PVP and Settlement Politics Pre EE and Early EE (0-3 months)


Pathfinder Online

51 to 100 of 1,534 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Drakhan Valane wrote:
Intentions are nice and all, but we'll see how well it is pulled off.

I guess it just seems wrong to me for you to say that Ryan is "coming pretty close to saying, "griefing isn't griefing," which is basically the EVE approach" when his actual statements are very explicitly opposed to "the EVE approach".

It's one thing to say you think he won't live up to his statements, and another to say that he's not actually making those statements, or that his statements mean something that is clearly 100% the opposite of what he has stated.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

3: Social Engineering - the humans who play within the game can act to enforce certain norms of behavior by providing and withholding access to shared community resources in response to character behavior.

Note that the tools we players are expected to directly use in response to griefing are "providing and withholding access to shared community resources". We are not being asked or authorized to respond to griefing by "driving out griefers", and it's likely that those who attempt to do so would end up being considered griefers themselves.

I suspect that once the game is rolling, players will figure out that someone would have to really work at getting a very low reputation. At some low number, maybe -5000, maybe -7000, more than half of the player base might say that it might not be griefing, but it smells nasty enough that we don't want it in our town.

Closing off their settlements sounds like withholding shared resources in order to enforce behavior norms - it's what GW seems to expect us to do.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
Closing off their settlements sounds like withholding shared resources in order to enforce behavior norms - it's what GW seems to expect us to do.

Exactly.

I was referring to statements from Andius like this:

Griefing has absolutely no place in the game, and by griefing I mean intentionally trying to ruin another player's experience. Often true griefing involves abuse of game mechanics and meta-gaming. The only legitimate use of griefing is griefing the griefers for the express purpose of driving them away from the game, so they stop hurting your community and go back to Call of Duty from whence they came. In this game you can report griefers and see them banned so even that is not a legitimate use of griefers.

He backs away from that a bit at the end, but it's really quite revealing of his mindset, and even his retreat from that position "in this game" seems to be more a recognition of it being unnecessary than of it being wrong.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

1. How would you determine a PVP interaction was a “random act”?

The issue of selecting a valid target also seems to be an underlying question. To clarify, I will present my view, and then follow up with a question.

"Bluddwolf wrote:
“What will factor into our decision to attack a merchant or not, may be very different than what you are thinking. Not the wealth of the merchant, but the value of what he is hauling at the time. Not the experience of the target, but the ratio of risk vs. reward that he presents. Not our personal knowledge of who that merchant is, but how bored we might have become waiting for a target.”

Random player killing is when you kill a player for no motivation other than, "Because I could." It's not when you try to rob them and they fight back or run. It's not when you kill an enemy or someone aiding an enemy unless the war itself is random.

While I don't consider it griefing, and never have, my concern with random player killing is that it is the playstyle the majority of veteran players choose in Open World PVP games. When you are playing Darkfall, Mortal, EVE, etc. if you are a factionless player running through neutral territory without a single item on you, 50%+ veteran players will kill you. Just because.

That type of community appeals to some, and it doesn't appeal to a great many others. I personally want to enjoy this game alongside people who want something more than Lord of the Flies Online. As I am not using admin powers, I believe it is perfectly reasonable for me to use what power I have to fight for the kind of community I want to see in PFO, which is one where RPKers comprise a tiny minority that are constantly hunted.

TEO as an organization will target out all RPKers. The Treaty of Rovagug was only meant to deal with it if it became a widespread problem. Or at least that's what I would have negotiated in favor if we had ever gotten down to debating terms, and probably will negotiate in favor of later down the road.

Bluddwolf wrote:

2. If this is a bandit’s or other PVP players thought process, can any PVP interaction be truly called “Random”?

”Andius” wrote:
Having a powerful and well placed Chaotic Evil town that denies access to griefers is actually extremely advantageous to our vision for PFO even though I'm sure we will cross swords with your members on a frequent basis. The existence of this settlement significantly undermines those who would be griefers in PFO and so I wish it great success.

Yes. First off a bandit is someone who robs people, and may kill them if they try to run or resist. I do not consider true bandits to be RPKers because they aren't randomly killing. They're randomly robbing and killing everyone who refuses to pay. Should that bandit company decide "We're bored, let's just start killing people for no reason!" then they are RPKers. Not griefers, but RPKers.

