your POI, to defend your outpost. That will just make your POI vulnerable, which might be the real ploy of the raiders.

You could of course expend PC assets to protect your outposts, but if outposts raids are part of a coordinated attack, again you will be peeling off your defenses from higher value targets.

Now if your settlement chooses to make raiding illegal, you will open yourself up to that scenario of raiders coming in, hitting fast and then escaping back over the border. This will reduce your settlements DI (adding corruption), and again, if part of a coordinated effort the raiders will not just hit one outpost but many if not all of them at once (Tet Offensive).

No one is saying that your settlement can't make raiding illegal. It is just that there will be a potential cost for doing so. That cost might outweigh the benefit that you are getting from making it a crime.

It does not change the conditions for the raiders all that much. Raiding an outpost flags the raiders Hostile to the owners of the Outpost. If that outpost is supported by a POI, it will also flag the raiders to the owners of the POI. If it is a crime, it will flag the raiders as hostile to the settlement.

I would assume that the owners of the POIs are also members of the settlement, and the outposts are sponsored by the POIs.

So how many players are you really adding that would see the raiders as hostile, by making raiding a crime?

How many of those additional players will be PVP combat focused, not already attached to the POI?

How many of those settlement citizens, that are non...

Alot would depend on how large the settlement is and how it is set up. I would think that detering casual raiding of it's outposts would be a rather high priority for most settlements since they are (I would assume in most cases) a significant source of economic activity. Preventing your economy from being weakened will be an important consideration for most settlements. If you can open up a significantly larger PC response (e.g. you have alot more settlement members then POI owners) then there is a good arguement for it. The other thing you do by making it a crime is force the opposition to use CHAOTIC characters for it....since engaging in criminal activity entails chaotic shifts.

Under the current Alignment paradigm we know that Chaotic settlements will tend to be weaker then Lawfull ones....which means that an opponent might be forced into using Alts to do it. Training and equiping 2 characters will be more expensive then one (both in real world $$$ and in game resources) thuse your forcing your opponent to spend more himself in order to inflict economic harm on you. His alternative is to hire mercs to have him do it for him...but that comes with it's own set of expenses and risks.

This assumes that the raiding is part of a campaign of economic warfare not just some criminals out for a quick score.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My preference would be to put a simple timer on the criminal. The timer drops if they get killed, leave the territory or log. If the timer expires with none of those conditions occuring, then you get inflicted with corruption.

Giving you credit when you kill the criminal doesn't work because they could just willingly allow an accomplice to kill them to deny you credit for the kill....or presumably just jump off a cliff. So it would have to be when they die for any reason. Also it couldn't just be when your forces kill a criminal in your territory because then a settlement could just farm thier own criminal alts (that commited crimes in another territory) to lower corruption.

A simple timer takes away alot of the complexity since all it needs to have record of is the remaining time and what settlement it occured under. Also I think putting in the "leaves the territory" condition avoids alot of the border hopping issues....including having your own law enforcement get tagged as criminals for crossing into somebody elses territory to deal with the situation.

There may be other methods that work though.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:
@GrumpyMel if you are suggesting that settlements cannot bar individuals or groups then that means no one can be anything other than NRDS which makes this whole topic even worse frankly.

Steelwing, as Andius has mentioned, we've been told that Settlements will be able to set rules/filters for the TYPE of character allowed in... example "IF Reputation < 0 then character is not allowed". What we've not be told and has kinda been hinted by Ryan will not be the case is that you as Settlement leader CAN NOT say... "You know, non-aligned character X, you don't technicaly meet any of our filters but I happen to have definite knowledge that you are working as a spy/sabotuer/assasin for Enemy Faction Y....I'm marking you as a tresspasser you have 10 minutes to leave our territory or else". That means that you pretty much have to have a NBSI policy to have ANY border security whatsoever. Your alternative is having to attack that character, suffer alignment and rep hits, become a criminal in your own settlement and thereby increase it's corruption index. Clearly that's onworkable.

