Stephen Cheney wrote:
But nobody actually likes those terms in that arrangement, and I mostly just insist on keeping them consistent so we understand what we're talking about. So... crowdforge us some new terms! :)
'Havesting node' works for traditional mmo nodes , you could just put another word in front of that for the group nodes, 'Deep Harvesting node' . Or maybe 'Surface node' and 'Deep node'.
I like what I see in this blog and have a question. Suppose I want to join a faction so I can have more combat, will there be some kind of place where that faction's combat is likely , or will I just have to wander around at random? I mean some place where you are likely to meet your faction's enemies. It seems like factions are meant to be a way to get in a quick fight so having some reason to go to a specific place to fight would make it easy.
edit. Great looking armor!
@lifedragn, I suggest that you edit the OP and delete Bluddwolf's quote and any reference to anything he said. His comments here are so far from the reality of your OP .... what word comes to mind? Calling what you propose Lawful Evil is just an attempt to put himself at the center of the conversation. This thread will be ruined if it becomes all about what a troublemaker says .
Protect the sheep , hunt down the wolves , don't play a good aligned character like they are evil, count me in. I would like to see half the map being a place like you describe , the other half being where evil alignment type deeds are the norm . I hope to see an online fantasy world that is played like something out of a fantasy book. We can make it what we want it to be.
Having a community code that people can choose to follow ,or follow parts of it, will be good . Having a community code that you try to MAKE others follow will make us tyrants instead of good examples. I think you should drop any language that implies we will justify coming down on people who do not follow 'our' code. Enforcing a standard won't work, we build community by agreeing on things. We can educate about our code but not try to make others follow it.
I would like it to be clear if we are talking about just being good examples, and telling people what we think is good, or are we talking about using the fear of verbal punishment to control human behavior we want changed. There is a huge difference between telling people what we believe is the right way to treat others and telling people that they are WRONG and need to stop it ,because the 'community' is against what they do.
Any language about what we will not allow or not tolerate sounds like you are part of the problem, as I see it. I will not be made to fear what the community will do to me if you do not like what I said. There are forum rules and will be game rules we HAVE to follow, the rest is a choice.
and is taking on the fight...and I expect will continue
If the PO forum is a place where people come to fight , for whatever reason, then I am outa here. I watched the SWTOR forum go from a happy and fun place (before beta) to a nasty mess.
Are we now going to ague about arguing ? None of us are as right as we think we are. If you argue until others shut up ,you are just a bully.
The forum is not the place to play out your personal "fight" with another person. Any effort to build community is being undermined. Nihimom and Bluddwolf, you both go too far when you mix in your personal fight . I believe we have a community consensus that you two need to stop it or don't talk to each other. And don't think that it isn't personal between you two , it is not just a disagreement about ideas.
@Areks, I would agree that there is time to do what you say and fight it out but someday we have to be able to unite as one military. I assume that there will be in game diplomacy tools at some point so we can form a defensive alliance when we need to, EE is 18 months long I think, so we don't have to do anything for a long time.
My statement is based on the 'fear' of an overwhelming outside invasion at some point in the future. My ideas about community are based on preparing for that ,at the expense of being able to play the game like you say . I wish we could just play the game the way you talk about, but we will all be easy pickins if there is a huge organized invasion. Should we just prepare by being ready to lose it all? If that is the plan I will shut-up. Uniting all the kingdoms armies by agreeing not to conquer each other and training thru war games seems like it should work , but those who don't mind losing it all can fight it out from day one. Those who want security will look for a huge defensive alliance.
We just need something big enough to stop the biggest invading guild , not the entire world declared a conquest free zone.
You just want to argue ,don't you? bad idea....
The 'game' does not encourage conquest , 'you' do.
If it is civil to burn down one settlement then it is civil to burn them all down, one at a time of course, goonswarm policy?
You don't care what people do to you but only what they say afterwards ? It doesn't work that way in a game or in RL.
A war simulation has to be compared to real war , a sport can only be compared to a sports simulation , unless being close to the truth doesn't matter.
I believe it was the development of player unit combat that the Devs are excited about not that they drool over the idea of watching our settlements go up in flames.
I would rather hear your ideas about how the community can prepare for a mega invasion in the future than listen to you prove I am wrong about a subjective idea(what is civil).
That was not at you.I'm all for being civil and polite, as you talked about, but it won't stop an invasion of settlement destroyers. I don't think it is civil to conquer your neighbors settlement even if you say have a nice day afterward. People will stay mad at each other if our characters destroy what others build.