Bluddwolf wrote:

3. At what Reputation Point would you assume someone was a “Griefer” and should be denied access to someone else’s settlement?

Andius wrote:
If I were being attacked by a resident of a neighboring settlement I would approach the leadership of that settlement and request that the offending party's behavior be fixed, or that they evict them. If they failed to do so we would take actions up to and including a declaration of war against that settlement. This is against any settlement, of any alignment.

The Reputation point system matters to me only if it is an effective system for measuring if someone is a griefer or not. I have yet to see any alignment system in any game that does that job effectively, and in the past I have dealt with the subject of griefing on a much more personal level. I evaluate the actions of an organization over time and then make the determination either by myself, or alongside those in the organization I belong to.

In those cases I'm using either my own power, or the power of my organization to fight the griefers so our opinion is all that is needed. As we have no power over Acheron, we will simply watch their method of determining griefers when deciding how we deal with them. I look forward to this, as Anathema's definition of griefing was one of the best I've ever read. I am confident he will do a great job without TEO attempting to meddle in his affairs.

The quoted statement does not apply to griefing, RPKing, or really anything other than TEO's personal interests. We don't want to live a settlement that harbors our enemies. Allowing a base that harbors people who attack us and do significant damage to the trade driving our economy to exist near our borders is just a stupid move tactically.

From a meta-game perspective I don't see anything wrong or dishonest about putting a bandit base next to us, but I also wouldn't fault any company in the game for eliminating a similar threat. If TEO is wandering through the forest and we get attacked we aren't going to ask "Is this person an RPKer or a Griefer?" We are just going to fight back. Providing shelter to someone who is continually attacking a neighboring faction is very similar to healing someone as they kill people. You've involved yourself in the fight whether you meant to or not.

So if TEO and Acheron end up right next to each other we'll probably push for some clause about people living there not raiding in our territory if they want us to continue to turn a blind eye. Not because it would be wrong for them to let their members raid us, but because we have a kingdom to protect. What company wouldn't do the same? Everyone is going to protect the assets they have honestly earned or else they won't exist for very long.

Bluddwolf wrote:

4. Does this apply to a settlement controlling its citizens (chartered members) or does it also include visitors that may or may not frequent that settlement often?

One view of dealing with banditry or other criminal activities was more limited to its effects upon their political, economic and or local geographic interests.

I'll assess that on a case by case basis. We'll deal with threats to TEO as our order sees fit. I'm not going to advocate we start attacking neighboring settlements just because someone who happened to be on our hit list wandered through, but I'm not going to get caught up in the technicality of "Sure he and his 25 friends raid your hex 50 times a day, are using our spawnpoint, buying supplies here, and hiding behind our guards, but he doesn't belong to our company!"

You'll find that I intentionally never write strong laws to avoid debating technicalities. Even the laws that are written are simply guidelines, and any perceived violation will be be subject to our own judgement. I hate getting caught up in legalistic bullcrap. As a neutral-good organization, I see no reason to give room for people to find loopholes. Stick your head through a loophole in our law and you may find out it's a noose.

Bluddwolf wrote:
5. How far outside of your immediate (political and economic) and / or geographically local interests, do you see your company exerting its influence and power?

Our Territory: We will create and enforce rules. We intend to have an open border policy, no taxation on public roads, and an atmosphere that is fairly relaxed for those who don't intend to cause problems. Causing problems is in general, taking any aggressive action against those who are not banned from our territory. Yes, robbery is an aggressive action. But you're free to rob anyone on our publically posted hit list.

Local Area: Our hope is to establish a strong tie to settlements in the surrounding area, and even encourage settlements of compatible ideologies to settle near us. We aren't going to sit there and tell our neighbors everything they can and can't do, unless it's impacting us, either through direct aggressive action, harboring those who take such actions, or policies severely damaging to our economy.

All of PFO: We will support allies and causes we agree with wherever they reside. We will fight our enemies and work to hinder them wherever we find appropriate. That being said, we try to respect the laws of neutral factions, and we don't expect to be able to have a high degree of influence very far from our home.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

1. How would you determine a PVP interaction was a “random act”?

2. If this is a bandit’s or other PVP players thought process, can any PVP interaction be truly called “Random”?

3. At what Reputation Point would you assume someone was a “Griefer” and should be denied access to someone else’s settlement?

4. Does this apply to a settlement controlling its citizens (chartered members) or does it also include visitors that may or may not frequent that settlement often?

