Few questions that Ryan left before finished asking and said to ask here. Or perhaps others can answer.
1. Will there be collision barriers in the game. Like melee forming a line to engage the enemy where the enemy cannot run though like they were ghosts to engage the less "tankish" characters like some frail mage or archer? Will formations play a role at all or how a few could hold a pass against a large number and succeed but would fail in an open plains scenario due to being swarmed by all sides?
2. Will holding a dungeon instance be an issue? Like say a player finds a dungeon instance and enters to holds the instance that locks all others out while waiting on some buddies to come along even though it might be an hour or two. Will dungeons be a rarity that cutthroat tactics evolve or will there be more than enough ample instances to support the desire to engage in dungeoneering for all? Also can you describe the length of a dungeon? Will it be a relatively short 30-45 min adventure or will it be a lengthy 2-3 hour adventure?
3. Will combat be a more stationary or will there be all sorts of crazy Flying Tiger Hidden Dragon kind of combat that seems to be a lot of rage recently where unrealistic movement is going one. Like a full plate doing and active acrobat dodge roll or how an archer looks like their doing a ballerina dance doging while shooting the whole time.
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's probably not going to be collision outside of mass combat, but I could be wrong. Some part of that has to be determined by load testing on the running game under stress. Some part is game design.
Really too early to talk about the mechanics of instanced dungeons. We'd like there to be ways to explore dungeons found by other people and meet them inside. There's rampant room for abuse of that and so we have to figure out how to do it right. If it can be done.
Since what you do is partly a function of what you wear, I think we can avoid the most egregiously dumb matches of actions and equipment. But maybe not. For game balance reasons it may simply be better to not constrain the game in that way. We're not about realism, we're about fun.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Since what you do is partly a function of what you wear, I think we can avoid the most egregiously dumb matches of actions and equipment. But maybe not. For game balance reasons it may simply be better to not constrain the game in that way. We're not about realism, we're about fun.
We know that the set of slottable feats (I think that's the right word?) is determined by the equipped weapon (and training, of course) - will the type of armor worn also impact on that? In other words, will certain feats also have an armor type requirement in addition to a weapon type requirement?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This was asked in the Q&A
1. Can a CE low rep player get high level training from a high rep settlement if he/she can convince the settlement or buy them off?
A: The design of the game punishes you for acting in anti-social ways purely to the detriment of the community. Those kinds of actions push your character towards Chaotic Evil. Chaotic Evil characters will find that the Settlements that they can access tend to have lower quality and less powerful character development options and facilities.
If you could "talk your way" out of that problem, then people would just play CE characters without making meaningful choices, and that system would cease to be useful.
So no?
2. How can I raise my reputation back up if it gets real low if I decide to go cleanse the world of evil doers?
A: The issue of reputation and alignment "recovery" is a big one. There are obvious paths that lead to easily abusable/exploitable systems, and we need to avoid them. My best guess at this point is that it will be a combination of realtime passing, plus some in-game activities that must be completed, plus potentially some kind of ritual conducted by characters with divine aspects to them. But I'm just guessing.
Im pretty sure GW had previously clarified that last statement to you'd have a harder time building up settlements and functions with CE but would be doable with positive rep. So now its reverted back to CE is ***?
This is a concern I have with players wanting to be assassins or bandits. By the looks of this it will not be worth it at all. They will not have options to truly increase their characters. Then it falls back to what do the bandit hunters hunt exactly?
Should people not bother with these types of professions?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is a concern I have with players wanting to be assassins or bandits. By the looks of this it will not be worth it at all. They will not have options to truly increase their characters. Then it falls back to what do the bandit hunters hunt exactly?
Should people not bother with these types of professions?
My interpretation:
If you're interested in roleplaying a "bad guy" in the game, then go for it. You'll get to explore the consequences thereof, rather than some glorified anti-hero version.
If you're just interested in maximizing personal power, then you should probably avoid them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I keep saying, and people keep not hearing, that LAWFUL EVIL will be the place for players who want to be really powerful bad dudes. CHAOTIC EVIL will be the place for a*!@!*+s.
