Sinspawn

Sintaqx's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber. Organized Play Member. 267 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 1 Organized Play character.


1 to 50 of 52 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Another couple issues with logging in at the nearest 'friendly' point:

If you are a solo no-good-nik you are not going to want to trek across the map from an NPC city (your only friendly point) to your preferred hunting grounds every. single. time.

If you are a scout operating deep within enemy territory and those 3 burritos with extra jalapenos you had for dinner decide to make a break for it, or your 3 year old decides the cat needs a bath (in the toilet), you really don't want to spend another 4 hours sneaking past guards and around patrols just to get back to your position.

Instant travel with your hard-earned loot, as Bludd pointed out, is a bad thing. Most folks start their adventuring or gathering with an empty bag, not a full one.

Login traps are a staple for PVP MMOs. One idea to help mitigate them would be a black screen fade-in on login where you are invulnerable but cannot move, giving folks around you time to respond to your presence.

Logoffski is likewise a bad thing if it allows you to completely avoid loss. This can be addressed in a couple parts. First, if you are not aggressed, then you can 'jump into the bushes', becoming invisible to anyone except those specifically skilled and equipped to track. You remain in-game for 1 minute or so before the character is removed from play. A 'Safe Logoff' option can also be given, initiating a 2 minute timer, at the end of which you log off and the character is removed as long as you are not in a combat situation (having given or received damage or used an aggressive or defensive ability within the past 5 minutes). If you are flagged for aggression, you 'jump into the bushes' 1 minute after your connection is severed, but the character remains in-game and discoverable for 15 minutes

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am a fan of the 'Stolen Goods' flag, however, just as in life, there should be a few avenues available to move/sell these.

The first would be to pay a 'fence' to remove the flag on the item so it can once more be sold on the open market. The second would be to recycle the good to their base components (at a loss). The base components would not be flagged and could be used or sold as desired. The third would be to take stolen components and craft them into something. Again, the new item would not be flagged as stolen and could be sold.

Stolen goods can't be threaded and are easily identified as stolen. Carrying/using a stolen item would be illegal in most civilized areas.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One of the things that occurs to me in reading this is that the raiders are going to need to move all their ill-got gains, especially if they take the time to strip the place. The returning caravan may make for quite the tempting target, especially if the bulk of the raiders move on to other endeavors.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

With regard to the concern that more experienced gatherers would tell the less experienced gatherer to 'shove off, we'll take it from here', I really don't see that happening too often. I've been a miner for pretty much my entire EVE career (with forays into piracy, suicide ganking, production, PVP roaming, low, null, wormhole, pretty much everything) and can say with a certainty that the single most difficult thing to do when mining in dangerous space is to organize a guard. Nobody wants to do it, regardless of how fast or slow the gathering cycle is or whether the enemies are players or NPCs. Consequently, as a miner, I fly paranoid. My ships are as heavily tanked as I can make them, I'm always aligned, and with an eye on dscan or local. In 7 years I've never lost a mining ship.

The big thing is you want to have people want to guard your camp, regardless of how fast or efficiently you extract. Having a camp be self-operating is a huge step forward, the gatherer himself becomes a guard. In order to attract others to want to guard with you, there needs to be incentive. A portion of the haul, or an agreed upon payment, combined with guaranteed, worthwhile NPC assaults to get scrap from is a start. Make the camp escalations on par with regular monster escalations and maybe those who search for escalations to put down can be enticed to guard your camp with you. The guards need to want to be there because they will make more than just doing an escalation. They won't usually care about the material being extracted. They don't want to haul it. They just want the coin and scrap, let the gatherer worry about the logistics.

Limiting the ownership of the node to a single person severely hinders another style of gameplay. Prospecting is going to be a nominally solo activity. There will be people who just want to prospect. They don't care about camp nodes. They will rarely, if ever, work those themselves. Giving people the option to transfer claims to more organized groups who WANT to raise the camp and do the escalations would be an incredible boon. Everybody wins then.

The actual extraction at the camp should be based on the gatherer's skill and the quality of the kit used. Make some heinous kits that use undead, some evil kits that use slave labor, etc. There's a lot of possibilities there. Add in the mini-game, and make it so that the guards can play the mini-game as well, giving a diminishing returns bonus to the extraction, but more importantly it gives the guards something to do between escalation waves.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Darn real life getting in the way of timely responses.... Anyway, singing off-key, even intentionally is perfectly acceptable, as is intentionally butchering a song (even if you do it badly enough that you should receive -rep for it). My motives for the request for vocalizations is not simply due to my personal brand of chaos and/or altruistic since I would be recording these performances, optimally to be used in the creation of a PFO UNC Album (Working title is "Sing for your Stuff: Volume 1"). I am sorely tempted to use it as a competition too. In this case, each performance on an album would be evaluated by a panel of impartial (heh) UNC bastards... err... judges and the winner given a prize!

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Whether or not someone shuns and distrusts a low rep character is a call that they should make. Just remember to not make any judgement calls against the player's reputation without a body of evidence.

I think that this is more or less where 'The Ugly' lies. It's not tied to any reputation score, but rather to prior experiences. UNC can (and probably will) have groups with good standing to us even though they are full of -75s. And UNC will probably have groups with Bad or Ugly standing who are comprised almost exclusively of +75s.

If you don't want to associate with my character or allow him into your settlement because he's dipped to -75, that is your prerogative. Just refrain from placing any labels on me unless you know the history and circumstances.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Loss of reputation is fine, there will be times where it's difficult, if not impossible, to programatically distinguish between a valid, desirable situation and an undesirable situation, especially as different metagame tactics evolve. What is less clear is how those who do participate in these false positive activities can recover from them, without making the same recovery as applicable to those who are actively involved in unwanted activity.