5. How far outside of your immediate (political and economic) and / or geographically local interests, do you see your company exerting its influence and power?

I can appreciate the want for a more precise definition here; lacking a formal court of law though, it's mostly going to amount to want of justification to satisfy intellectual curiosity and/or hurt feelings. For the record, I personally (not speaking for GRNS here) agree with Andius on the matter of writing hard laws and the handling of loopholes.

Why do bandits raid? What was the motivation? Until we come to a point where we see a bunch of Chaotic Good bandit companies form in direct opposition to the status quo, I think the simple answer is "because they want to".

It has been pointed out that without someone explicitly saying what their motive is, there's really no way to determine such. Without knowing this, we have no way of knowing whether they were setting out to grief or not, and for the most part I would say that intention is the key factor.

Which brings us to Reputation. Did I understand correctly that this is supposed to operate similar to a social network in that its based on who you know that knows the person? Which is to say, potentially not a concrete value at all? That makes reputation a rather flimsy measurement (though in most cases certainly much better than none at all). Please correct me if I am wrong here, but in those circumstances it would be possible depending on who a person knew for two of a settlement's leaders to have diametrically opposed values in reputation for the same person.

I honestly feel like I might be missing something where Reputation is concerned, feel free to correct me on this.

If all it comes down to is basing evaluating a given character's reputation with the settlement as a whole (derived from the mean or curve of its inhabitants), then I think it is more than fair to kick someone out after they have sufficiently operated against enough of its other members to reach some pre-defined negative value in mean rep.

Goblin Squad Member

@ Andius,

Thank you for your indepth response. The issues that you raised and the rationale behind them are reasonable and provided that atmosphere of the PFO community pans out that way, if will be great fun for all.

@ Darcnes,

Personally, I don't see how the reputation system is going to work as it is currently described. At times it seems harsh, at others is seems inconsequential. Is it a measure of player to player interaction, or does player to NPC interactions also impact it? Take all of these and you get a muddled mess.

Alignment: Measure of your character's actions along the G v E and L v C. Used for the flagging system, and only important mostly for viewing by the Deities.

Reputation: Measure of how the player plays within the rules. There should be no PVE consequences to reputation. There should be no players adjustments to this score (rebuke or praise).

Maybe there should be a third measure. One that measures how we are playing our characters. Perhaps this is the accolade (merits, achievements) system that has been written about (briefly).

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf I think a rather key point (one mentioned above even) is that the players would be the one to define the rules, and would thus be the arbiters of what falls within. I certainly hope this is the case.

Alignment: Measure of character's actions.

Reputation: Measure of character's interactions.

If I put the half-remembered pieces together correctly, your reputation with someone would not necessarily be what that person's reputation is with you. Knowing five people that know a particular individual, you having no prior interaction with said individual; it sounds like that character's reputation is going to be tabulated using 'hearsay' from those five people you know, that know the individual in question. In essence, what you know of that character comes from what you've been exposed to by other characters that you know. This is the impression I am under at this point, until someone more knowledgeable comes along to correct me. ;)

If that's the case, and a settlement has its own reputation score for each person based on those of its inhabitants (or has some other means of balancing opposing views).. yeah, a very workable system is emerging there.

P.s. If Arbiter were a title I could buy, that alone would be worth $10 to me. Ryan, Stephen, easy money here guys. ;)

Goblin Squad Member

@Darcnes

Blog February 6, 2013 wrote:
Reputation is entirely a PvP-based metric, and it only changes through interaction with other players. Reputation goes down through PvP against people who aren't flagged for it (through flags like Attacker, Criminal, or the PvP flags below described below). It can also be lowered by people who lower their own reputation to try and lower yours, if theirs is higher to begin with, so be careful who you treat badly. Reputation goes up by an accelerating rate each day players don't lose reputation for their actions, from gifts from other players, and through playing their role in the PvP flags described below.

It is a measurable number. Yours will be the same no matter who you know or who is looking at it. :)

Goblin Squad Member

Hah, I knew it would happen. I thought I had read something about some kind of social network to the reputation system, I must have mixed it up.

Thanks Bringslite. ;)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For me the primary difference between PvP and Griefing is repetition. If the same set of people kill an individual character over and over within a reasonably short span of time it is giving grief. 'Randomness', for me, has little to do with griefing.