Hobs the Short wrote:
That would be @Nihimon, in this thread he talks about not having a toxic community and in another thread he only mentions rude type speech as an example of toxic, but conquest or burning down settlements is ok with him as I read it. The part about learning from watching all our settlements burn down is in the OP. I see any kingdom bent on conquest and destruction as toxic to the community. People that let other settlements exist are building a healthy player community. You can still go to war and teach them a lesson or two.
As I see it ,only a commitment to building a world at peace will give us the sense of purpose to unite and defeat an invasion of destroyers. All you mention is being polite and learning from watching our settlements be destroyed. If we fight each other how can we unite when we need to? The goon swarm will not fight amongst themselves , they are united in that way, that is what we need to learn to do. Our armies can train by having war games with each other. Is your alliance for defense only or conquest? It can't be for both. I would rather have a mean and rude neighbor who doesn't burn my house down than a polite one who does.
I think what the Devs at GW are going for with the concept of 'meaningful' is to use those rules to guide the players to behave like they would if they were people living in a fantasy world. For instance, if you burn down a settlement the game rules might shift your alignment to CE and your reputation to -10,000. Only insane killers go around killing everyone they see ,so game rules will try to simulate that you are viewed as such in the world. You might think it is ok to do what you want but the sims in the game world will see you as the despot that you are. It will be interesting to hear more from GW about their plans on what kind of game world they are trying to make, is going to war consequence free in a Pathfinder World? Is the whole point of meaningful PVP to try to simulate a 'real' fantasy world instead of it being a world of psycho-killers with a fantasy background?
I think I understand the "what" of the OP, to prepare for a possible invasion by an outside organized group. What I want to know is "why". Is this opposition on moral grounds? ,meaning you are against the destruction of settlements and oppose the invasion as a united community, because you don't do those things. Or is that you want to do the same things as a goon swarm and don't want them to come in and do it better than you can? If the EE crowd is going to do the same things and burn down settlements then there is no moral grounds to oppose a large group coming in and doing it too.
Most of you sound like it is just a self-serving goal to stop anyone bigger than you are by ganging up to oppose them. But you want to act the same way they do and conquer other settlements. Without a moral basis to unite behind player groups will look for who gives them the best deal. That may be all this community is capable of, the game can be played as a game of settlement conquest.
I never said I was against expansion by conquest, but I am against the complete destruction of a settlement unless they have already first destroyed a settlement. Is the EE community going to conquer each others settlements? Are you going to destroy other player settlements?
Why do you want to unite, is it to oppose conquest or to oppose the destruction of settlements? Or is it to oppose 'them' doing it but you do the same things? You can either unite to dominate as much of the world as you think you can, and do whatever you feel like to opposition. Or you can have a moral basis to agree on and unite to oppose anyone who does what you don't allow. It is either going to be we want to rule and not them or we don't do what they do and will stop them from doing it.
If you can't agree on the simple idea that no one can destroy another settlement unless they first have destroyed a settlement then this building of community is a rejection of any moral standard and it is all about being a bigger bunch of thugs than them. No point in even discussing when conquest of other settlements becomes wrong, if destroying another settlement is ok. Do you want to build a world based on rules that come from a moral consensus on what is not tolerated, or be a bunch of conquering tyrants who need to unite against any bigger tyrants to save your stuff from being taken?
I will try to be more clear. I am not against war as a way to deal with others , I am against the total destruction of any settlement. If we can not agree that the total destruction of a settlement results in the attacker being destroyed then what kind of threat are we getting ready for? If settlements want to go to war and fight it out as armies and burn down someone's outhouse, fine with me. But we must set a standard that the goal of destroying other settlements will result in your own destruction. Otherwise we will have no basic agreement to act as a community against a goon type invasion. If the threat is that a group will come in to destroy our settlements the response must be that we do not allow anyone to destroy any settlement , there are lots of pvp options short of burning down a settlement.
If there is no real threat of a goon type invasion of destruction then we don't need to agree to anything specific. I am for the community not allowing the total destruction of any settlement. We can still declare war and have battles and I am sure there will be ways to hurt other settlements while at war, but NO total destruction.
So do you people plan on destroying each others settlements as part of the fun? or just sit and watch as it happens to others? I guess I read this community wrong in thinking you would let others build their settlements in peace and would stand up to anyone who burns down settlements .So you want to build up settlements knowing they could burn to the ground at any time and go destroy other settlements for something to do? How are you planning on playing this game?
AvenaOats, How far ahead in time have you taken this idea, right now it sounds like we just need to organize so we are not crushed by a future group coming in. The future group wants to come in and dominate the world by conquest, the only real way to stop them is if you replace them as the ones who dominate the world by force. So, someone will be dominating the world, do you want it to be "us"? Better us than them, but what kind of world will it be?