We have a general idea of what will cause a loss of reputation, but far less clear is what will cause a recovery of reputation. We also don't know the rate at which different activities will cause this loss or gain, and we probably won't know until during or after alpha.

On potential thing to reduce the impact of a false positive is a 'cooldown' of sorts after performing an activity that causes reputation loss. If another activity that causes rep loss is undertaken before the cooldown expires, the cooldown resets and a more severe loss occurs.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Stubborn? Check.
Vocal? Check.
Passionate? Check.

Sounds like faction leadership to me!

My primary character will be freedom-loving and morally ambivalent. I can see him running the gamut from +7500 to -7500 in both Good/Evil and Reputation, but honestly I'm pretty bad at playing a jerk. If I do hit -7500 it's going to be from attacking neutral trespassers rather than from randomly selecting targets just outside an NPC settlement.

If, for example, UNC is hired to blockade a settlement, especially one that receives a lot of traffic, it's a fair bet that a bulk of the traffic we'd interdict would be unflagged for us. That's a bunch of rep hits for a contract, and as such the cost for that contract would likely be adjusted north. It would also likely mean a bunch of us, even the non-jerks, would end up -7500 while participating in valid, content-generating activities.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would argue that unsanctioned PVP is, on its own, most definitely not griefing. Griefing is more akin to bullying and harassment, neither of which absolutely require unsanctioned PVP to accomplish but it is the easiest of the tools to use to that end. Griefing is an intent. PVP is a tool.

Nihimon wrote:
And it must follow, as the night the day, that engaging in "unsanctioned PvP" is tantamount to being a dick.

Unsanctioned PVP is not necessarily being a 'dick'. Just because I may kill someone who is unflagged in the wilds doesn't mean I simply wanted to be contrary. If I am guarding an operation for my own group, for example, and it's more secure and expedient to ambush and kill a trespasser before they stumble upon our super-secret operation, I am going to do it. And I am going to do it regardless of the PVP sanctions for that character. And should they persist in their insistence to be there, I will continue with my insistence that they not until such time as the security is no longer needed. I don't care why they are there, only that they should not be.

Neutral alts being used as scouts are another case that will likely be common. If my rules of engagement state 'no neutrals', then the neutrals will be removed, either through warning or through force. If the rules of engagement state 'no neutrals, no conversation', then they will be removed with prejudice without regard for their PVP status or intentions.

There will also be groups who desire to live, more or less, off the radar. They will unofficially claim territory, and equally unofficially defend it. Chances are very good that those they consider trespassers will not be 'sanctioned'. Gatherers on 'their land' stealing 'their nodes' must be removed, regardless of whether or not they are sanctioned. Warnings and negotiation are a courtesy, not a mandate.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What I get from this with regard to those who elect to not participate in any of the 'sanctioned' PVP routes, but who still elect to venture out of the safer areas are in no way, shape, or form any safer from PVP than anyone else. If anything they will be even more at risk since they won't have any factional associates to help them, and would be a valid target for everyone, despite the alignment/reputation hits their attackers will suffer.

I would hope that those who participate in sanctioned PVP have plenty of avenues for positive reputation and alignment adjustments, more than enough to cover the occasional murder that may be 'required'.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, there is a downside to the perma-pvp flag: all it does is flag you for PVP. It means you cannot fly any other flags and get the benefits from any other flags. Ideally this is not an insignificant consequence.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Wood and Gold extraction are a couple of examples that illustrate the differences in solo vs group harvesting/gathering. A solo gold miner has minimal equipment. He goes out, digs and pans, and returns with a little bit. A small gold operation involves multiple people (or one person with multiple minions), additional equipment (sluice, wheelbarrows, screens, water storage and diverters), and returns a larger amount. This is an impermanent setup that can be moved (with difficulty) to another site. A large gold operation is a gold mine. Lots of minions digging and extracting, heavy equipment investment, permanent, and requires substantial oversight and logistics to keep operational.

Wood is similar. A solo wood gatherer goes out with an ax to fell a tree, and spikes to split the tree for transport. Low equipment outlay, high time requirement, low return, low operational overhead. A group can take more advanced equipment (multi-user saws, block and tackle cranes, horse-powered splitters, wagons) and harvest more, more efficiently. Moderate equipment outlay, moderate time requirement, moderate return, moderate operational overhead. A large scale operation can set up a more effective pre-processing location (sawmill), and use more equipment to generate a higher volume of throughput, at the expense of increased operational oversight and logistics.

In in-game terms, the soloist is a single player who relies on himself to do everything. This has a low equipment outlay, high time requirement, low return, low overhead, high mobility, and low security. Nominally these are the folks who target the high value, rare resources to maximize the value for their time.

A camp relies on NPC labor to do the actual work. It's set up by one or more players who then oversee its operation and tend to security. It has a moderate equipment outlay (kit constructed for the task), a moderate time requirement, moderate return, moderate overhead, low mobility (encumbrance and time to set up), and moderate security (PC and NPC). These camps provide the bulk of the general-use resources, and could be the beneficiaries of any mini-games to increase set-up time or productivity at the cost of PC security.

A POI structure is the large-scale operation. The gold mines and the sawmills. This is overseen by one or more players and may be associated with a specific settlement. They require a substantial outlay to set up, low player time requirements to operate, a high return, have a high overhead to maintain (lower if slaves or undead are used?), no mobility, and a security variable to the portion of NPC guards assigned and PCs available to respond to a threat. Basically these are structures that are established and produce the goods at a relatively steady rate with no player input. The players just need to pay an upkeep for them, transport the product, and provide additional security.

