Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your argument, Being, but are you claiming that those playing an evil alignment have nothing in the game to do but be anti-PC murderhobos (to steal a term)? Evil indiviuals will have as much need of gear and resources as anyone else. Unless they have an overwhelming win streak, I'm going to suspect they probably won't be able to get everything they need from looting bodies, so they'll need crafters and gatherers as well once they've been Evil Dicks enough that nobody else will trade with them. Assuming you plan to be something other than one man against the world, you'll need a settlement or organization of some degree, and everything that entails.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Decius is talking about the same stuff as the reputation system.
That's a very large mischaracterization of what I said.
I was supporting a system that allows a settlement to arbitrarily define who is permitted in their borders and who is KoS- independently of all alignment effects. I would hope that most settlements would adopt a NRDS equivalent policy, but they should have the option of making a policy and exceptions to that policy. If a given character dislikes or disagrees with those policies, they can discuss the issue with the controller of those policies.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
TL;DR - It's my island.
My primary concern in all if this is territorial. How do I go about repelling any sort of invasion in my territory without impacting my alignment. At what point can we mobilize against invaders without fear of alignment changes. I definitely believe that whoever controls that hex should be able to dictate what and who is allowed within their borders. If a group is incredibly xenophobic, so be it, they're not going to make friends and that rarely ends well.
The argument of factions controlling swaths of hexes is a completely viable scenario, and as has been pointed out by the devs on several occasions, they are encouraging situations that push players into contact with other players. This in turn sets the stage for the kind of emergent gameplay that for me at least is so appealing to this game. It truly is just taking the idea of a hideout next to a fast travel path and upping the stakes by several levels of magnitude. Choices will have to be made regarding what you wish to do with that hideout. TEO is likely to occupy it to keep it from being misused, Tony's is probably going to use it for its intended purpose. The same principles will likely be applied to territory they control, either way players have to deal with the way things are.
So the question comes back to whether we're going to be penalized for enforcing our will in our own territories. The concept of an exile is appealing in this light, but not that of diminishing returns. It might seem high handed, but it will be up to the players in charge to choose wisely; their beneficiaries are depending on them and the consequences need to be less about what the game will do and more about what the players will do. Since alignment and reputation are the only hard factors we have to communicate with NPCs, we need to also know that we can preserve our NPCs without fearing that our NPCs will arbitrarily decide to abandon us for protecting our home turf.
Ultimately, what's the difference to the computer between 1 person invading and 100? It has no real concept without complex checks, which are also acceptable so long as we know ahead of time what to expect and are still allowed to preserve our own set of laws. I sincerely hope that what can shift a person out of good alignment is not the same thing as pushing neutral towards evil. Is killing a player always going to be considered an evil act unless it's an act of retaliation? I remember seeing mention of laws and marshals, it will be important to know how these things relate to player territory.
Sorry for the long post. =) I can honestly say I'm already looking forward to the dynamics between companies once we're in game, just based on this thread alone.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Dario
There is a strong presence on the forums of people who claim to be good, but have said intolerant things.
I am worried that the less popular alignments may have little else to do if they cannot even, for example, enter a lawful good aligned town without being beaten down, killed on sight by someone's version of vigilante 'justice'.
I know full well the reason why people wish to have a way to protect themselves from the punks and jerks... but have a care. Vigilante justice is often anything but.
If there is no recourse for the chaotic neutral or chaotic evil player character but to steal goods, no alternatives but robbery, then guaranteed they will try to get revenge. If they are being hunted down while prospecting/gathering in the wilds by organized bands of Lawful Good Paladins who use some facile artiface to assign themselves the right to slaughter other-aligned characters by exploiting these proposed rules intended as anti-grief mechanisms, then not only will they have no alternative but make a living preying on the innocent. If they stick with the game at all they will nevertheless become filled with bitterness about so-called Lawful Good's evident intolerance and apparent hatred. Not good at all in spirit, but fulfilling the letter of the law by ingenuity. That is a fear.
Beware that we do not so manipulate the advantages that accrue to being 'Good' that we are instead little more than unjust murderers ourselves.
A complicated murder is no less murder.
Devising elaborate mechanisms that work the letter of the Law to violate its spirit could result in Lawful Good players becoming the Griefers, and Evil.
I am urging balance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
TL;DR - It's my island.
I do not suffer that malady. I enjoy reading and find it easy.