I had just recently said, in another thread...
I just hope Ryan's decision to scale back on the negative consequences of being Chaotic Evil doesn't slip into another decision to scale back on the negative consequences of being Low Reputation.
I am incredibly pleased to have you so clearly state that I was just plain wrong when I talked about your "decision to scale back on the negative consequences of being Chaotic Evil".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I keep saying, and people keep not hearing, that LAWFUL EVIL will be the place for players who want to be really powerful bad dudes. CHAOTIC EVIL will be the place for a$&!%!+s.
Oh Really now? Ive never read any such statement. If this is indeed the "way it is", then that's fine. Up to this point Ive always found this subject debatable due to lack of concrete response. Its been vague if you will. Im sure if he chose to Nihimon could put those wonderful quote finding skills to good use and contradict what you just said Ryan. Im not trying to be rude, this is just the truth. This is not the first time we have discussed this topic. And like I said before It was either Stephen or Lee that came in and clarified it to be only CE with low rep. Emphasizing the importance of low reputation being the most debilitating thing.
Now this does clarify things a bit more though if this is the current direction. And as it comes from Ryan, I assume it to be so.
One further bit of clarification. You have said LE will be the place for powerful bad dudes. What about Chaotics? Would I be able to be a really powerful Chaotic as long as Im Chaotic Good then? Or is being any other Chaotic just as bad or almost as bad as being CE?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I keep saying, and people keep not hearing, that LAWFUL EVIL will be the place for players who want to be really powerful bad dudes. CHAOTIC EVIL will be the place for a#%+*+&s.
Why is an alignment being allowed in the game if you don't want that alignment to be played?
You seem to be confusing your own purpose for having an alignment system and having a separate reputation system. Originally you had said that Chaotic Evil and Low reputation would be severally limiting in PFO. Now you seem to have backtracked on that and gone back to the Chaotic Evil is enough to be gimped.
There is one, just one, settlement that has declared that they were going to be a Chaotic Evil settlement. I'm guessing they shouldn't even bother?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
CHAOTIC EVIL will be the place for a+*@$#$s.I'll resist the temptation to really dwell on that statement, and its implications.
Sounds like the name of a new Chartered Company.
I have never seen this statement before. Anywhere...
So, if you want your character to be able to train up, you cannot be an assassin and a bandit combined.
And yeah, Acheron will need to rethink their settlement...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But where does this leave me? I HAVE TO BE Chaotic Evil because I will be an assassin by trade (EVIL) and I want to fly the outlaw flag when needed with my company (CHAOTIC). So I have to be an A$$hole to play the character I want to? Let reputation be the determinate as to who is playing by the "Rules" and who isn't. Alignment should be used for those special skills that are alignment based, such as lay on-hands, and for specific class things, such as assassins being evil. I have every intention to play a CE assassin/outlaw and maintain a high reputation. I have every intention to play a NON-A$$HOLE character.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have never seen this statement before.
A sampling of Ryan's prior statements:
"Chaotic Evil will be at a substantial mechanical disadvantage. (Their Settlements will suck)
Lawful Good will be at a substantial mechanical disadvantage. (Keeping that alignment in the face of temptation to use force to solve problems will be hard)
Lawful Evil will get all the upside of being able to use force to solve problems, and will have awesome Settlements."
Lawful Evil settlements "will (potentially) have less valuable buildings than a Lawful Good Settlement - less valuable to a degree not yet determined. It will not have buildings as crappy as Chaotic Evil."
Being a highwayman is hard freakin' work. That's why there's not a lot of them. Always on the run, hunted by those who seek rewards, dealing with a crappy reputation; this is the life you choose.
There's a fractal space of "characters who attack other characters" and being a simple bandit is one very small portion of that fractal space.
When you go to war, having teams disrupt logistics and supply lines will be a critical tactic. Some characters will do that.
When someone transport very valuable items they create a juicy target, a single act of highway robbery won't destroy your alignment. Some characters will specialize in the high-reward, low-impact strike.
