Thane9's page

I wasn't too worried early last year, the punishment systems seemed fine. You kill someone in 'protected' territory, you could get major consequences. I want the game to have a heavy PvP focus, but the PvP punishments seem to be going to far.

I feel it is important to have a healthy population of 'bad' players, it keeps things interesting. The rewards for being bad or good, should carry the same magnitude, but be different things. If someone wants to go around killing people, they make easy money, but they have to pay more for things, but not so much that it is preferable to be one side or the other.

I would like to see alignments evenly spaced out, and each side should have a disadvantage for every advantage. LG and CE should be able to become equally powerful with similar effort, through different means. While a LG organization may thrive on exploration and discovery, a CE organization will thrive on banditry and raiding, each advancing at a similar rate.

A game of cops and robbers is no good if everyone wants to be cops, or even if 70% of people want to be cops, because the robbers won't have fun and will just give up because they are constantly getting teamed up on.

It is my informed opinion (based on over 20 years of experience in large scale multi player computer games---back to MUDs) that there will ALWAYS be more than enough people willing and desiring to be "bad".

In fact, the entire industry is filled with stories of when the de-incentives to being bad are not strong enough that gameplay is essentially ruined for a large % of the playerbase.

If things were "even" for evil and good then there'd be a huge incentive to being evil. That incentive? Being able to grief others.

I would suggest that no matter HOW unfair you think it is looking to be evil that you're not crediting that freedom with enough weight.

A game where evil and good are balanced would be a miserable game for anyone choosing to be good. Note: I very clearly state evil and good, not red and blue. If the game had equal freedoms for both sides it wouldn't be evil and good it'd just be team 1 and team 2. But that isn't the suggestion with this game. This game is suggesting that evil has choices that good does not, and with those choices comes consequences.

Frankly, I don't think the consequences seem big enough...and I predict a rash of really nasty behaviour in the game UNTIL the societal structures are strong and evolved enough to counter them. Hopefully they'll develop fast enough to prevent the demise of the game.

Does anyone else find it extremely sad that there's this portion of the gaming community that has such a misinformed and slanted view of PvP?

This comment isn't really as much about Pathfinder as much as it is about the gaming community at large. Some of the comments in this thread make me extremely sad. It's horribly unfortunate that there's this perception of PvP that is just all ganking/griefing and making people miserable. The implication that we're all just out to make others suffer and ruin gameplay is just false.

The vast majority of PvP games and PvP players I know are FAR more interested in fun gameplay, competative gameplay, and the challenge of getting better rather than fighting lopsided fights.

PvP is (or at least should be) a dynamic and integral part of any online game. HOW it manifests is the trick. And I think Ryan and his team are on the right path to allow for a wide range of risk aversion in their player base. Time will tell.

In the meantime I would challenge those who are so vehemantly opposed to PvP that they try to expand their thinking a bit.

Thane9 wrote:

I remember the years of church funded book burnings. I remember my mom getting a call from my best friend's mom telling her that I could no longer play with him any more. I remember the hate.

This industry needs to be responsible. This industry needs to hold itself to a higher standard than most. Why? So we don't repeat the past.

But it wasn't the industry's fault, the whole issue was caused by nutty people fearing an imaginary evil force coming for their kids. The industry shouldn't be held hostage by religious extremists that don't like the idea of demons and naughty language.

Frankly, I don't care which way they go with the game maturity-wise (swearing, gore, slavery, these things concern me not), but I'd rather the decision be based on what will make for the best game possible, not the least offensive game possible.

IMHO it's not a matter of being "held hostage". It's simple cost/benefit analysis. Is the gaming industry best served by conducting itself in a mature and professional manner? Or is the industry best served by assuming an "anything goes" approach and giving the finger to those people who don't agree?

I am VEHEMANTLY against any form of censorship. This is not censorship in my opinion. This is good business.

I've played some campaigns where just about every horror imaginable occurs, language would have been the absolute smallest offense to even the most adult of ears. But I would NEVER suggest a game COMPANY present their material in that manner.

Want to swear in an MMO? Get a vent channel, open it up to your friends. Say whatever you want.

But it's my opinion a MMO design/development company shouldn't go down that path. It ONLY serves to hurt their interests.

And at the end of the day, their interests are our interests.

You know who makes good MMOs? Successful MMO companies.

I'm not sure I definte "mature" in the same terms as the OP.

I've been gaming since 1978 with both the red-box and then with much pleading the AD&D books as fast as they were printed and I could get my hands on them.

I was born in 1972.

I'll give the "mature" audience a moment to do the math.

Yeah, I was 6. And I LOVED it. And I was passionate about it. And I took it seriously. And it became a lifelong hobby. And yes, demons were featured, so were boobs on the illustrations, but the material was professional and mature without excessive inappropriate language or the types of graphic stuff seen in some MMO chat these days.

Here's how I come down on this issue.

It's not about YOU. It's just not. You can want to be selfish and frankly immature and stomp your feet and cry "I should be able to say and do anything I want!!!...WHAAA!!!"

But games, MMO, tabletop, and all of them when produced by reputable AAA companies and leadership are bigger than you.

They're about the community. They're about introducing the next generation to gaming. They're about being a responsible member of society and a positive influence on our youth.

I remember the years of church funded book burnings. I remember my mom getting a call from my best friend's mom telling her that I could no longer play with him any more. I remember the hate.

This industry needs to be responsible. This industry needs to hold itself to a higher standard than most. Why? So we don't repeat the past.

So before you INSIST that you get to swear in a game. Or own slaves. Or whatever else you want to do...consider is it worth cutting off the next generation from the gaming we were priviledged enough to grow up with?

If there's one thing at 40 that I've learned about my hobby it's that those of us who enjoy gaming have a responsibility to pass that enjoyment and passion to the next generation. So if a company has to have a policy that curtails my specific vision of the game a bit to accomplish that...so be it.

Editing to add: #2 is bunk btw.