Goblin Squad Member

@Bringslite @Darcnes

I think the blog might not cover the Reputation system, fully; bear in mind it seems it involves PvP strongly but also contracts are mentioned alternatively and elsewhere (and other significant interactions we possibly don't know about atm are not mentioned).

In terms of a simple difference between PvP and Griefing as with the law it's no doubt "Intention" (same with refereeing even!) or what in crime would be called ("Motivation", opportunity & means (aka methods)). Wiki: Means, motive, and opportunity

I think what @Being is suggesting is Evidence ie pattern to convince of the above (intention/oppy etc).

To go back to Reputation: It seems there's a strong system needed for PvP but also a system needed for managing social networks (if people you trust rate another player not in your network that helps inform you - more than random people - or even known "real scumbag!"s) about such things as trade, politics and more. What might have been referred to as a "Reputation Economy"?

Bluddwulf wrote:

1. How would you determine a PVP interaction was a “random act”?

2. If this is a bandit’s or other PVP players thought process, can any PVP interaction be truly called “Random”?

3. At what Reputation Point would you assume someone was a “Griefer” and should be denied access to someone else’s settlement?

4. Does this apply to a settlement controlling its citizens (chartered members) or does it also include visitors that may or may not frequent that settlement often?

5. How far outside of your immediate (political and economic) and / or geographically local interests, do you see your company exerting its influence and power?

1. If it's random ie one-off, if it's possible to inspect a player's recent rep history or incidents of similar activity that is "opportunistic" griefing.

2. Indication only with a judgement call for 50/50 for eg. ie player discretion is final tool to use. I mean in sports they use tech to refer important decisions but someone still has to a) choose when to refer b) the person checking the tech may still have to "call it" on a tricky one!

3. I'm assuming Rep goes Low-Medium-High ie arbitrary cut-off - you can just substitute "loose cannon" into Low irrespective of "griefer". Any way to call "personal referees/references" would be useful too.

4. Contextual: Some CC's might gain a Reputation of reputations as being exemplary and therefore high rep is part of their "currency" - other settlements will tolerate more open systems and deal with things when the poop hits the fan.

5. In Wild Hexes evil/chaotic/low-rep will be dying to join combat with prospecting operations of other settlements - outside lawful hexes!

Goblin Squad Member

Darcnes wrote:
It has been pointed out that without someone explicitly saying what their motive is, there's really no way to determine such. Without knowing this, we have no way of knowing whether they were setting out to grief or not, and for the most part I would say that intention is the key factor.

I am afraid that intention is unverifiable. And you can believe me, because I never lie, and I'm always right.

Goblin Squad Member

@AvenaOats

I am not sure how much the rep system may evolve, but remember that all interactions between players could be considered PVP in a way. Not all are contentious, but all are exchanges of some type.

If they allow players to "salute' and "rebuke" each other, they will have to have very situational requirements to limit abuse and "gaming" of it.

Edit: I wonder, if as Bluddwolf has mentioned, a system wherein administration "skilled" settlement leaders could have a pool of rep and somehow award it to deserving citizens. Still ripe for abuse, though...

Goblin Squad Member

@Being
So when someone comes into an area someone else has laid claim to for a time, and the person who has claimed this area wishes to enforce their claim by telling them to leave, or someone enforces on their behalf, and the intruder pushes their own "right to be there too" to the point that it comes down to force of arms.. repeatedly, because they do not like being told no (understandably).

This would qualify as griefing when done repeatedly by that definition; yet, this is standard m.o. for anyone wishing privacy, bandits for example, encountering those who believe they have a right to go wherever they wish, like most self righteous gamers. ;)

@Harad
Undoubtedly. *wink*

Goblin Squad Member

I believe that what Being is describing is the repeated killing of one character, multiple times during a short period of time, with no gain or purpose for you.

The "Stay off my Lawn" defense in in of itself may not be a defense against griefing. On the other hand, the victim may not be able to claim that he is being griefed if he continues to return to that location repeatedly, knowing that he may be killed.

This is an Open World PvP game. Characters will die at the hands of other characters, especially outside the semi safe walls of player settlements. When you venture out keep these three things in mind:

1. You are never "Safe"!

2. Don't carry what you can not afford to lose.

3. Nothing personal, it's all about the gold.

Goblin Squad Member

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
The "Stay off my Lawn" defense in in of itself may not be a defense against griefing.

I will be extremely disappointed if it's not.