I definitely believe that whoever controls that hex should be able to dictate what and who is allowed within their borders.
What determines control of an entire hex? Your having a settlement there? So you are of the opinion that I cannot cross it even on a road if you decide you dislike me because I disagree with you?
The argument of factions controlling swaths of hexes is a completely viable scenario, and as has been pointed out by the devs on several occasions, they are encouraging situations that push players into contact with other players. This in turn sets the stage for the kind of emergent gameplay that for me at least is so appealing to this game. It truly is just taking the idea of a hideout next to a fast travel path and upping the stakes by several levels of magnitude.
You are talking about blockade, aren't you? The ability to deny right of passage, travel, even on open roadways. This is a good thing for the game in your eyes?
Choices will have to be made regarding what you wish to do with that hideout. TEO is likely to occupy it to keep it from being misused, Tony's is probably going to use it for its intended purpose. The same principles will likely be applied to territory they control, either way players have to deal with the way things are.
My finely tuned senses are picking up a few red flags here. Something on the order of might makes right, right?
So the question comes back to whether we're going to be penalized for enforcing our will in our own territories.
Organized mass griefing is still griefing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If ownership of all hexes is taken by various players, and other players may not enter another's land, then there will be no game thereafter.
I suspect not all hexes will be claimable.
The idea of laying seige is a special case, and will surely be governed by mechanics that will prevent abuse.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's unclear to me exactly what gives control of a hex, be it settlement or the guild land rush.
My beliefs in either case are very simple. The freedom has to be there for players to do what they feel best, as I mentioned it seems to be very in keeping with the stated goals of the game regarding player dynamics.
I, personally, don't want to blockade an entire hex, but a xenophobic clan very well might. The important parts are both that they should be allowed to try, and that other players should be allowed to try and stop them.
I don't in any way believe GW will allow a true blockade, but certainly it's appropriate to allow the privilege of region controllers to leverage consequences, if they so choose, on those passing through or into an area they control. Which in turn could inspire actions of others to act for or against those viewed to be abusing their power.
This is what creates open gameplay rather than another closed off theme park world. The players have to have the option to exercise power on a grand scale, or choose not to, for player driven gameplay to be possible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If ownership of all hexes is taken by various players, and other players may not enter another's land, then there will be no game thereafter.
Nothing should actually bar a player's way into a hex save the perceived consequences imposed by other players.
The scenario of all lands being hostile to all others is a possibility, but an unlikely one because of organizations that have an interest in working together. Kingdoms will form, niches will appear.
What you mentioned earlier about evil characters being hunted is the very definition of being the underdog. It could very well be that the evil characters are so vicious that they actively wage war on the good rather than the other way around. These are all important parts of player choice. If the goods have enough power to oppress the evil we'll have a situation that vaguely resembles medieval law keeping, if the evils have power enough we're likely to see a more despotic form of law arise.
Of course none of that takes into account what is likely to be a healthy neutral population interested in a rough form of balance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well said, Darcnes.
<inserted>
If 85% of chartered guilds are Good aligned, do the good really need more advantages? Must the challenge system be implemented, or cannot the Good wait for the proof of actual aggression to strike another character down?
If you have asked the offending player to stop with the Justin Bieber impressions already and are ready to take matters into your own hands, shouldn't you also have to accept the responsibility for doing so?
Shouldn't it be worth a hit to you when you take that life? Or should you not have to concern yourself with questions about whether your act was truly just, and it wasn't just a bad day in RL so your perceptions were a bit less patient?
Must you have a mechanism that will ensure that killing the trespasser will leave you innocent, right or wrong?
<end insertion>
It may be that interesting times lay ahead for the River Kingdoms.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My only concern here is that there is no such thing as preemptive self-defense.
Ah, but where is the line drawn? If a large force rides towards your settlement, what are the chances they mean well? When does it become okay to draw the line in the dirt? At some point it ceases to be pre-emptive and simply becomes common sense to engage away from what you're trying to protect. But the attacking force has no reason to aggro anyone until they make the first strike against the town. So when does it become okay to attack, without incurring criminal penalties.
If the land holders decide this they are free to take action as they see fit, interests are protected, aggressive take overs are not given an advantage. This gives stability a better chance, without ruling out the chance for change.
I think this still comes back to those in power making responsible decisions, or suffering the consequences from unhappy parties.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Perhaps one should determine the incoming party's intent prior to assuming guilt?