We'll likely declare some areas free-for-all zones where conditions are so bad that nobody gets any penalty for whacking anyone. Where, how, why, how large, etc. all to be determined, but that is the kind of thing I'd expect in a land like the River Kingdoms. Of course, you'd have to be mad to go into such an area without being able to hold your own.... no easy targets."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have never seen this statement before.A sampling of Ryan's prior statements:
"Chaotic Evil will be at a substantial mechanical disadvantage. (Their Settlements will suck)
Lawful Good will be at a substantial mechanical disadvantage. (Keeping that alignment in the face of temptation to use force to solve problems will be hard)
Lawful Evil will get all the upside of being able to use force to solve problems, and will have awesome Settlements."
Lawful Evil settlements "will (potentially) have less valuable buildings than a Lawful Good Settlement - less valuable to a degree not yet determined. It will not have buildings as crappy as Chaotic Evil."
Being a highwayman is hard freakin' work. That's why there's not a lot of them. Always on the run, hunted by those who seek rewards, dealing with a crappy reputation; this is the life you choose.
There's a fractal space of "characters who attack other characters" and being a simple bandit is one very small portion of that fractal space.
When you go to war, having teams disrupt logistics and supply lines will be a critical tactic. Some characters will do that.
When someone transport very valuable items they...
It has not been said that CE will be the a!@++$#s.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It has not been said that CE will be the a@#%*$$s.
I missed a major one. Another of Ryan's priors:
"Being Chaotic Evil in Pathfinder Online will suck. You'll be stuck in crappy Settlements where you won't have access to good markets, good training, good workshops, or other "good" aspects of Settlement life. Everyone else in the game will have more better stuff than you. I suspect you'll also find that the only places those Settlements can survive are in Hexes with undesirable attributes, and even then I suspect they'll get destroyed regularly by people who just want the land.
Chaotic Evil characters will also likely be "killable on sight" by lots of other characters which means that they'll be running for their lives every time they encounter other PCs. They'll have bounties on their heads and bounty hunters trying to earn those bounties. When they get too close to NPC Settlements the Marshals will appear and nuke them. When they get detected in territory controlled by people who don't want CE characters around they'll be hunted mercilessly.
You get to be Chaotic Evil by ganking people, betraying people, and generally acting like an a#@+$*$. The variables we will have to work on in terms of balancing are how fast you go CE, and how you dig yourself out of that hole once you're in it.
Being Lawful or Neutral Evil will not likely suck. You'll still have access to decent Settlement resources. Many folks might not like you, but won't be able to kill you on sight. People won't trust you very much (mostly) but you'll probably find enough who will to be able to stay busy doing interesting things.
Lawful and Neutral Evil characters do bad stuff but most of what they do that is bad is not ganking. They work for Dark Gods, they dabble in evil magic, the ally with monsters, etc. But they don't gank. They're probably great bounty hunters. :)
This idea that we've evolved that your Settlement has a big influence on your character power is a way we think we can avoid the problems that have set back PvP in other sandbox games where eventually the gankers accumulate so much wealth and power that they don't care that they can't visit X city. In Pathfinder Online, if your Settlement sucks, you will suck too. So being a ganker means, de facto, that you'll suck vs. the rest of the server."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another, but this one requires putting up with a bit of EVE-ness for context:
"The Russians were successful because they were disciplined and because they had incredible internal cohesion. Unlike a lot of other factions in EVE they didn't get distracted with political infighting and disruptive powergrabs. They also communicated primarily in Russian so it was very hard to get intel on them unless you were also a Russian. They had a clearly defined idea of who was "us" and who was "them".
Call them lawful evil.
The Goons took the opposite approach. They didn't care if you were spying on them, or trying to mess with their minds, or taking potshots at their leadership. Their primary goal was to "ruin" EVE for everyone else, and as long as they maintained that mindset they were playing a different game than you or I.
They approached the problem of being able to "ruin" the game for the larger established Alliances by turning their world-views upside down. The premiere Alliances when the Goons arrived prided themselves on their combat prowess. The Goons fought them with masses of cheap ships and disposable characters. They Zerged the established order.