In EVE terms, the soloist is the miner the large-scale operation are the moon-goo POS. EVE doesn't really have the Camp option, the closest it comes is a Rorqual-boosted mining operation or PI.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Warning: Unintended essay ahead

There are positive consequences too. For example, if you like metaphilosophical discussions, all you have to do is keep killing Hobs. His persistence in returning is a positive consequence for you. Likewise, if you are a complete jerk and simply want to kill PVE folks 'for teh lulz' and to 'collect tears', well, then any hatemail, death threats, bounties, and forum whines are positive consequences.

These jerks are the primary target of reputation system, and as currently sketched it does a partial job in combating them. They won't generally care that they are losing reputation, many may even see that as a badge of honor. The alignment, many won't give two shakes of a wet stick about that.

Even though they can't be kept from gaining skill points, by restricting training available to the dwellers of the lower end of the rep scale they should/will be at a distinct disadvantage. It's not enough though. When somebody hits -7500, there needs to be a consequence.

I like the automatic assignment of a PVP flag given to -7500 characters. This flag should stick with them until they grind their reputation back up to above -4000. Under this flag reputation gain should be assessed on a log scale, it should take a lot of clawing to get rid of it, which means a lot of meaningful PVP. Likewise, under this flag, you cannot fly any other PVP flags, and you may only gain reputation through PVP with others who are flying a flag and have positive reputation. Granting extra rep for killing those thusly flagged, however, is highly exploitable and is not something I think should be done.

There are still ways to game this, though. Simply set up an alt, get them positive reputation, and have him kill you repeatedly. Not exactly the result desired since this is in no way meaningful. So here's my idea.

If you hit -7500 and get this flag, you must still grind your rep back to -4000 to get it removed. You may not gain rep through normal means, however. In order to gain rep under this flag, you must fight those who you killed, while they are flying a PVP flag. You may only fight them a number of times equal to the number of times you killed them to gain this rep.

Even with all this there are still ways to game the system. What is there to prevent a couple of friends from donning PVP flags, fighting each other and maxing their rep, then going on a killing spree until they are -7400, and repeating? There need to be some time constraints on reputation gain, otherwise it becomes a bottable or AFK process. Gaining reputation needs to require the individual to be present and active as well. Flying an Outlaw flag while you are logged in, in the hideout, but AFK because you are logged into EVE or MWO shouldn't gain any rep.

Handling reputation loss is easy. The situations that this happens in are easily definable. So how should reputation be gained? Well, through meaningful PVP of course! Should reputation be gained through active events, or should it be through potential events as well? What is meaningful PVP? How can meaningful PVP be separated and identified as distinct from attempts to game the system?

Here are some meaningful PVP encounters:
Bandit vs Traveler or Teamster on the road
2 companies under feud
Settlements at war
Raids on POI or gathering camps
Assassinations (and attempts)
Bounty Hunters vs Outlaws
Settlement Guardians vs Trespassers during wartime
Escalation Defense*

Some of these may not involve two parties that are individually PVP flagged, but they are valid encounters. Raids on POI/gathering camps, Bounty Hunters vs Outlaws, Wartime trespassers, Escalation Defense, and Assassinations all may thrust a potentially unprepared, or unwilling participant into a PVP situation. Some solutions might be:

Raids on POI/gathering camps - The raiders fly a 'Raider' flag. As with most PVP flags, this means anyone may attack them without a reputation penalty, but the raider may not initiate combat against anyone not flying a PVP flag. A Raid is similar to Stand and Deliver, but issued against a static target rather than a character. The raiders may take a percentage of the goods from the structure, or they may choose to attack it to destroy it.

Bounty hunters vs Outlaws - If someone has a bounty on them, they've done something to deserve it. A bounty hunter may attack their target, regardless of the target's PVP flag status, as though they were flying a flag. If you have a bounty against you, you shouldn't be able to assume you are safe anywhere.

Wartime Trespassers - Neutral parties in a war zone are not neutral. Entering a war zone should provide a warning beforehand. Anyone in a warzone is a valid target.

Assassinations - Someone targeted by an assassin receives a warning that they are being observed and targeted. They have an option to get out.

Escalation Defense - If someone is attempting to maintain an escalation to use it to harass an area, it stands to reason that they may want to keep people from directly combating it. Escalation defenders flag themselves for PVP in an escalation area, and may attack anyone in the escalation area. If you are attempting to quell an escalation, you should prepare to meet not only the NPCs, but also their PC defenders. Note that this Escalation Defense does not necessarily mean that the escalation NPCs will ignore the defenders.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I always liked the idea of having an optional mini-game that, if you preformed well, gave a reward of reduced processing time. In the game you are not (generally) the one doing the work. Instead you are supervising your invisible workers in their tasks. Your attention will be on the mini-game, so you will be less likely to spot an ambush, but if you can reduce your time at the node by 10%, that's a fairly significant time savings. For refiners and crafters the ambush part of the equation is less important, but a time savings means you have more throughput.

There's a fair few simple games that could be used in one form or another. Minesweeper, codebreaker, blackbox, entanglement, and bejeweled, for example. Galaxy on Fire 2 has a fun mining mini-game that dictated your asteroid mining yield. You had a 'drill bit' that would move about the screen, and by tilting the device (or moving the mouse, or keys) you constantly re-position the bit toward the center. Concentric rings formed a 'bullseye' and as you depleted the asteroid the outer rings would disappear. If the drill bit spent a certain amount of time outside the target area the mining would terminate (and the asteroid would explode), leaving you with whatever you had managed to harvest. The more valuable the rock, the narrower the target area would be and the drill bit would bounce around more erratically.