It's entirely possible that the large party is only going to pass through, and do nothing to you. But it reads as if you'd be prepared to attack them if they got too close, regardless of what else they're doing. But perhaps I'm reading too much into your statement?
Granted there will (could?) be scenarios where it will be entirely obvious what's about to happen, but assuming you're not alone, can you not wait for the other party to instigate? It only takes one attack to make it true self-defense.
I'm not certain it should ever be ok to make the first attack, barring standard war scenarios. If you're out gathering or what have you, then you should not be able to attack any random passerby because you only thought he was going to attack you. Though I suppose in the wilderness, there are no guards, and thus no laws.
I'm not entirely certain that anyone should be flagged as a PK'er/murder/criminal for attacking anyone outside of a town/outpost/whatever, where there are guards/others around to enforce laws.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think in the interest of good politics it would be important to determine the purpose of an encroaching group before setting up an ambush. But then, not everyone would be interested in being diplomatic.
Out in the wild, with no one to see, your life is in your own hands, as it should be. On your home turf it would be safer to exercise a bit of caution in keeping the single most important location to your character secure. As such it is not good practice to let a possible threat go unchallenged all the way up to your doorstep. You're right it's possible they're advancing through your hex to another. It would be poor diplomacy in the first place to not notify involved parties of non-hostile troop movements though.
To bring up an earlier point about who makes these hex based decisions..
Settlements control territory. Once established, a Settlement dominates its part of the world (what we call a "hex", a nod to the days of tabletop games where hexagon graph paper was used to describe geography).
as per this interview (Thanks GozerTC)
I think it's fair to say that those whose livelihoods are invested in a particular location have more of a right to what happens around that location than one whose interests lay elsewhere.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What we are (were?) talking about is not ways to 'blue gank' people, but rather a mechanism where you are rewarded for giving pests a fair warning before attacking them.
@alignment debate: It's not about who can do what to whom, but about what consequences that gives. Attacking someone because they annoy you is certainly not a good action. Giving them a fair warning first makes it less chaotic though. The lawful good xenophobic settlement should not last lawful good too long.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This sort of feels like a solution in search of a problem. Most of the things identified as challenge behavior are either ignorable or are reportable.
I agree with this. There really isnt an issue here that this would address, in fact I can only think of MORE issues this system would cause.
EDIT: This is concerning the whole Challenge mechanic. Ignore them, report them for griefing, or do what you really want to do, which is attack them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What we are (were?) talking about is not ways to 'blue gank' people, but rather a mechanism where you are rewarded for giving pests a fair warning before attacking them.
@alignment debate: It's not about who can do what to whom, but about what consequences that gives. Attacking someone because they annoy you is certainly not a good action. Giving them a fair warning first makes it less chaotic though. The lawful good xenophobic settlement should not last lawful good too long.
No, I'm certainly not looking for loopholes or justifications to gank anyone. If someone needs ganking I'll take the penalty. Warning someone that you're going to attack them is really just threatening someone with violence, to get your way. It is a possible way to avoid violence yes, if that is your goal. It certainly should not be mandatory as if nothing else it's a form of bullying, that has every bit of a place as simply murdering someone out of hand, and is a great alternative, but again it should not be mandatory. (Very few things should in the long run, anything that's mandatory means a removal of one more choice from the players.) A reward for doing so? *shrugs* as long as it's a choice, and not simply a band-aid to what should simply be standard. If warning someone helps you stay good, good for you, you've got an in-game bandaid to help you deliberately murder people =D If it perhaps keeps you from losing reputation on the other hand.. that potentially makes a bit more sense.
Re alignment, if a lawful anything group controls the land via settlement, and expresses laws to the effect of 'no trespassing, violators will be killed' .. that does in essence make it a lawful killing, the laws state don't come on our land. It doesn't make it any less lawful, just more likely to be decimated by an offended party.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Different lands have different laws: in some places it is lawful to kill trespassers outright, and other places you have to file charges and let the official lawmen handle the sticky details.
So what would this 'defense of property' look like in the game logic? If you are aligned lawful good but want to be able to kill the pair of evangelical holy symbol salespeople on your doorstep for trespassing, without triggering an alignment/reputation hit, the game will have to recognize your right to do so if you are not to take an alignment/reputation hit.