What I'm saying is that local law enforcement has to have the ability to flag dicey individuals...giving them a tresspasser/exile flag and X amount of minutes to leave the settlement or become a criminal and open to PvP from that settlements law enforcment.

I'm also saying that if crime is going to effect the corruption index of a settlement then law enforcement needs a REASONABLE amount of time to respond before that corruption kicks in....because unlike in the real world where you can put a criminal out of circulation for X number of years...in PFO they can come right back after you kill them, or even log onto another ALT that is completely "innocent" as far as the games systems knows and repeat the behavior 5 minutes later, ad infinitem.

There has to be something which says "If Law Enforcement responds in X amount of time to something that would increase corruption then corruption is NOT increased because Law Enforcment IS actualy doing it's job" . Corruption is when officials ARE NOT doing thier job.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

AS a follow up, I think you should be able to INVITE other individuals/groups to assist you in combat providing those individuals take the same Alignment/Reputation consequences that you did when you engaged in that combat.

This happens all the time in the real world as well with nations that have difficulty patroling thier own territory and invite other nations or mercenaries to send thier forces to assist in Peacekeeping duties.

There is no way the US Navy would be flagged as "Chaotic" for coming to the assistance of a French freighter that had requested assistance in international waters when it was being attacked by pirates....that's just absurd, gamey and gimmicky.... Nor would a nations forces lose reputation or be considered "Chaotic" if coming in to help another nations forces provide law enforcement and security in another nations territory when REQUESTED by that nation to do so....the notion is completely counter to basic logic.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Steelwing by the same logic you have provided here one could argue that PFO should not have a combat system as the players can just work it out themselves.

PFO is currently in the design stage, with a great deal of it's mechanical systems not designed at all yet, let alone set in stone. So what Andius has proposed is not a change to anything but a specific set of mechanisms for something that has not been implimented or fully designed yet.

Developers create mechanisms for the sort of play they want to see happen in thier games and adjust those mechanisms when it's not achieving what is intended. That's why the pass interference rule exists in football.

In this case, the Developers may (or may not - we don't know yet) for settlements to welcome travelers who are not members into thier territory since that promotes a greater degree of meaningfull human interaction.

I likely expect setting the trespasser flag on a fairly granular level, down to the individual, is an important aspect of doing that. It could easly be done with a timer so that when people were flagged as tresspassers/exiles they were allowed sufficient time to get out of the territory. There is absolutely no reason why a settlements law enforcement should take reputation or alignment hits for ejecting suspected spies, sabotours or criminals who are not their own citizens from thier territory while allowing peacefull merchants and traders to access it. In fact this is what real countries do all the time with thier passport and visa systems as well as diplomatic visa's. It is a rather gimmicky, gamey and unnatural system to not allow for that.

Again, this should only be valid for territory that your settlement officialy and formaly controls and therefore your law enforcement has jurrisdiction.

As for markets, I think it goes without saying that low level equipment/resources need be readly availble in the NPC towns but high level or specialized equipment likely should only be available in player settlements. I think you could potential achieve this by assuring that the cost to transport anything in bulk be non trivial thus producing a significant price advantage for specialized items in local markets. Also NPC markets could impliment a TARRIF on importation of such items, if neccesary.....

And yes, I would like to see the significance of escalations, production of raw materials and actual expansion of the settlement sufficiently involved that having extra labor (and/or imported materials) beyond what the settlements own members provide often becomes a boon rather then a bane.

It should be rather difficult for a settlement to be entirely self-sufficient within it's own membership. Once again furthering the goal of meaningfull human interaction that GW wants to encourage within it's game.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

My own opinions...

- EvE most definately has a toxic reputation in wider gaming circles. So does Darkfall, Mortal Online and most FFA PvP games.

- EvE's toxic reputation has nothing to do with it's complexity. My freinds and I who have no desire to play EvE have plenty of experience playing games like Advanced Squad Leader...complexity isn't a problem.

- Most FPS games don't really have the same toxic reputation as EvE because....