If my friends and I declare a "No Trespassing" zone around our bulk harvesting site, make that obvious to interlopers, and kill any who refuse to leave, I'm going to be infuriated if the devs come along and punish me for "griefing" said interloper.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
The "Stay off my Lawn" defense in in of itself may not be a defense against griefing.

I will be extremely disappointed if it's not.

If my friends and I declare a "No Trespassing" zone around our bulk harvesting site, make that obvious to interlopers, and kill any who refuse to leave, I'm going to be infuriated if the devs come along and punish me for "griefing" said interloper.

I doubt that GW would. "Territory" defense is one of their aim's. It is more likely to invoke the displeasure of altruistic orgs. out to defend the "innocent".

It does seem that attitudes are changing or becoming more well defined, though. Maybe it will be less of an issue when it develops.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I believe that the dev's will view one person's "right to stand here" and the other person's "right to defend claimed territory" as player's being each other's content.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
The "Stay off my Lawn" defense in in of itself may not be a defense against griefing.

I will be extremely disappointed if it's not.

If my friends and I declare a "No Trespassing" zone around our bulk harvesting site, make that obvious to interlopers, and kill any who refuse to leave, I'm going to be infuriated if the devs come along and punish me for "griefing" said interloper.

Perhaps I was unclear.

I don't think that either will be the case. Your "claim" to a piece of land is only recognized by your ability to hold it. (You Keep What You Hold).

Any person or group, "trespassing" will suffer the consequences that you can bring to the table.

If they keep coming back, other than to retrieve their corpse, then you should be free to kill them again. As long as you are not camping their corpse, I see no problem with this.

Let us reverse the scenario:

You have an iron mine. Someone comes and kills you, and takes over your mine. Your original claim is lost, because you could not "Hold" it. You can continue to return, and continue to be killed as often as you wish. You are not being griefed, because you are choosing to go there.

Quote:

TANGENT: I can only think of a few types of griefing, I personally accept as griefing (Outside of War, of course):

1. Corpse Camping
2. Respawn Camping
3. Noob Farming by veteran players

4. Ninja blue vs. blue, buddy killing maybe traitorous and not griefing, but I would treat it as such and "grief the griefer".

So as I hope you see, I am in support of the concept of "You Have What You Hold" River Freedom. If someone feels they are being killed too often in the wilderness...

1. Train Up survival / Combat skills (Big Boy Pants Response)

2. Hire Body Guards (Pragmatic Response)

3. Stay in your Mommy's basement and craft / settlement manage or other activity that does not require leaving the relative safety of a settlement. (Cearbear Response)

Goblin Squad Member

Hey! My Mommy lets me all over the house and it is sooo safe!

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
Hey! My Mommy lets me all over the house and it is sooo safe!

But I bet she uses those baby monitors, in every room. Nanny Cams?

"Mother, do you think they'll drop the bomb?
Mother, do you think they'll like this song?
Mother, do you think they'll try to break my balls?
Ooooo. Mother, should I build the wall?" ~ Roger Waters, Pink Floyd

The MMO carebear anthem?

@Bringslite, I am not calling you a carebear... just having some fun!!

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Bringslite wrote:
Hey! My Mommy lets me all over the house and it is sooo safe!

But I bet she uses those baby monitors, in every room. Nanny Cams?

"Mother, do you think they'll drop the bomb?
Mother, do you think they'll like this song?
Mother, do you think they'll try to break my balls?
Ooooo. Mother, should I build the wall?" ~ Roger Waters, Pink Floyd

The MMO carebear anthem?

@Bringslite, I am not calling you a carebear... just having some fun!!

I know. Back at ya! ;)

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
The "Stay off my Lawn" defense in in of itself may not be a defense against griefing.

I will be extremely disappointed if it's not.

If my friends and I declare a "No Trespassing" zone around our bulk harvesting site, make that obvious to interlopers, and kill any who refuse to leave, I'm going to be infuriated if the devs come along and punish me for "griefing" said interloper.

I doubt that GW would. "Territory" defense is one of their aim's. It is more likely to invoke the displeasure of altruistic orgs. out to defend the "innocent".

It does seem that attitudes are changing or becoming more well defined, though. Maybe it will be less of an issue when it develops.

That depends entirely on what claim they have on the territory, and what kind of control they are trying to enforce on it. I think we all have the right to excerize absolute control within our settlements, and some measure of control on the surrounding unclaimable hexes. Especially if we are maintaining towers and such in those areas.