The idea isn't to make harvesting, refining, or crafting a 'set it and forget it' or AFK operation, you could establish your lumber camp and then go off to fight goblins, but if you are a dedicated gatherer, refiner, or craftsman, you would have something fun that you could do to increase your yield.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Poor Percival, the pontificating paladin with a penchant for punching puppies.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The funny thing about the alignment system, especially programatically, is that it's fairly easy to identify and quantify Chaotic and Evil acts, while it's much, much more difficult to do the same with Lawful and Good acts. This is why the active and core alignments are a good idea. Instead of attempting to identify and quantify every Lawful and Good act, the player states that they are 'Normally a Lawful and Good person', so when they are not out murdering and pillaging (because of peer pressure naturally) they trend back to their natural state. Generally speaking, Law and Good are passive, gradually but constantly accumulating (if that is your nature). Chaos and Evil are active, moving the meter significantly but sporadically based on specific actions.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

LE looks like it may be the powerhouse... all the benefits of L without the restrictions of G.

Being wrote:


...In the same way that eating your vegetables before you may leave the table is a punishment.

CE, the brussel sprouts of the alignment world.

It would be helpful and informative to list the pros and cons of CE, separated into C and E as well. Heading off to a meeting, but it's an idea to get people thinking and discussing what CE is really all about. Leave reputation out of it, though. It's hard enough getting people to see CE without automatically thinking Low Rep.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lam wrote:


Consider that B purchases 100 swords from cash shop. GW puts out offer to sword vendors for 100 swords at 'market price'. Vendors sell 100 swords and make profit within game. Nothing is CREATED outside the game, just shifted. Cash shop becomes 'retailer' for vendors. Question is what is reasonable 'mark up' for GW between coins paid vendors and real world cash the GW shop gets.

If there are not 100 swords in the vendor stock, then Cash Shop should have higher price and Vendors and Craftsmen are offered premium to produce and sell to 'game'. This is a little twisting of economy, but still represents real effort in the game economy. The question should be how much SHOULD Cash Store sell that has not been produced and what is the premium (3x or 5x).

Lam

The mutable cash price with a premium only serves to fix the exchange rate, which has serious effects on non-produced cash shop items that can be sold in-game, like goblin balls. By necessity, a goblin ball has a fixed cash value. If you have a sword for sale at a high end price of 10 coin, and this translates to $.50 in the cash shop, that means a goblin ball is worth 300 coin. The market for goblin balls has now been castrated since we now know that the official exchange rate is $.05 per coin.

At this point you might as well offer people the ability to buy coin directly, because with very, very little gaming you can do this yourself. Simply corner the market in a region, make sure you hold all the inventory for a cash shop item, place it all on the market for an excessive price, one that a normal market would not tolerate, and buy your stock from yourself for cash at a rate of $.05 per coin.

If the cash shop assumes the value of the sword is based off of the base component cost, then you run into problems where a merchant is paid far less than he posted the item for. Look at tech 2 ships in eve. The base cost for a heavy assault cruiser might be listed at 20m ISK, but the market price is 150m ISK and it costs 140m ISK to manufacture. Which do you use? This one can be used to print coin as well, it just has a higher initial investment cost on top of it's other issues.

If the cash shop items are unlinked from the in-game market price but still draw from that item pool you still get coin printing. The start up cost is a bit higher, but the payoff is even greater. Simply put up a single sword of your own on the market with a 15 digit value. Buy every sword listed for cash. Have it delivered automagically to your destination settlement. Repeat as desired.

The best thing to do is to sell blueprints/recipes/schematics/etc on the cash market and have them constructed in-game, or skins that can be applied to in-game items.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks, Ryan. Having the MTX item delivered to a designated location rather than directly to your inventory is acceptable. I'm still not enthused by it, but it's acceptable. Having an MTX object retain the class of it's non-MTX counterpart, in particular where destruction and looting is concerned is good, though I remain concerned by the bypass of the gathering, refining, crafting, and selling that is the core of the economy.

By keeping an MTX item as the same class, it would stand to reason that an MTX item could be sold on the market. Having done my share of market manipulation in EVE in the past, this is a potential issue. Someone with a bunch of disposable income could theoretically decimate a local, or even regional market. Market disruption is a valid tactic, especially during war, but the ability to use cash to execute it would be, frankly, unacceptable.

Before an objection that this could be minor is raised, I've personally seen people dump thousands of dollars into their war chest for this very purpose, to startling effect. It took a month for the region to stabilize again. Buying goblin balls for cash, selling them for coin, and using that coin to disrupt the economy is one thing. Buying thousands of swords, armor, etc for cash and dumping them onto the market is another. While the former affects the items in question, the latter afflicts the items, the intermediate materials, and the resources involved. This is because the MTX items would be injecting new, albeit consumed, material into the system. With any kind of reprocessing ability you could simply buy the highest compression item in bulk, reprocess it, and crash the materials market.

Another EVE parallel would be supercap construction. If you could buy guns for cash and get them delivered to a desired station you could buy a bunch of 425mm railguns, select the station nearest your CSAA, reprocess them, and warp your freighters of minerals right over to cook. The logistics of building a supercap, part of their (laughable) limiting factors, would be completely eliminated, if you had the cash to fork over.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I find this amusing since crafting and trade typically ends up being a much more cutthroat, vicious, environment than any other form of combat... and one that more folk willingly subject themselves to. A broken, exploitable market is the quickest way to kill an open world game, too.

"Yah, I killed ya, but at least I'm honest 'bout it! It's them traders what'll bleed ya dry!"

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Urman wrote:
I doubt it requires military experience, but wartime service in PFO might require commitment equal to a raiding guild in a themepark game.

In EVE I've been on my fair share of alarm-clock ops and multi-hour fights. It's part of doing business if you are serious about controlling, defending, or taking territory in a global game. I've also spent hours on end doing logistics work, making sure that ships and modules are at the staging areas in sufficient numbers, fitted and ready to go, keeping POSes and jump bridges fueled and making sure there's enough LO for cynos to be lit. I've even been called on the carpet because my killboard was showing that I hadn't been involved in a fight in weeks in the middle of the war. (the CEO and logistics director were quick to back me up, thankfully).