They have not tried to pick your lock and have made no other aggressive move other than to knock on your door. You have a no trespassing sign out but they may not have seen it. Had you built a wall with a gate they had to open the game could flag them for trespassing when they opened the gate. If you hadn't built a gated wall then the game could not know they had been warned. Unless they were warned they could be ignorant, thus innocent of intentionally violating your property.
If they were warned then the game could suspend the lawless nature of your bloody act and not brand you a criminal as you strike them down.
How else could you trigger the righteous flag that would protect you from being labelled a murderer?
There could be an 'emote' or slash command like '/warn tresspass' that would provide them with a clear warning with vocal and gesture components, similar to how a spell might be cast. It might be that this would be an onscreen command icon that you have when on your property.
Once they had been warned a timer could start a countdown. You would need to know and they would need to know that the warning was recognized by the game, say a flashing red border around your screen perhaps with words describing the condition. Once the screen stopped flashing perhaps a color tint (red) might color your and their view signalling that it is now okay to slaughter them in their footseps.
It would have been simpler and faster for everyone had you simply struck them down. The period of time the warning was flashing was greater than the time it would take for them to draw the concealed weapons from their evangelist disguises and attack you anyway.
It would have been simpler had you only waited ready for them to attack you first. If they didn't attack you they would have been innocent anyway.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You point about different lands having different laws which I think is going to be key in whether you are legally justified in attacking someone, and that's what I've been reiterating. More so that it's the settlements that make these laws, which are in turn likely controlled by the players tied to that settlement.
Now as far as whether you should attack someone even though you're legally justified, I am well behind a Neutral bound character and company. For those who play Good alignment that's a much tougher call. I doubt there will be any ambiguity at all when it comes to put this into practice, and at its simplest Good people simple shouldn't be hurting others (by my interpretation of Good, the devs may not share this outlook). If pushed to it, self-defense or defense of home/settlement is likely about as valid a reason as a Good person could/should see fit to be harming others for.
I am somewhat worried about where the line will be drawn for what is considered an evil act. If it is not Good to kill someone for unlawfully being on your territory, does that mean you are sliding down a scale towards Evil with Neutral just a pit stop on the way? Or does the slide stop at Neutral where lawful killings are concerned, being inherently not Evil, but decidedly in opposition Good behavior. Will Good aligned individuals be able to take part in a bounty hunt without harming their alignment? Somewhere in there what is considered 'Good behavior' is either suspended for the sake of "you get to kill people for these reasons", or it's not and Good people simple shouldn't be killing people, period. Given the nature of the game and its emphasis on conflict, I don't see the latter example happening.
To return to my Neutral/Evil 'get-off-my-lawn' solution, it would be nice if characters that had no association with your settlement to be signified by a different colored name perhaps or **Name** as opposed to just Name floating above their heads. (Are we going to have name badges?) This would only appear different to the associates of the land they're on and alerts those associates that this person is fair game, but not necessarily hostile. It should be up to the settlement to decide on proper behavior for this situation, but definitely an easy to way to spot outsiders. Naturally if a player takes advantage of this cloudfree attack, they should open themselves to cloudfree attack by the outsiders' cohorts, names would turn red.. or whatever signifies KoS, but only to those who have engaged. Likewise, the outsiders should not be able to then attack anyone of that alliance at will without incurring a cloud, the combat situation only changes between those actually involved in the combat.
All of this of course assumes that the hex lawfully allows the killing/murder of trespassers. If that is not the case, then the aggressor, regardless of association would be taking the cloud.
On a side note, I don't particularly believe that Evil and Criminal should be synonymous. Attacking someone who is of a different persuasion than you unlawfully should still incur a cloud. Just as attacking someone who is chaotic (and inherently) unlawful should incur a cloud. Every alignment choice should be covered under a single law, and only those who operate outside of the law should be exempt from its protection. This would neatly address your earlier concerns about Evils being hunted down. It would be those who choose to commit Criminal acts that get hunted.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For the sake of miscommunication, lack of communication or even outright acts of passive hostility I would say that roads through a hex should not be considered part of that hex's influence. Travelers can pass unmolested by xenophobes and trigger happy murderhobos alike, at least so far as lawful attacks are concerned. Perhaps guards should be posted on these roads at hex borders, or little waystations be present. The purpose of which being a greater outreach of both the hex's influence and protection to its associates, and as a means of notification to those passing into said hex what laws are in place and what to expect.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Re alignment, if a lawful anything group controls the land via settlement, and expresses laws to the effect of 'no trespassing, violators will be killed' .. that does in essence make it a lawful killing, the laws state don't come on our land. It doesn't make it any less lawful, just more likely to be decimated by an offended party.