What we don't want to see is a situation where mega factions are claiming all the settlements and leaving no place for the common folk to harvest resources and adventure unless they swear fealty to one of the mega-factions.

I would fight to keep PFO from becoming that, but not to keep people from exersizing control over their territory.

Goblin Squad Member

Having a "Claim" or maintaining "Control" is an illusion. Your only right to it is if you have the power to hold it. I expect and hope that there is frequent conflict over the control of resources.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Having a "Claim" or maintaining "Control" is an illusion. Your only right to it is if you have the power to hold it. I expect and hope that there is frequent conflict over the control of resources.

I wanted to add to this. Settlements are obviously more static than a mining or gathering operation out in the wilderness. However, control over a settlement is still not absolute. Settlements will rise and some will fall. Of those that fall, they will fall from either external forces or internal subversion.

The mega blob kingdom will also, eventually fall (ala Roman Empire). It will become corrupt, fracture from within and then get picked a part on multiple fronts at once.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:


Personally, I don't see how the reputation system is going to work as it is currently described. At times it seems harsh, at others is seems inconsequential. Is it a measure of player to player interaction, or does player to NPC interactions also impact it? Take all of these and you get a muddled mess.

Alignment: Measure of your character's actions along the G v E and L v C. Used for the flagging system, and only important mostly for viewing by the Deities.

Reputation: Measure of how the player plays within the rules. There should be no PVE consequences to reputation. There should be no players adjustments to this score (rebuke or praise).

Maybe there should be a third measure. One that measures how we are playing our characters. Perhaps this is the accolade (merits, achievements) system that has been written about (briefly).

Thank you, that is the point I was trying to make previously. I have no qualms with PvP or banditry, my problem is the lack of a player driven "reputation" system (because "reputation" as currently intended clearly is not). I think GW is missing an important metric that I for one would use as the primary one in determining who I would let in my city.

Andius wrote:
What we don't want to see is a situation where mega factions are claiming all the settlements and leaving no place for the common folk to harvest resources and adventure unless they swear fealty to one of the mega-factions.

Why do we not want to see this and would you go so far as to mechanically prevent it?

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:
Andius wrote:
What we don't want to see is a situation where mega factions are claiming all the settlements and leaving no place for the common folk to harvest resources and adventure unless they swear fealty to one of the mega-factions.
Why do we not want to see this and would you go so far as to mechanically prevent it?

Because it isn't true to the format, and it isn't good for the community. Pathfinder is about exploring the world. Unless I am wrong, and feel free to correct me if I am, the majority of factions in the Pathfinder setting do not exclude all non-allied outsiders from their land. For the most part players are free to wander about fighting monsters as they wish, unless they cross into enemy borders. Most of the time they are even encouraged to do so by the local leadership in those areas.

By contrast, in most Open World PVP games neutral players AKA "neuts" or "noots" are considered an enemy if they come into your territory, and exterminated with extreme prejudice. The only people welcome are allies and those who were specifically given permission to be there.

If this kind of culture becomes pervasive in PFO then your random neutral trader / adventurer will be forced into a role more akin to an smuggler / infiltrator just to access the majority of the game's content.

I don't support mechanically blocking organizations from being xenophobic. I think the fight between the xenophobic culture, and the culture of freedom, whether it be diplomatic or military, will lead to meaningful player interaction.

TEO's plan is to be more like the actual nations of Pathfinder. With the exception of our enemies and trouble makers, our borders will be open. Depending on the scarcity of resources and the size of people's gathering operations we may or may not tax their extraction in our lands, but our fees will be reasonable, and our roads will always remain untolled. Not that there is anything wrong with having a reasonable toll.

What about PAX? Will you be opening up your area or shutting it off to the outside?

Goblin Squad Member

My understanding, from many PFOfan TS conversations, is that most settlements will have their doors open to the neutral traveler. Some have even said to me that they will be open to characters of low reputation.

Reasons = Travelers need to sell what they have, buy what they need and train. This is going to be a major, if not primary, source of income for a settlement and its managers. Few will close their doors to the flow of gold, filling their coffers.

PS: Kitknx is Seventh Veil, not Pax.

Goblin Squad Member

My bad. Last I knew he had quit TSV to join PAX.