And they attacked outside of combat. They fought with propaganda. They worked to figure out what insults and slights would get under the skin of their opponents and once they had something they worked it to an extraordinary degree. Nothing was off-limits, not people's real lives or their real world issues. If the Goons suspected you'd get mad if they "went there", they went there.
The result was a lot of people who quit, or changed their playstyle to avoid the Goons, or who got personally over-invested in the fights and committed too much time and attention to responding to them.
Call them chaotic evil.
People like the Guiding Hand Social club are evil of a whole different sort - hurting others for glory isn't something that maps into the traditional alignment graph. Thieves and con artists abound in EVE, most are horrible at it and never do anything other than annoy people, but a handful are wildly successful and the community celebrates them as if they were a source of pride - "look at what happens in EVE - that's PROOF that it's a different kind of MMO".
There aren't any "storyline" evil groups in EVE. There's nothing to be evil FOR. But in Pathfinder Online you could be evil with a purpose and there will be evil gods ready to reward you for your service. That will create a dynamic unlike anything seen in EVE.
I think the key thing to understand is that roleplaying evil EFFECTIVELY means being evil as a group, not a lone wolf individual. To really be roleplaying evil, you'll need to be trying to make a persistent change to the world in line with the kinds of goals of your patrons. And they won't care much about random murders or pick-pocketing. They'll want mass sacrifice, they'll want paragons to renounce their faiths, they'll want obedience on the part of the potent and fear on the part of the weak. En masse. Repeatedly. Sustainably."
You gotta admit the man can turn a phrase...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ryan Dancey said this?
There aren't any "storyline" evil groups in EVE. There's nothing to be evil FOR. But in Pathfinder Online you could be evil with a purpose and there will be evil gods ready to reward you for your service. That will create a dynamic unlike anything seen in EVE.
Amarr Empire, was not evil? Blood Pirates? How about players corporations... Goonswarm isn't evil? Sanguine Legion?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Here is one from Lee Hammock from: Goblinworks Blog: Screaming for Vengeance
Hey guys,
I haven't read this whole thread, but Stephen, Ryan, and Lisa keep me updated as to the highlights. Trying to follow this whole conversation would mean I don't get any work done.
A few points I wanted to clarify:
*Next week we'll have a new blog post about long term alignment-oriented PvP flags players can set on themselves that let players better be assassins, champions of good, etc, but the price is being bigger PvP targets. Basically if you want to be a Champion, an Outlaw, an Assassin, etc you can flag yourself as one, announcing your intentions but giving yourself some bonuses to your chosen role and opening up your PvP options.
*Settlement alignment will determine what structures can be built and what those structures can accomplish, but this does not necessarily denote a power differential. For example any settlements of any alignment can build a wizard tower for training, but only evil towns will be able to get Necromancy training in their wizard tower. Meanwhile only Lawful Good towns will have Paladin training facilities, and only Lawful settlements can have Monk training facilities, but in turn cannot have Barbarian training facilities. Also a Chaotic settlement can't have a Hellknight outpost, nor an Evil settlement have a temple of Iomedae, but a good settlement can't have a temple of Lamashtu. These options aren't necessarily better than the other, but they are different.
*Reputation on the other hand have a major power effect on settlements and what they can build. Low Reputation will mean your town is a wretched hive of scum and villainy, not the sort of thing that attracts high end trainers, scholars, merchants, etc. Reputation is generally lowered by more grief oriented PvP, which also often will trend a PC towards CE, so if a settlement has a low Reputation it will most likely also be CE. This is not necessarily true, but likely. If you have a town full of CE people who are bloodthirsty barbarians who don't do a lot of griefing but instead are declaring war all the time, they can totally have a high Reputation, max level Barbarian trainer, etc (but not a Monk trainer since they are Chaotic, a only CN/NE/NE temples, and inefficient upkeep costs). One of the reasons for settlement Reputation is to discourage pointless griefing on a social level; if someone from your town is out ganking new players and tanking his Reputation that affects the whole town's Reputation and you don't want him to do that.