A) They are generaly Team/Faction based so from the second you login you have a built in support team on your side working toward the same goal.

B) The skills to achieve are based entirely on the players abilities not the characters. Anyone can pretty much kill any other player. Skill simply determines how often that occurs.

C) Combat is intentionaly ALL the game is about. There really is nothing outside of that to playing the game. FPS combat is generaly pretty interesting and engaging too.

D) There really is no individual consequence to death, so you don't mind or lose much from it happening.

E) Players that abusive in other ways (e.g. harrasing voice chat) can simply be muted or sever kicked.

F) When all else fails you simply can abandon your 20 minute long match and goto another server with other players to avoid those you don't like. You don't lose anything by doing so.

G) Most of them have the option for private, password protected, invite only servers where you can always be assured of who you are playing with.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DeciusBrutus wrote:

What does the reputation system do that this proposal doesn't undo?

If the cost is high, the legitimate use cases don't work; if the cost is low, the opposite problem happens- and there is a point where the cost is high for legitimate use and low for abuse.

In fairness Decius, that arguement can be applied to just about any proposed mechanism...including the reputation system that GW is designing.

If a plane flies too fast it's wings will shear off, if a plane flies too slow it will stall and fall to the ground. It does not follow though that aviation is a worthless and unworkable pursuit.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

It's not a bad suggestion.....

However, the option I've always prefered for settlement security is the ability for thier officers to set TRESSPASSER laws on a very granular level....down to company and even individual.

So a settlement could set a law saying that Joe Schmoe is a tresspasser in thier territory even if he was not aligned with any hostile settlement because Joe is a known spy or notorious outlaw, even if he isn't wearing his outlaw flag today. Yet at the same time they could allow Bobby the Neutral Merchant in to trade because no one is worried about Bobby even if he isn't a settlement member.

If you are ALREADY inside a settlements territory when you get outlawed as a Tresspasser, you get a warning and are given a sufficiently long time to leave that territory before you actualy get flagged as a criminal and are subject to attack from settlement members.

Note that such a system only works in areas that the Settlement Owner has OFFICIAL jurrisidiction over.

It's essentialy the PFO equivalent of the local marshall saying "You have 20 minutes to get outa Dodge, kid."

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

My feeling was that GW had the SAD mechanic reasonably balanced under the flag system...removing that system changes the balance into something that starts to become problematic. I would like to see...

- You must be PvP flagged BEFORE you can issue an SAD... something like 5 minutes should do.

- You may not remove your PvP flag for some time.... say 15 minutes... AFTER you issue a SAD.

- You may not logoff while still under SAD flag...to avoid people exploiting logoff functionality to avoid consequences of thier actions.

Lets be blunt... SAD is a hostile action. It is not killing someone but threatening to kill someone unless they give you what you want is most certainly a form of hostility in a game focused heavly on resources and economics.

The principle is pretty simple, you should not have a consequence free way of initiating hostile action without opening yourself up for the possibility of consequence free hostile action being initiated against you in return.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My comments were generaly in reference to table-top. I find it to be too coarse a catagorization to be generaly be usefull for most circumstances and therefore providing very little utility. Especialy since I as a human GM can understand the exact context of the player characters actions and view them in a granular fashion. I have no need to abstract the characters actions into some sort of cosmic 2 letter code/label and therefore it has little utility to me.

In terms of PFO, I do understand what GW is trying to accomplish but none of it actualy need be accomplished by that methodology and frankly I think it probably less desirable to use GW's proposed methodology then the alternatives due to unfortunate side effects. They could have accomplished regulating PLAYER behavior and disincentivizing anti-social behavior purely with a reputation based system alone, it accomplishes everything that Alignment is attempting to achieve in that area already... and they could have accomplished the fomenting conflict functionality with a purely faction (PC or NPC) based system sans Alignment.