He thought of it I believe

To answer your question in short Aeternum intends to run fairly open settlements for the majority of the time. Circumstances such as war may alter that situation temporarily

Goblin Squad Member

That's good to hear. What about TSV?

Goblin Squad Member

I did? Am I?...hmmm, good to know.

Andius wrote:
...Pathfinder is about exploring the world. Unless I am wrong, and feel free to correct me if I am...

I think PFO is suppose to be a sandbox, meaning it is about whatever each player decides to make it about...you cannot be wrong that is what it is about for you.

Finally, Pax is a word, not an acronym...capitalizing the initial P is sufficient for proper nouns.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
That's good to hear. What about TSV?

Speaking personally, the more open the settlement, the happier I'll be. We'll see if that's possible.

Goblin Squad Member

Great. If TEO, Pax, and TSV don't allow their members to grief or RPK, and have open border policies, PFO's community has already realized a great part of our vision for it.

It would be awesome if we could ignore our meta-game goals entirely and focus on our RP. Not letting my guard down yet but I'm hopeful.


@Kitnyx...seemed to vaguely remember it being mentioned apologies if wrong...wasn't worth digging back :)

Goblin Squad Member

I can tell you this... If Im out in the wild and want to PVP, Im going to PVP... It may be with someone else who wants to PVP, it may be with someone who tries to run away, and it may be with a new player that has no clue whats going on...

The new player (so long as we can tell) will likely get his stuff back or I may defend his body for him till he returns. (however it will work in the end).

I have always done things like this in Eve. Gate camp low sec and shoot at whoever is there to shoot at. If I find its a new player who really doesnt have a clue, I give him his stuff back and talk to him about lessons. Teach them some things about low sec (wilds) and PVP in general.

My game will be PVP and sometimes PVE to do something else for a change. Until it is made completely clear by GW... If you are in the wilds then you want to PVP too. Whether its market pvp or combat, its all pvp and its all open. A guy out harvesting may beat me at market pvp, but I will BEAT him in combat. And if your that guy, dont return to the scene right away... youll just end up dead again.

The whole idea of the phrase RPKing makes no sense to me. It is an open world sandbox PVP game. Which to me means, get ready for a fight when you leave town. There is nothing random about it, you are entering a hostile area and should expect to PVP.

People will consider what I do as RPKing. I do not. It may be random of where, who, and when... But I plan to fight and there is nothing random or griefing about it.

Goblin Squad Member

ZenPagan wrote:
@Kitnyx...seemed to vaguely remember it being mentioned apologies if wrong...wasn't worth digging back :)

I must have come across wrong with my post...I was aiming for antagonistically amused, not antagonistically annoyed. *grin*

No offense taken, right or wrong, imaginary or otherwise, Boss.

@Xeen, if it is deemed "working as intended" for someone to come take the fruits of my day's labor and all I can do about it is reward their reputation for not killing me outright, I have no qualms with you making me (or anyone for that matter) run 3 minutes out of my way from a spawn point.

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:

I did? Am I?...hmmm, good to know.

Andius wrote:
...Pathfinder is about exploring the world. Unless I am wrong, and feel free to correct me if I am...

I think PFO is suppose to be a sandbox, meaning it is about whatever each player decides to make it about...you cannot be wrong that is what it is about for you.

Finally, Pax is a word, not an acronym...capitalizing the initial P is sufficient for proper nouns.

This

Open World
Sandbox
PVP

All in one, with few exceptions

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:
ZenPagan wrote:
@Kitnyx...seemed to vaguely remember it being mentioned apologies if wrong...wasn't worth digging back :)

I must have come across wrong with my post...I was aiming for antagonistically amused, not antagonistically annoyed. *grin*

No offense taken, right or wrong, imaginary or otherwise, Boss.

@Xeen, if it is deemed "working as intended" for someone to come take the fruits of my day's labor and all I can do about it is reward their reputation for not killing me outright, I have no qualms with you making me (or anyone for that matter) run 3 minutes out of my way from a spawn point.

Thats good, Dont get me wrong. I have no intentions of camping peoples bodies nor their harvest spot. I will move on. I have seen too many people in Eve, return and return and return, quickly enough that they respawned in the next system. I havent even had a chance to move on yet and here they come again lol.

I will say this, if your doing a days work. Have some guards with you. In the beginning it may help keep bandits away. Later on of course it will provoke an attack just for the challenge.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
I will say this, if your doing a days work. Have some guards with you. In the beginning it may help keep bandits away. Later on of course it will provoke an attack just for the challenge.