*Settlements cost money to upkeep; if they run out buildings begin shutting down and are eventually destroyed if the money is not paid. Settlement's can levy taxes on various interactions such as posting goods on the auction house, training costs, etc. The less lawful a settlement is, the more of these taxes it loses to graft and disorganization. So a Chaotic settlement will require more work to keep it funded while a Lawful settlement will be easier to keep funded.
*For settlements to really prosper and grow, they have to be open to PvP. You can build a LG settlement of PvE and crafting players that keeps its PvP availability small, but it won't be a very impressive settlement.
(Thanks Will Cooper)
Reading this it makes it sound more like equal but opposite as long as the reputation is good. And though it would be harder for CE, the point is it would still be doable!
And both Lee and Stephen have made other posts with a similar position that I wont bother to quote, but trust me they are there. I posted this one because it was the most clear in backing up what Ive been saying.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Good one Greedalox... but it does seem to be in a way opposed to what Ryan has stated...
Wonder which mind set will win over. Maybe all Ryan was saying is that if your CE then your an a*%%%#* and nothing more LOL.
Granted I do not intend to be CE, but I do not want it to be out of the game. What else will my LG character have to fight, LE? Kinda limited.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A LG can flag as an Enforcer and kill criminals for his settlement; he can flag as a Champion and waylay any evil schmoe that dares flag himself. If you're willing to watch your alignment/reputation closely you might be able to gank one or two unflagged evildoers - you know they deserve it; they probably dropped their flags when they heard you were nearby.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is an alignment being allowed in the game if you don't want that alignment to be played?
You seem to be confusing your own purpose for having an alignment system and having a separate reputation system. Originally you had said that Chaotic Evil and Low reputation would be severally limiting in PFO. Now you seem to have backtracked on that and gone back to the Chaotic Evil is enough to be gimped.
There is one, just one, settlement that has declared that they were going to be a Chaotic Evil settlement. I'm guessing they shouldn't even bother?
I think there is a difference. Settlements for CE will suck, however the upside about CE is that they simply just dont care. They can attack whoever for whatever reason without having to care about rep or their alignment.
I think there will be a demand of ruthless hitmen who can do any job you want attack and kill any merchant/caravan without having to worry about bandit status and all of that.
Need some thick skulls to raise hell before you declare war? Hire some CE players to do that for you.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is an alignment being allowed in the game if you don't want that alignment to be played?
You seem to be confusing your own purpose for having an alignment system and having a separate reputation system. Originally you had said that Chaotic Evil and Low reputation would be severally limiting in PFO. Now you seem to have backtracked on that and gone back to the Chaotic Evil is enough to be gimped.
There is one, just one, settlement that has declared that they were going to be a Chaotic Evil settlement. I'm guessing they shouldn't even bother?
I think there is a difference. Settlements for CE will suck, however the upside about CE is that they simply just dont care. They can attack whoever for whatever reason without having to care about rep or their alignment.
I think there will be a demand of ruthless hitmen who can do any job you want attack and kill any merchant/caravan without having to worry about bandit status and all of that.
Need some thick skulls to raise hell before you declare war? Hire some CE players to do that for you.
This seems to be a very direct and solid answer. To add some context that Bluddwolf may be missing, that perhaps was discussed before where he's talking at ie the Lee Hammock blog post.
Bludd, prior to that it was already stated that CE would be lower DI on the alignment scales. Then Lee's post indicated that there would be more emphasis on all 3 being low. So the corner cases we worry about:
1st: CE and/or Low Reputation
2nd: C + E + Low-Rep
3rd: CE = lower DI and Low Rep = lower DI with CE + low Rep the worst of the lot.
Now to backtrack, the reason the 2nd iteration was mentioned (Lee's post again), was due to the concern that part of the original appeal of Alignment from PnP is "In Character" ie IMAGINATION and how that needed a place in the game for RP. But you can see the devs are weaving between this and STRONG SOCIAL REPERCUSSIONS for non-meaningful/unsanctioned/not GW-endorsed actions by players. This is another (even stronger?) selective force for the designers to consider.