Basically, you need to have at least the same level of commitment that your opponents do or you are going to lose. If they are on Raiding Guild Commitment level, you need to be as well. This is harder on smaller groups since it places a greater strain on each member.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's an analogy that occurred to be as I re-read the last bit of this and considered formations some more. Formation fighting is almost a mini-game, let's use Dance Dance Revolution as an example. Lawful get to play this game on 'Easy' due to their easy acceptance of orders. Neutral play on 'Medium', no benefits, no hindrances. It is what it is. Chaotic play on 'Hard' due to their free spirited ways. Anyone can participate, but your actions and philosophy in-game dictate the 'level' at which you must play.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The biggest gripes I have heard over a Player Council are that it's a popularity contest, and that it only represents a fraction of the player base. The fear is that the most vocal members of special interest groups formed of minority players end up dictating system-wide policy and development direction.

A Player Council is a popularity contest, and anyone who says otherwise is either lying or deluded. It's politics, pure and simple, and it's rare indeed to see an introvert elected to a public office. It's these introverts that make up the majority of the populace, so the vast majority of them don't want to, or don't care to participate in the politics of the game. It's not why they play. The irony in this is that oft times the most qualified person for the job is the one who doesn't want it.

It's estimated that 10% or less of the players in an MMO participate in forum discussions on the official game message boards. Less than 25% read the boards. And less than 50% read official correspondence, either by the blog or by email.

At this point in PFO, these numbers aren't as representative since we don't yet have a game to log into and get lost in, but even so it is rather telling to look at the kickstarter contribution numbers and compare that to the number of active folks on the boards here. We have a vocal minority, one that thankfully covers a broad range of interests and opinions, and a decent cadre of lurkers that follow the back and forth here.

If/when GW decide to open up a Player Council they will need to pay attention to the system used to select the members, to reduce the ability of the larger groups to throw their weight around at the expense of the smaller, more specialized groups. Nearly any system can be gamed, as we've seen in EVE's CSM elections, the goal is to reduce the negative impacts of the gaming that will take place.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

There are some direct and indirect benefits to having a Player Council. The first, and most obvious, is direct player input on things before they are introduced to the player populace. Fresh eyes on a project is not a bad thing. Having the Player Council be a stakeholder on key projects would help keep developers on-track and could increase the usefulness of the project.

A Player Council also gives the populace an additional route to introduce suggestions and concerns. As the player base grows, so too will the number of 'issues'. For many people it's easier to take a 'No' from another player rather than a developer.

A Player Council also provides another route for official information to flow through, complete with fact and opinion from a nominally trusted source. I like reading responses from Ryan, Stephen, Tork, etc. the forums but they are only 3 people. A volunteer PR and Support system, which is what a Player Council would be generally, staffed by avid players with additional insight, increases the likelihood of a concern (on both sides) will be satisfactorily addressed.

Handled correctly, there's no downside to having a Player Council. EVE's CSM8 is a good example of how things can work well. Communication is the key.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sintaqx, member of the UnNamed Company.

I read the forums every day, chiming in on occasion.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I never said they cannot act as a group. They can all dogpile on, cram as many warm pixels in there as they can. They do have trouble, by their nature, with acting in concert. In EVE terms these would be the folks who seem to be unable to consistently shoot the primary target while in a fleet. They can be in the group, be told to act in Y formation, but in order to do so effectively they will have to work harder at it than someone who doesn't spend their days violating the local wildlife. Their LE taskmaster can beat on them afterwords. Anyone who has been in a medium sized fleet in EVE will probably have stories about rabid FCs chewing on people who can't follow orders (align, shoot primary, hold on gate, broadcast for reps, etc).

I also left RP entirely out of the equation, and I did look at it from the griefer's POV. This is entirely mechanical. Most griefers, through their actions, will be on a slope down to the CE low rep spectrum. This hampers their ability to be useful in large-scale combat and relegates them to mob tactics. If the griefer wants to be LG (or, more likely, LE), then they need to be very, very careful with how they grief, which also limits their targets and their impact.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I just spent the weekend watching dogs and cats interact with each other and this topic strikes a chord with what I observed. Creatures, including people, have different reaction radii:

Perception (I see you)
- Perception options
- Line of Sight/Sound
- Highly aggressive creatures might attack anything that moves

Reception (Oh, hai there)
- Fight or Flight for Hostile creatures

Interaction (That's close enough)
- Intimidation / Diplomacy options
- Fight or Flight for Unfriendly creatures

Aggression (Back off before I bite your ankles)
- Fight or Flight for Friendly creatures

Think of these a concentric rings around a creature or group of creatures.

Creatures also have a presence radius, or aura, that can be modified by various skills, equipment, or effects (racial bonus, stealth, gear, formations, spells). If the presence of two creatures intersect their individual radius increases by a specific amount (by 25% for example).

Interaction happens when a creature's presence intersects another creature's reaction, the appropriate events and options can be triggered. That most games consider the 'aggro radius' is the reception range. Up until then they may see you, but they just don't care enough to act on your presence. In the case of stealthy creatures, they may pass through the rings without triggering an event until they are detected, so a skilled ranger could get much closer to to mobs than a plate-wearing dwarven steamroller, as long as the ranger stays far enough ahead of the dwarf to keep the dwarf from drawing attention to him.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My all-time favorite character that I've played in a TT game was Grimm, Goblin Archmage. At least, that's what he called himself because he could conjure up a ball of fire and everyone knows that only an archmage could do that. His alignment was a firm Chaotic/Stupid (GM made me change C/N to C/S on the character sheet after the first game) and although he was brilliant he didn't have a lick of common sense. Oh, and he absolutely adored fire; more than one PC was burned on more than one occasion. He also had a penchant for stopping to eat his victims, sometimes at inappropriate times (like the middle of combat).