Maybe it doesn't make it less lawful (maybe) but it certainly makes it less lawful good
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
From the River Freedoms: Walk any road float on any river. There is a tradition of permitting travel, and a strong tradition of hating groups that try to restrict movement.
Anyone who tries to shut down roads is going to have to deal with everybody, not just the normal users of the road. Anyone who shuts down commerce to their settlement at the gate won't get as much hate, but they're really hurting themselves more than anyone else.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
These rules you want would be fine before a human GM, but I am having difficulty seeing that the cold logic of a computer program will be able to perform well attempting it. There have to be measurable conditions and toggles built in to recognize that warning was appropriately given.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Except to control purely exploitative behavior, I would always rather have something controlled by player action (and reaction) than game mechanic. I know that seems like an easy answer to a complicated debate, but a true sandbox game should allow players to play the role they wish and, subsequently, live with the consequences of those actions as dished out by the reacting community in which they reside.
A true sandbox game should provide me the board to play on, but not the board game rules that dictate my actions.
That said, I have no problem with a settlement "owning" the hex it resides in, or a fortress owning a smaller portion of a hex, and so on. Most fantasy settings are based on medieval style settlements and laws. In such time periods, if you marched into a lord's territory and acted in a way he thought wrong, you were at fault and could expect rough treatment. I'm less convinced such should be the case with harvesting camps or caravans, since neither is a permanent settlement. You don't own the road and as soon as the resources in your camp are depleted, you're packing up and moving along.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What we are (were?) talking about is not ways to 'blue gank' people, but rather a mechanism where you are rewarded for giving pests a fair warning before attacking them.Thank you for stating that so eloquently.
Can't you say "Good sir, please leave before I separate your neck from your head." And if they don't leave, you attack them.
I think your best bet is to ignore them, or report them for griefing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Can't you say "Good sir, please leave before I separate your neck from your head." And if they don't leave, you attack them.
The problem is when someone is intentionally being obnoxious and trying to goad you into attacking them so that you'll suffer the penalties of Alignment and Reputation loss.
Yes, I can ignore them, but I've never yet seen an /ignore system that actually made them invisible to me and I'm fairly certain there are some really insoluble problems with trying to make one.
Yes, I can report them, but that burdens the mods and takes time and is subject to all the other problems associated such as throw-away accounts, etc. Waiting a day or two for the mods to finally ban someone who's being obnoxious like this, only to have him start up a new account and start all over is not very appealing.
Again, the problem is with characters who are intentionally trying to goad you into attacking them so that you will suffer from the existing game mechanics. Rather than giving them this tool, I would rather the game mechanics acknowledge this problem and empower the players to deal with it themselves.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Is it possible to make a distinction in this discussion between early release and open enrollment? In the early release I do not think there will be the option of staring a new account. Nihimon, I thought that participation in early release was a benefit of supporting the Kickstarter. There may not be other options for entry after this Kickstarter closes. Therefore, for the first 9 or so months of real time we are talking about a limited number of players. At open release there will be a well populated canvas for people with new accounts to explore and expand upon. By that time I'm hoping all of the concerns expressed here will be addressed by the actions and goals of in-game charted companies. I think that it benefits us all for chartered companies to be involved in the resolution of these issues.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good aligned characters are likely to end up being at the mercy of pests. Make friends with less scrupulous people to resolve this. Or visit Tony's.
I don't believe a system should be put in place to make killing anything other than a decidedly not-Good act. It doesn't need to be inherently Evil, but forms of killing certainly should be. Just like some forms of killing won't cause a Good person to cease being Good.
By that time I'm hoping all of the concerns expressed here will be addressed by the actions and goals of in-game charted companies. I think that it benefits us all for chartered companies to be involved in the resolution of these issues.
Yes! This, exactly. But the issue is worth sounding out further until we have an idea of what we'll be dealing with, and then the topic changes to how best to deal with it. =)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...for the first 9 or so months of real time we are talking about a limited number of players. At open release there will be a well populated canvas for people with new accounts to explore and expand upon. By that time I'm hoping all of the concerns expressed here will be addressed by the actions and goals of in-game charted companies. I think that it benefits us all for chartered companies to be involved in the resolution of these issues.