From the players point of view they may very well have ideas of their own preference as to what their characters will be therefore their preferred alignments, given all alignments are existing in PFO. But I think there's a conceptual gap as described above that needs to be considered. If your character is CE, I think the test the game is going to pose because it is live real-time drama with other players, that that social context or aggregate behaviour will shape exactly what Alignments mean more than any individual's personal ideas. The devs as described above, will play an important hand in shaping that ie they could make all power equal between all alignments and reputations. But I don't think that's very workable with their much more ambitious plan to make meaningful PvP. In fact I tend to side with CE "Chaotic" + "Evil" really representing that as players who revel in the freedom to be dangerous players to meet in game. It's clear there are plenty of players who do that role in other games as griefers and gankers in online games. I think possibly players interested in CE for "in character" reasons might actually be closer to Chaotic Good or else not Evil?
I hope I've made some sense with the above and it's legible. Apologies if I have not been clear. It seems to fundamentally be a concept shift between PnP and MMO albeit retaining the former where it's positive and adapting it where it needs to fit the online massively multiples of people space.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There's a a direct link to the Live Q&A at MMORPG.com:
Forum Q&A Archives » Pathfinder Online Q&A With Goblinworks CEO Ryan Dancey
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I keep saying, and people keep not hearing, that LAWFUL EVIL will be the place for players who want to be really powerful bad dudes. CHAOTIC EVIL will be the place for a$&!%!+s.
Ive never read any such statement.
I have never seen this statement before. Anywhere...
I was really set to get to work on these, thanks for saving me the effort Jazzlvraz :)
Although, there is one quote you missed that I think really needs to be highlighted:
There is no good reason to play a chaotic evil character except if you like being other people's content.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
There is no good reason to play a chaotic evil character except if you like being other people's content.
But then, for some RPers, being other people's content can be extremely gratifying, for both you and those for whom you provided content. It just depends on why you play the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Chaotic evil sounds just fine and dandy for me, I love being able to be an a%@*$&~ in games, my friend group would prob not play this if there was not a high degree of freedom. Might as well be a themepark mmo then imo.
I always analogized lawful evil and chaotic evil with the two characters from Baldurs Gate. Edwin lawful mage, will work within the law but to the detriment of others and enrichment of himself, and Korgan who has no moral compass whatsoever and would kill/raid/take bounties as it suits him no matter the blow to reputation.
Both these characters sums up Ryans statement pretty well, and is at least in my opinion how I would define the two.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Although, there is one quote you missed that I think really needs to be highlighted:
There is no good reason to play a chaotic evil character except if you like being other people's content.
I disagree. Yes I will be other people's content, especially being an assassin with a side of outlaw, however why does that NOT make a good reason? Without "us" this would turn into a themepark game where bounty hunters and caravan guards are out of work because there are no bandits and other "bad guys" around to cause issues. All we ask for is balance. A 1 for 1. There have been posts before, linked above by greed and bludd and xeen so I won't repost, that support the idea of a balanced and mirrored equality for bad guys vs good guys.
The more I read this, the more I am realizing that the alignment system is being molded to do the job that the reputation system is supposed to do (namely promote meaningful player interactions) instead of being used as an roleplaying system. It SHOULD limit you on what skills (and flags) you can use/equip and even train. However, those that you CAN TRAIN shouldn't be limited at all. Meaning as a CE, I should be restricted from any paladin skills as well as anything tied to the "good" alignment such as some cleric spells. I should also be restricted from Monk abilities as I am chaotic. However, If I choose to learn barbarian skills, there should be no limit, as long as I find a barbarian training building somewhere.
That leads to the issue. I am hearing that just because CE is the ultimate destination of anyone who doesn't follow the rules for meaningful interactions, ANYONE playing the CE alignment will be treated as such. THAT IS BS!!! Let the reputation system be the determinate for training restrictions (how high to train, not what to train) and let alignment be a restriction in WHAT to train and not HOW HIGH to train. That way, I can be my CE assassin/outlaw, and still train those skills as high as I can. Now, the "hard part" would be finding a settlement that will house and support high level CE training skills. But than again, LG has the same issue, though less so because it will be easier to maintain such a settlement. I don't mind working for my training (in terms of maintaining upkeep) but being limited BECAUSE I am playing the bad guy is bad form.