I don't have any particular issue with people playing a 'redeemed monster', PCs make up a fractional percentage of the overall population in any given area, so there are bound to be weirdos in every race.

AvenaOats wrote:
More antagonistic and more COMPLEMENTARY to player characters: IE they're like a more interactive mob that can organise and do intelligent things to CHALLENGE players. Eg a Goblin Escalation involving players coordinating AI Goblin mobs more effectively eg as "chieftains".

I read this instead of the actual quote... strangely fitting too....

More antagonistic and more COMPLEMENTARY to player characters: IE they're like a more interactive mob that can organise and do intelligent things to CHALLENGE players. Eg a Goon Escalation involving players coordinating Goon mobs more effectively eg as "chieftains".

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If goblins were a playable race (oh please make it so!!!) I would be all over that. PC goblin tribes and settlements would be a beautifully chaotic thing. What would be more fun than having a mob of goblins rolling their siege weapons up to your doorstep? Or goblins accosting folks along the highway? Or the hilarity of watching a goblin ranger try to dual-wield scimitars while calling out to his mangy, three-legged black cat (See! This is why goblins shouldn't read!)?

You simply can't program an AI that could even begin to approximate some of the antics and mayhem that would follow PC goblins.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Banditry does remove wealth from the economy since not everything can be looted, and what is not looted is destroyed. How much is a question that the designers and devs will have to answer. It also introduces combat, which has the potential to destroy goods and consumables (either consumed or destroyed during looting), so in terms of the overall economy it could be considered a negative operation. It adds churn to the market, increasing demand and reducing supply in a variety of areas. It also increases market uncertainty, and may well be a significant source of price fluctuation.

The biggest thing it adds to the game is variety. The professions and industries centered around it, the uncertainty of the transport, the disappointment of loss and the elation of victory.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You don't need a mechanical bonus/penalty system in place to roleplay.

I don't mind having hunger/thirst/tiredness in a system, as long as it doesn't get in the way of the system. Case in point, I play Fallout 3: New Vegas in hardcore mode. Hunger, thirst, and tiredness are all a part of this, but they are not overdone and removing the hungry/thirsty indicators is simple.

However

As I stated before, and has been stated before that, the system is more about carrots than sticks. Instead of saying 'Eat now or I will beat you with this 25% stamina debuff' you could say 'Eat now and I will give you this 25% stamina buff'. You don't 'need' to eat, but why wouldn't you? That guy you are chasing ate, and you didn't, so he's going to outrun you. That mountain is going to take 15 minutes longer to cross because you didn't eat. The consequences don't change, but the perception does. People, players, respond better to 'buffs' than 'debuffs'. Just like they respond better to blue and green backgrounds than to red and yellow. Just like they respond better to sliders moving left to right than right to left. People are funny animals.

Additionally, this is an RPG, and an MMORPG at that, not a life simulation. Abstraction is essential to cut down system load. If you can reduce the amount transferred by 10 bytes every second, that's not an insignificant improvement. 10 bytes * 1000 players avg * 60 seconds * 60 minutes * 23 hours = 828MB per day in traffic savings. Increase that number of players to 10000 and you are saving 8.28GB per day.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

If neutrality is eliminated in warzones, then it's up to any third parties entering that hex to have an arrangement with one or the other of the sides (or both, muahahahaha). Caravan C enters a warzone between Settlement A and Belligerent B. C has an understanding with B and won't be attacked by them. If a patrol for A encounters them, though, they are fair game. Likewise for a relationship between A and C. If they are trying to smuggle some lumber in to pay the city upkeep and are caught by B they are fair game. If there's no agreement, each side is free, and probably correct, in assuming that the third party is there to aid their foe, and in a declared warzone all bets are off. If they are peaceful merchants just passing through they should either make arrangements or avoid the area.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

This whole bit brings to mind the Glazier's Fallacy:

Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son has happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation – "It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"
Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.
Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade – that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs – I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.
But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."
It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented.

The whole argument about banditry and the economy is not one about production, but rather about the stock of wealth and unseen costs. The predation of the the bandits causes the cost of some things to rise, benefiting the direct competitors of the merchant. It also indirectly affects others on the market. The gatherers need to gather more to be refined, the crafters need to create replacement goods. Both of these groups benefit from the loss. The merchant cannot purchase upgrades for his wagons, better animals, a greater amount of supplies, or better guards because he needs to replace what was lost. Those that provide these goods and services are injured by the theft. Those that would consume the goods that were lost or destroyed are likewise injured by the theft. They may still be able to purchase what they need, but at a greater cost as the merchant recoups his loss.

So the moral of the story is, if you are a gatherer, figure out who is using your material and hire the bandits to accost the transport carrying the product. That way you'll be able to sell more of yours to them!

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Most often a siege engine was transported in pieces to the site of the battle, then assembled for use. Ongers were small enough to be drawn like a wagon, but catapults, trebuchets, and ballistas were simply too large to haul in assembled, and often required a team of specialists to even assemble. The components for these massive machines were brought in on wagons and had to be protected while they were assembled.

As far as ritual magic used during a siege, the location the casters will be assembled would need to be secured and prepared, circles drawn, tents assembled, artifacts and esoteric focusing agents positioned, etc. It would be an affair as time consuming and costly as any other siege engine, and as easily disrupted. While the casters are involved in their work, they would be completely vulnerable to harassment. The bonus to using magical siege assault would be fewer wagonloads of material to transport.

Formation magic would be a lovely thing to see. Archers and infantry would have their own formations for enhanced effect, so to should casters. I know that a caster could also be an infantryman or even an archer, it's not a class-based system, but if there are multiple casters in a group they should have a formation available to enhance their effects.