I know it kind of sounds like organizing for self-defense now but that will not be how it works later. The only way to stop groups from destroying settlement after settlement is to 'outlaw' war and crush anyone who makes war. You can try to make a 'defense only' organization but as the map expands there will be room for groups that want to rule the world to develop. So are we going to rule the world and attract players who don't want all out world war to build new settlements?
The future of this game is in the hands of those who 'use ' war. To organize without a plan on how, when and why we will use war is to not plan for what is coming. If we start with a world where settlement conquest is banned by our organization , and enforced by going to war against those who make war , the world will grow into what we want, a world at peace. Or do we want to raze each others settlements for fun?
The only way to prevent a military takeover of the world is to outlaw war and crush anyone who goes to war. We can be a world at peace, or a world always at war somewhere . If there were no groups who would come in to take over, we could just let people fight it out as they will. But if it is a real threat then the only way to stop it is to crush anyone who makes war, that's politics.
Quote, Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on offices, a rottenness begins in his conduct.
Thanks for the links, what I meant to ask is how many people on the server before there are huge problems, like lag. Eve seems to have hit a limit on the numbers in one area , showing that the technology needs to change to make the theory work better in practice. 40,000 people online on one 'server' is pretty impressive. So how many people online would turn the server into a lag fest? It can't be an unlimited number online with no problems, or is there no upper limit?
I don't see how a real world definition of equity can be applied to a game. He is making up a new definition of the word.
The worst RPK offenders could have their threads removed , then they will suffer losing all their gear or fighting with junk gear. The system is supposed to discourage meaningless ganking ,so it can be adjusted during EE to make the griefers suffer more, if need be. IT is a tool the community can use to make open world PvP "get-over" it's bad reputation. A world where bullies are not welcome can be built. We can even build a world where bully settlements get stomped on, kind of like peace thru ruthlessly crushing trouble makers, hehehe.
No one should trust a PKer with a bounty on their head to meet you and let you kill them AFTER you mailed them money. You could just keep the money. As far as who can have a bounty placed on them, there will be possible flags on characters that allow you to kill them without them being able to put a bounty on you.Like if you just PK a low level for no reason, you are flagged and I can kill you without you being able to put a bounty on me. There will be a bandit flag that allows you to rob people and they can't put a bounty on you, but if you have a bandit flag then others can kill you and you can't put a bounty on them. That is how I remember it being explained. So there will be alot of PvP that does not earn a bounty.
@ Bluddwolf, you won't collect your 10% if you tell the bounty hunters where you are. Good thing you have no pride because doing something so dumb won't bother you. Just kidding, anyway I thought being flagged as a bandit is how you avoid bounties and it was just outright murder that earns a bounty.
Just how hard is this game supposed to be? Will it be very complex with a lot of depth and a long and steep learning curve ? Or is it going to be go click on this , now go click on that and your done , you now know all about smithing. I want it to be very hard with a lot to learn. So what if it takes an hour to figure out all you need to do to make something that is a high level item. Its called playing the game. The WoW type method of quick rewards to keep people playing is not what I want to see.
In Age of Wushu (closed beta) they have a bounty system to deal with griefers. BUT ,from what I hear, griefers just make an Alt who can then log on and make the kill and collect the bounty. The offender (in PFO) could just un-equip and use their alt to remove the bounty and it would become a benefit to them. It seems like a possible exploit of the bounty system.
@Forum Moderator, Summersnow wrote "At this point my ony option is to continue to do business with people I now consider to be little better then the scum of the earth............... "
This type of abusive talk is not allowed on the forum and I would like to see this person disciplined. Plus they are so full of it....it sounds like deliberate lying to stir up trouble.No one agrees with person.Anyway calling others "scum" has to stopped, please.
Anything that is a part of your character development has to come before things that will make playing that character a bit more convienent. Pets are a core part of some classes and should be first and then things that make playing the game "easier" came be added.Why have mounts so we can get there faster? Instead lets have more that your character can do after you arrive. I vote pets.Give the companion classes some love.
I see many people think a police state will solve all the "problems".Let's just change the name of the game to Judge Dredd Online and we can all say I AM THE LAW. You anoy me , now I will KILL you. I seem to be ranting, it sounds like you want some open world pvp without consequences, the very thing that the game is trying to do away with.What kind of game will it be if it is "go away or I will kill you"?
I didn't mean reactive to their own actions, reactive to player feedback and what the community wants done next. Since you brought up the scenerio, it seems likely that post-release changes will 'ruin ' the game for some people. Some will love the updates and some will hate it, thats MMOs .I have wondered how this player feedback driven developement will NOT turn into nasty factional infighting.