I would suggest we set it up with GW to simulate a griefing instance to dsicover the consequences and evaluate whatever measures are in place. It should probably be a carefully controlled and monitored experiment if GW is willing to 'roll-back' whatever alignment hit the experiment volunteers might suffer.
Are the anti-griefing measures already planned adequate? Can we think of a way to exploit whatever that system proves to be, subverting it to some unintended consequence?
Are stronger measures needed, or do incremental escalations in the same consequences make better sense?
Automation should be more sure, and should be les expensive in the long run. Or should we leave it for the live players on release to sort out and enjoy some acts of justice alongside unjust acts of vigilantism?
If a settlement decides to murder anyone who passes through their hex just for trespassing, it will quickly become Evil, gain a reputation as a hell-hole, and drag the alignment of everyone who interacts with them towards Evil as well. Edit: They'll probably also have everyone and their brother trying to smash them into dust.
I wonder, if a LG group attacks and kills a passerby before its "ok" for them to do so, will the NPC guards attack the LG group? After all in the eyes of the game the LG group just committed a evil act, so shouldn't the guards act to stop them? It would be pretty funny if their own guards turned on them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Can't you say "Good sir, please leave before I separate your neck from your head." And if they don't leave, you attack them.The problem is when someone is intentionally being obnoxious and trying to goad you into attacking them so that you'll suffer the penalties of Alignment and Reputation loss.
Again, the problem is with characters who are intentionally trying to goad you into attacking them so that you will suffer from the existing game mechanics. Rather than giving them this tool, I would rather the game mechanics acknowledge this problem and empower the players to deal with it themselves.
I don't see the issue. You have options and tools, they just don't suit you or overwhelmingly favor you so you don't like them.
Well to me it sounds like a choice. You can either endure the torment, ignore them and wait for them to tire of your lack of response and move on. Or you can take action and take your lumps for it.
As someone that was a Ninja in EVE I can tell you the best way to take care of players like this. Do not acknowledge them at all. Don't engage them, don't talk to them, don't do anything with them. This will kill their fun. They are counting on you getting pissed off and doing something dumb. Or they want you to flag yourself so that they can jump you with their friends.
I think the game as described will have enough things in it so that you can deal with this stuff, and I don't think it needs more.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can't you say "Good sir, please leave before I separate your neck from your head." And if they don't leave, you attack them.The problem is when someone is intentionally being obnoxious and trying to goad you into attacking them so that you'll suffer the penalties of Alignment and Reputation loss.
I...I've already said enough about this.
Yes, I can ignore them, but I've never yet seen an /ignore system that actually made them invisible to me and I'm fairly certain there are some really insoluble problems with trying to make one.
The system that does this, and does it perfectly, is called self discipline. It is a far, far better system than anything a game developer could ever manage. It's hard for programing to beat 80 billion neurons firing through 10 trillion synapses.
If the goading works, you deserve the consequences. Dangerous frontiers are not for the weak willed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good aligned characters are likely to end up being at the mercy of pests. Make friends with less scrupulous people to resolve this. Or visit Tony's.
If you go to Tony and start whining because some guy has been looking at you funny, Tony's just gonna kick your ass, then tell you exactly why you deserved it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Are the anti-griefing measures already planned adequate? Can we think of a way to exploit whatever that system proves to be, subverting it to some unintended consequence?
From what I have heard and read I think it will be ok, but we need to really see the exact rules and system before some of us more creative types can figure out how to break/exploit the system. I am all for working out where the system can be exploited and then reporting it so they can fix the holes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good aligned characters are likely to end up being at the mercy of pests. Make friends with less scrupulous people to resolve this. Or visit Tony's.If you go to Tony and start whining because some guy has been looking at you funny, Tony's just gonna kick your ass, then tell you exactly why you deserved it.
Going to Tony's for an ass kicking is an acceptable remedy to this so-called issue. If you're going to play a care bear, at least have the grace to accept that you did this to yourself and act like one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am all for working out where the system can be exploited and then reporting it so they can fix the holes.Now there's an interesting question.. what is GW's take going to be on using/abusing exploits? Are we going to face the giant blue ban hammer for not obeying RAI?
I don't really want to use any exploits, I just want to find them, and report them. In my mind exploits ruin the game for everyone. I would hope that nothing bad happens to those that report them. And I dont know what RAI means.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would think that Tony would take on any sort of work, regardless of whether or not he feels it is justified or unscrupulous... so long as there is profit in it...