I would imagine that even being able to deploy siege weapons would require a war flag, rendering you free to attack by the opposition. I could even see such a flag being placed on a settlement and anyone within the hex gets the flag. I am rather liberal with my flags, but if a settlement is at war, non-combatants don't really have a place in the area.

The whole wartime, siege, and formation aspect is something that I am looking forward to seeing fleshed out more in future blogs.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for the response, Stephen.

Another thought crossed my mind while working a bit of my own wizardry on a particularly obstinate server. Has there been any consideration on ritual spells, circle magic, or coven magic? Could a group of casters collaborate to rain fire and brimstone (fireball heightened by the combined keywords, etc) down on a group of targets? Something that would be more effective than each casting their own spell and increasing the magical turbulence?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Milo Goodfellow wrote:
Now, on to assassinations.....

Psh, a bounty is just an assassination contract with a name that lets them lawful-types sleep at night

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Combat and Utility spells. Magic missile is great and fireball is explosively joyous, but I want options for spellcasters outside of combat situations. Invisibility, alter self, detect magic, illusions, ventriloquism. Grease! Give us Grease!!!

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I would hope that a settlement would have the ability to set their own standings with individuals and other settlements, and have the ability to permit only those with good standings to enter.

"Papers please!"

At that point you start down the road the disguise and anonymity discussion has taken. Could one forge entrance papers into a town? Can you hide your poor standing, or give yourself a good standing with a disguise? Think of someone donning a guard's tabard to gain entry into a town.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not every encounter must, or should, end with the potential for reputation shift on either side. Your merchant could be gaining rep by delivering goods as part of a contract. The bandit (unless they want to deliver the goods for the contract) gains no such opportunity for their actions. By rejecting the SAD, the merchant is accepting a PVP flag, and as a matter of course normal PVP doesn't generate positive or negative reputation.

Each profession should have their own ways of generating reputation.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Overall I like the ideas presented in this blog. The magical turbulence is a novel way to handle a sticky issue in mmos.

As for the edge cases like a fireball striking a hidden neutral character. I'm not really a fan of the Attacker flag resulting in an automatic chaotic shift if the caster doesn't know the victim was there. There should be an attacker flag set, regardless of if the attack was intentional, but not the alignment shift.

As for things like mundane AOE, Friendly Fire, and Diminishing Returns I think it should mechanically work the same way. If the paladin is going to go ape with a whirlwind attack and his pals are in the way, they're gonna get smacked too. If there are multiple people executing AOE attacks, mundane, or magical, ranged or melee, those attacks are going to interfere with each other (swords hitting each other, targets dodging one attack and inadvertently dodging another, someone twisting away from one attack and getting hit by another, but at an angle where the damage is not as severe, etc) and diminish their overall effectiveness.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Now what if you were in a disguise, commit a criminal act, and then doff the disguise while hidden from view? Would the flag follow the disguise, or the character? Would a bounty be placed on the disguise or the character?

To me it would make sense to follow the disguise, but only if the victims and witnesses failed to see through your disguise. If you opt into the Outlaw flag while disguised, you don't gain the benefits if you remove it. If you don it again, opt-in timers, like outlaw, would be reset. Flags like 'attacker' would fade whether or not the disguise is worn.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lord of the Candyland... Just doesn't quite work.

People are amusing, interesting creatures. In stark contrast to 'animals' their brains don't fully develop until long after they have been subjected to their environment. Whether or not this causes irreparable damage is a matter for further investigation, but what is astounding is how selfish, egocentric, and short-sighted homosapien individuals can be. Cultural norms are established by groups of these creatures, which define and curtail anti-social behaviors through various means, but the introduction of anonymity can cause a fair number of individuals to utilize these anti-social behaviors to raise their personal situation by tearing others down.

In online terms, griefing is no different than bullying. The griefer's reward is the suffering and/or humiliation of their target, and the cloak of anonymity granted by their online presence counters their normal inhibitions around the practice. People competing against each other, through the market or through PVP, is not necessarily bullying or griefing, be it consensual or not. It's how and why they are doing what they are doing that defines whether or not they are bullying or griefing, and it usually comes down to an issue of respect. A competitor will have at least some respect for their opponent. A bully will not.

Some of the recommended methods of prevention for bullying are directly applicable to griefing. StopBullying.gov has some good advice that can be applied to PFO in this respect, and not surprisingly many of the key points therein deal with respect, in teaching, giving, and expecting. The onus for dealing with this particular issue lies with GW, but they can give the community tools to report incidents and they already have a mechanism through reputation that will allow the worst offenders to be tracked. It's up to the community to do their part too.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The one-shot assassination ability would probably need to require the target to be out of combat. You could observe the target during combat (provided you can avoid detection) and pounce afterward, but not during.

This all brings to question 'What about ranged assassins/snipers, or spellcasting assassins?' Arguably the most effective and dangerous assassin would be the one observing from the shadows until they are 'locked on' and then sending a single arrow from their longbow into their target's heart.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The halfling is the ball.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You've been nihimoned...

nihimon, vb. :
1. To reference a relevant prior topic within a discussion
2. To provide links to prior topics relevant to a discussion

nihimoned, adj. :
1. having posted a response only to find that while you were crafting your response someone had already posted a response that was not only more clear and concise, but also provided references.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Arena PVP is a half-step between PVE and open PVP. PVE players tend to min-max their gear to be optimal vs whatever they are hunting, and the programatic nature of mobs means that once you figure out their weakness you are assured victory. Arena PVP gear is min-maxed to be optimal vs the situation. Open PVP tends to be omni-use since you don't know exactly what's going to happen so you prepare as well as you can for everything. The difference in these three setups exemplifies the divisions that form among the players, and you end up with three different games being played, each of which clamoring for limited developer resources (and complaining about the others).