With the reputation system being the limit to how high training in any skill can go, then that will deter ganking and other undesirable actions as it lowers your reputation and limits training. Leave it at that. That, IMHO, would be a fairer and more balanced system.
Side note: If Champions (or enforcer, I forget) has the ability (according to the flags blog) to attack ANYONE OF EVIL ALIGNMENT flagged or not, without penalty. This is the same as a CE person ganking anyone for fun. Difference is the CE person looses reputation (and alignment but since already CE that doesn't matter) so how is that fair and balanced? Downside is that the champion must make sure he/she is evil but otherwise is unrestricted? So won't that lead to ganking from the GOOD guys? With a simple detect evil spell, they get free ganks, regardless of if we are flagged or not. Obviously if they see someone flagged assassin, that is a neon sign to them.
All that I, and a few other "Bad guys, want is equality. We want to be given a chance to be bad and provide meaningful content for other players. If we get restricted and limited and told we will be underpowered JUST BECAUSE we CHOOSE to play this role, then get rid of the role cause no one will do it. I know I won't. It isn't worth it. I want to be hunted by bounty hunters, and give merchants a reason to spend coin on caravan guards, but not if I won't be a challenge to them. I want a fighting chance. Remember, they are MY content as much as I am theirs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I disagree. Yes I will be other people's content, especially being an assassin with a side of outlaw, however why does that NOT make a good reason?Although, there is one quote you missed that I think really needs to be highlighted:
There is no good reason to play a chaotic evil character if you like being other people's content.
I started to make this point in response to Hobs, but I think it will be clearer in this context.
Ryan very clearly acknowledged that, "if you like being other people's content", then that's a "good reason" to be Chaotic Evil.
You seem to be focusing far too much on the first half of the quote, when the second half actually says the exact same thing you're saying.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nihimon,
Did you read the full Q&A? How are you going to update the Nihimonican to include all those new quotes and game ideas/summaries?
I haven't done anything with it yet, but I certainly intend to. I'll probably try to get most of it copied and referenced into its own thread on these forums, and then link to that in the Nihimonicon. I love that name, even if it is more flattering than descriptive :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
BTW, I have a feeling post #47 might cause a few shockwaves for some frequent posters here. :)
From "post #47" (I'll get them properly linked later):
The community is the key to the whole venture. If it is allowed to become toxic, we'll be sunk. So protecting the integrity of the community is key to our long term plans.
Against that objective comes the anonymous a%@~!~@s of teh interwebz. Can we successfully ward our community from their misbehavior? I think we can. Our approach is multi-layered: game mechanics, game masters, community managers, and of course, our selective enforcement power to separate individuals from the game and the community if they prove to be unwilling or unable to be good citizens. There is no single magic bullet. All of these things must be deployed in parallel and in a mixture and matrix to fight the barbarians at our gates.
The Community will be its own best defense. If we develop standards of behavior generally intolerant of a@!!%#$rly, the number of such will be constrained.
Actually, this is entirely consistent with what Ryan's been saying for a very long time. Certainly since I started paying attention on January 4th, 2012.
I think there were some very vocal members of the community who managed to push the community itself a bit away from that vision, towards accepting Chaotic Evil and even being open to Low Reputation. I for one was quite disturbed with this, and I'm very happy to see Ryan come back in and get us back on track.
The big thing to realize is that there are a lot of players who were perfectly happy with the unregulated PvP in Eve (or a host of other games), and will expect the same "freedom" in PFO. They won't get it, but that won't stop them from screaming at the top of their lungs that they should get it. The real danger there is when they start to get an audience that feels the same way, and begin to reinforce each other.