I understand that is not thier intention and the Alignment mechanic is already a built in design assumption so the arguement is largely academic. I wish them luck, but I have the suspicion that an automated system of this nature is likely to be far too limited and coarse in how it functions in practice to achieve what most people might expect of it and likely will cause alot of frustration, cognative dissonance and just plain WTF? moments. It also has some unfortunate side effects for some portion of the player base as I think have already been well pointed out by Proxima Sin and others. However, I expect it's pretty much a done deal at this point, so we'll just have to wish for the best and see what happens when the rubber meets the road.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
PvE which is a credible threat to the player-run settlements. Get players away from thinking of PvE content as a slightly more interesting form of loot acquisition, and instead thinking of it as a danger to their people which needs to be destroyed. Escalation fighters should feel like they're stopping a dangerous incursion, not grinding out materials for their settlement.

+1

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:
Proxima Sin wrote:
"But they can keep a different account with their high Karma characters on it to get around that" Yeah and those characters aren't making a toxic environment for other players around them are they? Working as intended.
No it is not working as intended. It is having no effect whatsoever because each character is on a separate account. There is no karma effect at all in that case

The logical counter-measure is to increase the cost in both real world dollars and/or time invested for a character on a new account to get to the point where they can engage in PvP at all. Thus using multiple accounts as opposed to using a single account for characters comes at a disadvantage. Of course if money and/or time is of no object then it can be circumvented but as with almost all counter-measures the goal is never to prevent someone with limitless resources from circumventing it...it's to raise the bar in terms of the cost/investment required to circumvent it that fewer people are willing to engage in such activity, thus limiting the effect on the user base as a whole. Again, assuming that such activity would be undesired and worth the investment of resources (and side effects) of attempting to discourage, which is entirely a decision for the Developer to make.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Urman wrote:

@Xeen, I agree - despite Ryan's wishes (whatever they may be) I expect at least one settlement will have its leadership vanish.

I expect that there would have to be a uncontrolled state applied to a settlement at some point after the leadership vanishes, which I call riot, and then someone from inside the settlement or outside will be able to try to take control.

I suspect there will have to be some mechanism in place for a revolt/riot/coup, etc. The simple example of a settlement that has a dictatorial form of government (single players holds all the keys to authority) and that player gets hit by a bus or rage-quits or has his mother take the computers away ;) . There likely will have to be some mechanism for enough of the members/officers, etc to take over authority for the charter.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:

The group always has a leader.

It may not look that way, but there is always someone that either manipulates things, or is the go to guy for answers.

Sure you can have a settlement with zero companies. Good luck to them I guess. It still doesnt take away from the same group running multiple settlements. Using alt characters to get around the alignment restrictions.

Depends upon what it actualy takes to run a successfull settlement. If it takes alot of ACTIVE play (we don't know yet), you may not effectively be able to run more then one settlement no matter how many characters you have.....or you may be hindering yourself because it may be more efficient to focus play time/efforts within one settlement then try to spread them out over multiple settlements. Alot of that is still very nebulous because all the mechanical details of implimentation are still be worked on, let alone play tested and tweaked.

IMO, you seem to be making alot of assumptions based on play experiences in a previous game even though the mechanics for how these things work in PFO may be entirely dissimilar.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:

Sure you can code certain things, like reputation.

The meta gaming that CCP supports are the types of things they arent going to put into the game. External skill calculators and monitors, gambling sites, etc. Most other things, like I listed above, they dont have to bother with because they arent trying to control it in the first place.

What I am saying is, why code in things to focus play styles when you can just go around it and still have the play style? How does that provide meaning to the game?

Same reason why some FPS games (for example) try to impliment anti-hack, anti-cheat mechanisms. It's an attempt to get people to play the game according to the rules it was designed with, rather then circumventing those rules and ruining the game for other players. They may not be able to get all hackers/cheaters but they hopefully discourage enough of them that it makes the game tolerable to play for the players who actualy want to play the game the way it was designed....and possibly drive a percentage of the hackers/cheaters toward games that are lower hanging fruit for them.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
I was intrigued a bit by how a professed "carebear" went down the dark path that she says that she has. It is very interesting how she describes feeling some residual guilt for the things that she has done and continues to do and at the same time, continues to do them. All just a game, except that she recognizes that it does hurt other people and also costs them real money and their lost time/effort.