By focusing on only one of these three games, open PVP, GW is limiting the resources required and allowing a shorter timetable to be used. It's niche, but that has been stated from the outset. The good thing about their selection of the open PVP model as the base is it permits the gradual expansion into the other realms. As has been seen in many other games, if you give the players the tools and the sandbox, they will create their own game. If someone decides they really want an arena game, they will hopefully have the tools to make it themselves.

Personally I think a player-run pit-fight in Thornkeep would be awesome, just don't expect to see anything developed specifically for that.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
NineMoons wrote:
Do you want to RP a bandit or is it a good cover for PvP(PK). SAD is it a nice idea? or a legal way to force others to PvP.

You can PvP without being a bandit, and without SAD. What SAD does is replace the ambush gank & loss of reputation with a negotiation and potential reputation gain. It gives the victim a chance to fight back without the immediate pressure of an ambush, should they chose to forego the SAD offer.

I can guarantee there will be some who run around with as little unthreaded gear as they can get away with, solo or with friends, just to overwhelm, overpower, and gank other people. They will rely on surprise and numbers to gain an advantage, they will not use SAD because they don't want to lose that advantage. They don't care about their reputation gains/losses, they are just out to collect tears. These are not wolves, these are rabid dogs.

The only time I could really see an RPKer use SAD would be to offer some outrageous ransom, something that the target can't, or would never pay, to gank without the loss of reputation. This kind of abuse of the system is what needs to be avoided.

It's one thing to shear a sheep, but if all you really want is mutton you need to pay the butcher's bill.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Bandits concerned with the longevity of their avocation should actively practice their own form of wildlife conservation. A wolf pack's primary concern isn't so much the amount of prey in the area, it's more concerned about other competition for that prey. Such competition diminishes the amount of prey available, so the competing packs must be encouraged to relocate (or be merged into a single pack). Bandits won't be facing only bandit hunters, but also other bandits vying for control over the same territory.

I could see gatherers and other mercantile travelers making agreements with the local brigands for safe passage. If another group attacks those paying for protection, diplomatic (and potentially aggressively diplomatic) fireballs might start flying between all parties.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

It pretty much boils down to a need for options in body size, shape, and proportions as well as in fashion (that sound you just heard was the art department bolting for the door).

Historically clothing and armor followed a function > form model, resulting in practical armors that were later embellished as desired. But not everyone wants to dress in woolen breeches or skirts, muslin shirts or blouses, and sensible leather footwear. My wife, for example, loves her sleek thigh-slit skirts and low-cut shirts. Her favorite shirt is a soft long-sleeved shirt with a boob-window. My eldest sister, on the other hand, wouldn't be caught dead in such a thing.

One amusing thing (for me at least) is the fact that fashion discussions are fractal. You can take a small, specific subset of fashion and run into the exact same discussions. Take swimwear for example. Bikini or one-piece? Speedo or trunks? Overshirt? This? Or This?

You will not find a single style that will please everyone. Some will want sexy, some will want sensible, some will want outlandish, some will want historical, some will want fantastic. The best that can be done is to select a visual style (GW has done a great job with this part I think), and then build your options based on that visual style. But having many options is the key.

Artists don't need to sleep, right?

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

As one who is looking forward to becoming a bandit in PFO, there is one thing to clear up: there are different kinds of banditry possible. Personally I'm aiming for more of the highwayman, charge tolls to travelers for the service I provide in keeping the road clear of unsavory characters. Call it 'stand and deliver', call it ransoming, call it extortion, doesn't much matter. The point is death is an inconvenience that I'd rather not experience nor met out.

This doesn't mean there shouldn't be substantial or long-term risks involved. Bounties could be an unfortunate side effect, resulting in the regrettable demise of certain professionals out to collect them. The fact that the bounty hunters won't stay dead makes it even more of an annoyance. Having death curses that reduce the number of threads available for me to use would be another unfortunate but understandable annoyance. Limited access to markets would mean I would need to rely on mules (be they alts or other players) to get my hard-earned goods to market, and if there are theft flags placed on items those may require the use of a skilled fence or shady dealings with a black market to unload.

Now, as one who relies on the threat of force rather than actual violence to operate, and who does so in the wilds outside of the rule of law, I would expect to avoid some of the less palatable consequences of skulduggery that would normally happen in more civilized climes. As an honorable highwayman all ransoms would be honored, so I would expect that the worst that would happen, under normal circumstances, would be that my likeness and deeds would be spread by my contributors and a sum may be placed on my head.

Those who chose to live and die by the sword, looting and pillaging the hard working travelers, craftsfolk, woodsmen, and explorers are a different breed. They should expect bounties, death curses, and blacklisting as a matter of course, and those that perform their nefarious deeds within civilization should rightly fear legal recourse by way of the gendarme and possibly lynch mobs.

Unfortunately incarceration is not really an option in an MMO, and death itself is really just a minor inconvenience. The sacrifice of reputation to place a death curse on your killer(s) could potentially be a horrible thing for the murderer. If they are prolific enough in their slaughter, death cursing all of their threads away so that when they die they lose everything would be deliciously awful for the blackguard. Using a death curse to sever their respawn location so they have to travel from a less then ideal point would be fantastic too. Most of the truly long-term risks could very well be social. Being forbidden from entering a LG settlement (your ugly mug is plastered all over) could be distressing, especially if the training you need is either there or all the way across the map. I would imagine many of the good markets would be in settlements you can't get into easily, if at all, so buying replacement gear could be a challenge.

Even though I'm headed down the bandit road, I'm all for long-term consequences. Everyone needs to pay the piper for their actions after all.

1 to 50 of 52 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>