I'm probably not the best example of how to deal with that. I tend to resort to condescension and mockery when I should probably just Flag the post and move on. I honestly don't know what the best way to handle those situations is, especially when they're not being flagrantly abusive. My intuition tells me the best course is to have a large number of regular posters respond and - politely - tell them that's not how it's going to be, but I'd need to see real-world evidence that such a course of action actually works. Obviously, the best possible solution is to have Ryan or one of the devs come on and give us a rock to stand on and a message to spread.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A bit of a pain to find it on that forum but well worth the read. My fave bits are actually over arching themes that RD talks about every now and then.
I have said since NWN that persistent virtual sandbox gaming worlds are the "next movies". I will never, ever understand how that historical inevitablity was side tracked for 10 years by WoW.
From a marketing standpoint I also want to shout out at the brilliance of this completely transparent game building model. The entire crowdforging/coop style of community building has blown my mind. I admit I have become a fanboi eating out of GW's hand but goddammit you guys deserve it because this level of interaction you supply us with is unheard of.
I also have one question. You have mentioned a PFO available for mac because you us the unity engine. During what phase do you expect that to be available?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Obviously, the best possible solution is to have Ryan or one of the devs come on and give us a rock to stand on and a message to spread.
"...your CE guy starts off with big handicaps."
Responding to the concept of using a Good alt to help out a Chaotic Evil main:
"Trading directly with CE characters could be considered a chaotic and evil act. So doing a direct character-to-character transfer could rapidly degrade the alignment of your non-CE character.
You have an inventory problem. PCs can't carry that much stuff; certainly not stacks of armor and weapons. So you'll need to arrange for transport in bulk of some kind, from the place where your CE character has accumulated it to someplace else. That's a vulnerable supply line; who guards CE-linked materials?
If you could get your stuff to a market and sell it anonymously, the buyer wouldn't have that problem. But as s CE character your available markets will be small and inefficient so may not have many buyers.
Your good PC has to go to somewhere your CE PC can meet them to transfer items for sale. That means your good PC is going to have to go into dangerous places. How do you ensure that your good PC doesn't get ganked by the kinds of a!@&&@$s who live in the places your CE character lives?"
To the suggestion that a@#$%^es can get rich through a@#$%^ery, and buy whatever they want:
"'Best' in Pathfinder Online means having lots of keywords, not having big mechanical bonuses. So your CE characters have Vorpal Blessed Flaming Human Bane weapons - but the crappy trainers in their settlement mean that they can't learn how to use the character abilities they need to make use of those keywords."
Finally, to the suggestion that properly dedicated CE characters could just go ahead and have a successful settlement anyway:
"The Common Folk (the "sims" of Pathfinder Online) rightfully avoid CE Settlements like the plague. The wise and learned who can teach the ways of spell and sword don't risk their lives and reputations by living in such places. The gods who permit temples to be consecrated in such places have little of constructive use for their worshipers and are instead more focused on blood and pain.
Life in such a Settlement sucks. When the people from the bigger, better, stronger, more advanced Settlements show up, you get your ass kicked. Your Settlement gets burned down, and you have to go and find someplace else to build a new one, and start the whole process over again.
Being a CE Settlement is like hoisting a banner that says "Heroes Needed Here!" Every half-baked Conan wannabe is going to be constantly hanging out near your Settlement looking for an easy Bounty."
I have a couple more oldies-but-goodies, but I'll save them for appropriate conversational triggers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Nihimon
The big thing to realize is that there are a lot of players who were perfectly happy with the unregulated PvP in Eve (or a host of other games), and will expect the same "freedom" in PFO. They won't get it, but that won't stop them from screaming at the top of their lungs that they should get it. The real danger there is when they start to get an audience that feels the same way, and begin to reinforce each other.
Would you agree that the opposite is equally detrimental?
We have often seen the response to those that said they wish to be griefers, and they were basically told that such behavior would not be tolerated. I agree with that, but there should be equal admonishment directed at those that claim they detest PvP and will resort to any means to not participate within the spirit of the systems put in place to make that PvP interaction meaningful.
If we are going to show people to the door for wanting to be griefers, we should do the same for those who want a PvE only environment. Both, equally, add nothing constructive to the game community.