Purely responding to Bringslite's characterization, not knowing anything of the actual story, this is entirely consistent with my own personal view of how toxic these kinds of games can be. Ultimately, I think most of the folks who end up sticking around end up embracing that toxicity as a coping mechanism - as a way to take control of the situation that traumatized them.

Do unto others what has been done to you

It really surprises me that some people actualy do stick in completely voluntary environments that they find unpleasant. If I found a game experience unpleasant in any significant way, I would be gone quicker then you could blink an eye. I mean there isn't any sortage of venues for entertainment out there, including other games.

Edit: The above is why I wouldn't touch EvE with a 20ft pole. It would simply not be enjoyable for me, at all.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:

Meta gaming has a vague meaning because it is termed for any of the things you asked about.

All of it will be used. an example of this discussion: If an organization settlement can only own one territory settlement. Alts will be used to "own" the settlement, while it is worked for resources to support the "main" settlement. (there are other ways to do this as well, being meta gamed, but this is one example)

If you want to transfer items from a LG character to a CE character and not take the alignment hit, you either use a who cares alt to take the alignment hit or use the market to cleanse it with the proper sale amount so you know you will get it.

If you want to run a kingdom with all alignments, just make up several and control them from outside the game. Everyone uses in game player chat channels, TS, and a shared forum. Have alts in each to trade resources needed. etc

We can go on and on. But most of these are not required, except GW is trying to control them.

There is no need to limit the settlement organization to one piece of territory other then to try to control expansion.

There is no reason to have alignment hits for transferred goods, other then to try to control shared items between alts.

There is no reason to use the one step alignment rule other then to try to control numbers in a settlement.

So on and etc

Basicaly the Developers want to create a certain set of rules for how the game functions. Obviously players can find ways, in certain circumstances to circumvent those rules but at least the Dev's in many instances can make it more difficult/painfull to do so through imposition of a certain set of controls.

For instance, they can't really stop players from using Alts to technicaly "own" more then one settlement but they could require a significant amount of active play from the settlement leadership in order for it to thrive...meaning players that really wanted to "own" 2 settlements using Alts would have to invest alot of extra time to do so. They could also create rules that made it mechanicaly less efficient for a settlement to use external resources then internal ones. Making people sacrifice a level of efficiency in order to support a more geographicaly dispersed organization split between multiple settlements.

Some of these methods might have unintended side effects or might frankly be more trouble then they are worth to impliment. So while Developers can't completely force players to play the game as intended and avoid meta-gaming, they can, IF they really want to do so, make it more cumbersome, difficult and inefficient for players to do so in many instances. The key, though, is that some Developers don't actualy WANT to do so. For instance, even though I haven't really played EvE...I've gotten the impression that CCP actualy actively supports meta-gaming and wants people to play thier game that way....thus they don't make any efforts to try to reduce it. I'm not sure if GW's attitude will be the same. It seems to me that they do invest some effort, where feasable, to make it more cumbersome to meta-game some aspects of play. YMMV.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
avari3 wrote:
Kabal362 wrote:
ppl will use low rep alts to do the dirt work( and will use a lot) and imo will be almost impossible to enforce a ban or penalty against them. gw are doing their part by trying to minimize this issue with the training facility nerf for low rep chars. If this tactic causes many problems and grief i have no doubt that gw will extend the penalty of low rep chars to a stat nerf. So its up to the community how it will be used.
Yes there are work arounds. As there probably will be to be everything in the rep system. The point is that when you force players to jump through hoops for every single action, eventually they get weary of it and move on to a game that fits their play style better. It's true on an individual basis, it's even truer on a group basis.

Not if jumping through those hoops leads to a better result. Once a large enough population begins jumping through those same hoops, then the pressure will be on the Devs to remove some of those hoops.