I do not mind PvP or full loot, all I care about is having meaningful tools for social engineering...a way to keep those who robbed me and mine from selling our goods in our town...a player driven reputation system.

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:
I do not mind PvP or full loot, all I care about is having meaningful tools for social engineering...a way to keep those who robbed me and mine from selling our goods in our town...a player driven reputation system.

Not to put too fine a point on it but, they stopped being "your" goods when you could no longer hold onto them. When those bandits / looters sell "their" goods in your settlement, your settlement will make some coin from the transaction fees (that you likely set). Then those same looter / bandits may then buy a few mugs of ale and perhaps train a bit, further distributing their coin into your community's coffers.

If you choose to, you could limit access to your settlement to non-chaotics or non-evils or require high levels of reputation. Then those looter / bandits will take their goods and money and sell / spend them elsewhere.

Merchants / Gatherers / Travelers may want to try to think of the potential of lose to bandits or looters in a more business like mentality. What we steal is an cost of doing business. You will build that into your pricing. You will be able to do that because the supply will be diminished by having some inhibitors in place for 100% of all goods getting to market.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
PS: Kitknx is Seventh Veil, not Pax.

KitNyx will always be an important part of T7V. I'll leave any further corrections for him to make.

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:
Xeen wrote:
I will say this, if your doing a days work. Have some guards with you. In the beginning it may help keep bandits away. Later on of course it will provoke an attack just for the challenge.
I do not mind PvP or full loot, all I care about is having meaningful tools for social engineering...a way to keep those who robbed me and mine from selling our goods in our town...a player driven reputation system.

There will be ways for doing this. Mainly restrictions of who can enter your settlement.

Granted, Bluddwolf is right. If those restrictions do not apply then it will likely happen. Also, money in your coffers that would otherwise not be.

Fun stuff to look forward to.

Goblin Squad Member

You are free to play the game how you want to play it Xeen. So am I.

You apparently believe this game should be Lord of The Flies Online, where it's acceptable to kill anyone, anywhere, for any reason.

Mechanically I agree with you. The lack of restrictions inherent in an Open World PVP game leads to a far more authentic, engaging, and fulfilling than the general horde vs. alliance junk.

But just because you can kill without reason doesn't mean you should. I play open world PVP games so that I get to determine the reasons I kill people instead of the game mechanics.

Turning open world PVP into free for all Halo matches kills their potential to be something much, much, deeper. You rob yourself and everyone around you of that experience with your meaningless slaughter. I'm not going to ask Goblinworks to stop you though.

As you said, this is a PVP game, and PVP will be the instrument of my vengeance. See you in PFO.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
Mechanically I agree with you.

This.

Free-for-all PvP is a necessary mechanic, but it's not the focus of the game - it's what makes the rest of the game meaningful.

Goblin Squad Member

@Andius and Xeen

Pvp will be the ultimate arbiter of disagreement. I can't wait to watch you two go at it!

If you give me your sizes now, I will have replacement gear ready whenever you need it. ;)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For me this is a social engineering and nation building game, I want full PvP for the "verisimilitude" of it...but I will never partake if I can help it (necessary defense of my harvested building supplies I will never SAD (FYI) from the high reputation bandits aside). Just sayin'...that's what this sandbox is to me.

Goblin Squad Member

Bringslite wrote:

@Andius and Xeen

Pvp will be the ultimate arbiter of disagreement. I can't wait to watch you two go at it!

If you give me your sizes now, I will have replacement gear ready whenever you need it. ;)

Do you do resizing as well? Or just save yourself some time and leave some extra space in the groin area on their gear.

Goblin Squad Member

I believe that we will offer ...uhm.... custom sizes for larger epeens. We will not do custom fittings, however.

Goblin Squad Member

Eldurian Darkrender wrote:
Bringslite wrote:

@Andius and Xeen

Pvp will be the ultimate arbiter of disagreement. I can't wait to watch you two go at it!

If you give me your sizes now, I will have replacement gear ready whenever you need it. ;)

Do you do resizing as well? Or just save yourself some time and leave some extra space in the groin area on their gear.

No need, in fact remove some space as I am PVPing to compensate.

LOL

51 to 100 of 1,534 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / PVP and Settlement Politics Pre EE and Early EE (0-3 months) All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.