Tony finds ways to find profit, and make certain situations profitable, yes. But he is by no means a man with no guiding philosophy.
For instance, Tony will offer discounts for taking out people who are confirmed newb gankers. Tony is very concerned about griefing, but he gets upset when people try to come up with perverse ideas of what griefing is. Take nose thumbing, for example. Calling that griefing borders on sacrilege in Tony's eyes. It demeans the suffering of those who are truly being griefed.
Some assassins will take on any contract, but that's a way of doing business that crosses over into being an unhealthy member of society. The kind of people societies will want to find ways to cut out.
Tony is all about establishing himself as something that society does need, whether they like to admit it or not. And ganking some guy because he wouldn't answer your question is not the way for Tony to become something needed.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I dont know what RAI means.
Rules as Intended, as opposed to Rules as Written. Often not the same thing. Terms from tabletop gaming rules clarifications.
I don't really want to use any exploits
As well you shouldn't. =) But during the early stages I'm sure we'll find a few things that don't quite work as intended, some may be considered exploits, what is the policy going to be in these circumstances? Obviously it needs to be reported ASAP. More curious what kind of collaboration we might expect for encountering and confirming these issues, which obviously means using said exploit by way of testing before reporting something is broken. As you said, they can easily ruin the fun for others.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If ownership of all hexes is taken by various players, and other players may not enter another's land, then there will be no game thereafter.
Sure, if you simply cannot enter another's land you are right. There will be no game. That isn't at all what the exile mechanic is supporting though. If the moment you enter an enemy hex you are set upon by uber-powered guards, that will be MASSIVELY unbalanced even if there is no exile mechanic. It would entirely eliminate chaotic evil players from the game unless they manage to take control of most of the map.
The exile mechanic was put forth under two assumptions:
1. Player settlement guards will have concentrated presence in some areas and light to no presence in the others. Such as high concentrations in the main settlement, moderate concentrations near forts and watchtowers, low concentrations / occasional patrols near other player owned structures and major roadways. Little to nothing off the beaten path.
2. Player settlement guards can be overcome. If a formidable player army is built they should be able to overcome even high concentrations of guards. And small groups should easily be able to dispatch patrols.
That leaves players wishing to travel through enemy hexes two great options.
1. Come with a large group.
2. Cut across country.
In the original Darkfall it took about a 20-30 minute ride through enemy territory to get from the territory of one allied race to another before fast mounts were introduced. Along the way you would killed by towers if you stopped in any of the towns, and most of the players in that territory could kill you without penalty. I still made those trips successfully dozens of times. Hexes are supposed to be only 4 minutes across. That means in order for it to be as bad as the trip I had to make in Darkfall you would have to cross about five hexes where you are exiled.
You are talking about blockade, aren't you? The ability to deny right of passage, travel, even on open roadways. This is a good thing for the game in your eyes?
YES!!! Yes a thousand times!!! Some of my favorite times in Freelancer were spent slipping through enemy blockades. In Freelancer I had to depart from the tradelanes and use jumpgates that were sometimes known to my enemes. In PFO there won't be little choke points you have to travel through, which will make it even easier for you to avoid blockades.
You can go around their hexes, or you can sneak through them. The choice is up to you. Personally unless I have a large wagon and their hex is on rough terrain I'm probably going to go for sneaking, because it's fun.
I suspect not all hexes will be claimable.
I agree. But that is even more reason to allow us to control the hexes we can claim.
My finely tuned senses are picking up a few red flags here. Something on the order of might makes right, right?
Nations have a legitimate right to ban people from entering their territory if they desire to do so. There is something to ownership of territory. If you disagree, go hop a border without a passport and tell me how it goes for you. Are all those nations that police their borders chaotic or evil?
I've already provided 3 good examples on why we need to be able to kick people out of our territory:
1. People who bring their conflicts into your neutral territory.
2. People you can identify as spies who are feeding info on your movement to your enemies, or the movement of traders to bandits.
3. It allows you to enforce a variety of other laws, such as laws on player behavior you want to enforce in your territory.
It isn't as though an exile mechanic will allow you to kill them on the spot. It takes 4 minutes to cross a hex from end to end. An exile mechanic allows them 10 minutes to leave.
And may I also point out, I did suggest penalties for overly frequent usage of the exile mechanic. Just not alignment penalties.