As another poster made the point above, some of you truly believe that Goblin Works is developing the "MMO of All MMOs" and they will fix all of the ills of the MMO experience.

I take the RTBS (Remains to be Seen)view of that.

Bludd,

I have absolutely no idea if GW will be succesfull in making a game that meats their stated design intent. Personaly, I'm taking a very large leap of faith that PFO will end up making a game significantly different in experience then the cesspool that most FFA PvP games end up becoming. I pretty much loathe the way FFA PvP games tend to play in practice....but I've taken GW at thier word that they intended to offer a different experience then those.

If they fail, no skin off my nose...I'll just write it off and go back to playing other types of games that interest me... plenty of those to choose from. Big deal for GW, though. I suspect that PFO simply won't be able to sustain itself if it has to cater exclusively to the types of players that ALREADY enjoy playing Darkfall and Mortal Online and EvE.... there are only so many games that an audience of that size can sustain, and I can't see too many folks that are already fully satisfied with those games making a switch. I think PFO is going to have to reach out to other audiences beyond those, including those who have no interest in playing them. Will it succeed? As you said...it remains to be determined.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:

From what I read recently, a lot of roads will be created by Players. The roads between NPC towns will have varying degrees of PVP levels. Mainly from NPC's will show up and help to no NPC's will show up to help.

The main thing that was referred to about choke points was from Eve. We will not be using jump gates or anything similar. So if there is an area that you want to go through, but it is heavily traveled by bandits... just go around.

That's entirely possible. Again it's effectively about what GW want players to be able to do and not to do. If GW really want players to be able to use a particular road hex without worry, then they have the ultimate means to do so if neccessary. I don't play EvE, but I'm fairly sure if CCP really wanted to make it impossible to suicide gank in a particular area, they could simply disable non-consentual PvP.

The main point I'm trying to get across is to not assume that PFO will just be EvE v2 with Elf Skins. Ryan and company have specificaly stated that they do not want to emulate certain aspects of EvE in PFO so one can't proceed from the idea of "well it works in EvE, so..."

Ultimately they want, I believe, to attract a certain subset of customers that don't and wouldn't play EvE....and if they want that badly enough, then they will make sufficient modifications to the rules to prevent things that would drive such players away.

My general impression is that they don't want vast sections of the map effectively walled off from the entire player base.... so they likely will take whatever steps are neccesary to prevent that from happening.

That's NOT saying that organizations won't be attempting to exert some level of control over hex's they can't claim....likely some level of that is quite desirable by PFO...but if it gets to the point where 99 percent of the player base can only effectively access 1 percent of the map, I would expect them to make whatever modifications are neccesary to keep thier design goal for the game viable.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Core exists because even if GW puts a TON of resources into the Alignment system, an automated system will be able to capture maybe 1 percent of the actions that would logicaly shift a character one way or another.

So all it becomes is a rather meaningless and unnatural timesink and grind.... because players won't be able to get to the alignment they really should be and any sane human GM would adjucate they really should be without grinding out a very limited range of activities that become utterly boring to the player....assuming they care at all about alignment....AND they HAVE to care in PFO because alignment dictates what settlement they can belong to, welcome to the world of automated systems.

Core gives the player at least a partial way to mitigate that by letting them represent all the things an automated system can't capture.

I'll also note, for the record, that alignment systems have been a dismal failure in pretty much every computer game that has tried them to date and have routienely been criticized as among the least popular features of those games.

Whether you guys like it or not, alignment is a very large part of the representation of a characters identity and just as a player will spend hours in a character creator tweaking it so they get their hair or nose just right, they'll want to be able to specify what their alignment should be, when something gets in the way of that and says "no your character isn't really what you want them to be or think they should be", that's a big deal for alot of players.....when it's something as limited and clumsy as an automated system then orders of magnitude more so.

At least with core alignment the player can specify, this is who I think my character is and should be.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:
GrumpyMel wrote:
Steelwing wrote:

Serious question here

You guys keep coming up with things which are of benefit for groups to do in any case but you then go on to insist that there is a mechanic for it rather than just to groups talking and agreeing on it and then you go further and ask for extra benefits for doing something that is already beneficial for you to do just by the nature of it.

Why not just leave it up to players to sort out, you don't need mechanics and you do not need artificial benefits. If it is in your favor as a group just do it

Because it's simulating the way that kingdoms and settlements actualy work. Remember a big portion of the gameplay in this aspect of the game is settlement and kingdom management. In managing a settlement or kingdom you are not just dealing with your player character members. In fact, those are probably by far a minority of a well developed kingdom but all the NPC populace of the kingdom. All those common folk doing mundane things which are absolutely vital to the function of a kingdom.

If that wasn't an important aspect of gameplay then there would be no point in having things like Development Index's or Unrest or any of the other mechanical measurements of your kingdom/settlment in the first place.

And the kingdom mechanic is in as I have pointed out. The argument that there needs to be some coded in method of treaties between independent kingdoms is still to my mind spurious. Can you suggest one thing that a coded in system will allow that letting players do it for themselves won't (except penalties and rewards which aren't part of the system merely inducements to use the system).

I fail to see why in the example I gave on caravans that it adds anything to the settlement ruling game whatsoever. It is merely another system that the devs would have to code which could just as easily be accomplished by players just doing it for themselves

- It will provide a mechanism to reflect the attitude of your kingdom or settlements populace toward your foreign policy decisions. That's gameplay. Part of the kingdom management aspect of play. Meaningfull choices and tradeoffs in policy decision making. It adds another aspect into consideration beyond what simple force of arms might entail.

- It provides an additional sense of surity between kingdom/settlement level entities by imposing mechanical consequences in the same manner and under the same rationale that contracts do for individuals. A kingdom/settlement knows you are less likely to betray it's trust if there is an additional mechanical penalty involved. Even if it is inferior in force of arms to you, there is still a consequence to you breaching a formaly recognized agreement.

- It provides meaningfull gameplay choices. Do you want to be a Kingdom/Settlement that enjoys complete freedom of action, free to attack/backstab anyone you like as long as your force of arms allows or do you want to be a Kingdom/Settlement that enjoys an enhanced economy due to your citizens having confidence in the stable relationships you hold with other realms?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:

Serious question here

You guys keep coming up with things which are of benefit for groups to do in any case but you then go on to insist that there is a mechanic for it rather than just to groups talking and agreeing on it and then you go further and ask for extra benefits for doing something that is already beneficial for you to do just by the nature of it.

Why not just leave it up to players to sort out, you don't need mechanics and you do not need artificial benefits. If it is in your favor as a group just do it

Because it's simulating the way that kingdoms and settlements actualy work. Remember a big portion of the gameplay in this aspect of the game is settlement and kingdom management. In managing a settlement or kingdom you are not just dealing with your player character members. In fact, those are probably by far a minority of a well developed kingdom but all the NPC populace of the kingdom. All those common folk doing mundane things which are absolutely vital to the function of a kingdom.

If that wasn't an important aspect of gameplay then there would be no point in having things like Development Index's or Unrest or any of the other mechanical measurements of your kingdom/settlment in the first place.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steelwing wrote:

The point I was trying to make is that if the benefits or downsides of an alliance are too restrictive then no one will bother.

Frankly I don't think there should be any mechanical benefits to an alliance and therefore there should be no repercussions for breaking an alliance either.

That way at least when you attack settlement A you are in no doubt who you are attacking because all alliances are in the open because there is no reason to use meta game alliances.

Then whats the point of GW implimenting an Alliance system if there are no mechanical benefits or downsides? That would sound like an arguement for not having one in the first place?

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think it's important first to understand the fundemental difference between PvP and PvE from the perspective of the PvE player.

In PvE if you find that another player is being a jerk or are disturbed by that player, you can simply walk away and choose not to associate with them. If they follow you, seek you out or try to interact with you after that then that becomes harrasment and is a violation of most games Terms of Service. That's actualy true in PvP FPS games too, where you can just go to a different server for the next match.

In a PvP game like PFO uninvited interaction is part of the territory, there is no getting around it. People have a legitimate game-play reason to seek you out when you don't want them to do so. That's going to be a tough hurdle to get over if you really do want people that are generaly shy about doing PvP in MMO's to be accepting of it as a legitimate part of gameplay.

If that's the case, then I think it's going to be especialy important to not be percieved as anywhere near "jerk-like" in ones behavior to other players.

Note, it may sound a bit odd but from my days of playing a text based MUD that did have player character villians that did commit the occasional (pking was VERY infrequent) murder was that they often would whisper to thier victem afterwards something like "nothing personal" or "good RP" or "this is why my character did this" or "if you want any advice on the game just send me a tell OOC". That often went a long way toward making things alright... just a reminder from the person that I'm playing a game here and so are you, as a player I want you to enjoy the game even if my character is a bit of a SOB that needs to slit your characters throat in order to accomplish his objectives.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, one pretty obvious (to me anyway) aspect of Alliances should be that breaking one and/or should cause a pretty significant amount of unrest in your settlement. The common folk (NPC's) aren't likely to be overly thrilled with the idea if you tell them one day that "Eurasia is our best freind." and the next "We're at war with Eurasia."

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
Ryan Dancey wrote:

As a community we have a joint problem. The joint problem is that toxic behavior in previous sandbox MMOs has damaged the general public's ability to discriminate between a game mechanic and obnoxious behavior.

If we are to succeed in our quest to rehabilitate PvP and restore it to its rightful place next to crafting, questing and exploring in the list of features people desire in their MMOs we need to go far beyond the minimum to recover that audience.

Again, I don't want to encourage "everything that is not forbidden is permitted" thinking. I want to encourage people to actively work towards taking personal responsibility for collectively fixing a big problem - that too many people think "PvP" means "the game will be filled with jerks doing jerky things to me to a level that is intolerable".

Don't spend time trying to figure out where the line is between ok and not ok. There isn't one. Spend time instead playing far away from the line and encouraging everyone you play with to do the same. Our actions, as a community, are what will allow us to rise above and past the old assumptions that PvP means the game will be toxic.

Sorry buddy (and I dont say that as a negative) but from my themepark and sandbox gaming experience PVE'ers are just as toxic. "Oh great another newb, you cant join us on this raid as you are not enough of a power gamer to have the high end equipment we require."

Most of the toxicity I have seen with PVP in other sandbox games... Or I should say the cause of that perception... is that people in general have lost their competitiveness and hate the fact that they will lose something. In fact it makes them angry... enjoying a sandbox pvp game, then having to pvp when it doesnt suit their schedule.

The biggest complaints I have ever seen on the Eve forums is the fact they lost their shiny ship fit out with all that shiny equipment. Hey lets put a years worth of money into one ship and take it out during a war.

Lack of Competitiveness and...

The difference with PvE games is that if you run into someone that is being a jerk you can simply chose to not associate with them and play with your own group of friends who you know are not jerks.

That's simply not an option in PvP games. There is no freedom of association in them. You can't choose who you interact with and who you don't because uninvited interaction is part of the territory of PvP. That's a HUGE difference.

I say this as someone who enjoys and play PvP in most games OTHER then MMO's and is certainly willing to give it a shot here in PFO.

However in most of the PvP games format I've played there was always the option to choose not to play with individuals who were unpleasant.
Board Games you simply didn't accept invitations to play with that individual again, same with online Turn Based or Real Time Strategy Games. With FPS games you simply found a different server for the next match.

The 2 MMO's that I've played which were PvP focused and seemed to have generaly enjoyable atmosphere's as well as gameplay were PlanetSide2 and WWII Online. I'm not sure exactly why that was, other then both played like FPS games.

1 to 50 of 267 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.