Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Ryan,
The only way to develop those Bigtown settlement / kingdoms is to open them up to being less restrictive (alignment, training, reputation).
If a settlement tries to run itself as an NBSI and it restricts based on alignment or reputation, it will fall to another settlement looking to expand (be the the hacking kingdom you described, or the otherBigTown).
Unless a settlement can include many or all of the alignments and train their citizens equally, how will it ever grow to respond to the Hacker's BigTown?
Even reputation becomes an inhibitor to the growth needed to build such a OtherBigTown you suggest. If the OtherBigTown does not open its doors to low rep characters, surely the Hacker Kingdom will.
You have certainly caused a buzz and no shortage of dismay among some who may have thought to have their little settlement. Now it seems that it will boil down to Blob vs. Blob.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It may very well boil down to blob vs blob in the end. Even if the BigTown does not open up to all comers... They can just have a large number of SmallTowns that are alignment based, but are run by one guy. In essence all the SmallTowns are blue to each other, and collectively make BigTown.
So they would have access to each alignment building type and etc... Multiple small settlements run by one or a couple guys that are allied. They may not be allied by game mechanics, but are still allied.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It won't be so bad. There will be an equilibrium state reached as settlements acquire new towns. Expenses are supposed to get ridiculous.And then instead of simply capturing settlements, they'll just raze them instead until you run out of money and resources to rebuild.
I thought about that too but left it out. I don't think it will be that easy to do, more than a couple of those, before a real player nation teaches them what slash and burn means.
I am still not afraid! *trembling*
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think what Ryan is saying, is that our settlements need to be cohesive and we need plans in place to deal with these types of people.
If we put up a fight and make their lives hard, and the devs do things like ban/disrupt AWS address ranges, look for time sequenced commands, look for lengthy continuous logons from accounts/characters etc etc, plus if we flag obvious bots to the devs, the 'bad guys' will eventually get sick of PFO and leave. Or at least some of them will - you will never get rid of them all.
These types of players are in all MMOs, and in fact in all aspects of online activity. It's usually a matter of just being better than your competition and making their lives hard, so they decide to go elsewhere.
The point of the good botter is that he doesn't do any of the things you look for. Whatever you look for as positive evidence of botting is done exactly as often as a human does it, and whatever you look for as negative evidence of botting is also done just as often.
If you try to use network identification to catch them, they will use better network evasion to avoid detection.
There is, however, a simple way to beat such a group. Make it boring for them, and hard work for them. In the specific example provided, I'd do naked zerg waves, sending as many people as possible in a wave into the warded area, get wiped, and then wait until 20 minutes after the responders log off to repeat. When the responders stop responding because they are tired of our BS, then we start mixing in groups of people to do whatever it is we wanted to do that they didn't.
Absolutely agree with you, Decius. The ideas I suggest are simply a small part of the response that will be needed to drive these people off. You cannot and will not catch them all, so it's all about obstacles and difficulty.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The way you defeat BigTown is by making AnotherBigTown. It's the reason there won't be a bunch of small boutique Settlements with NRDS security policies. They'll be rolled up by the first wave of organized external Guilds when they show up. By Open Enrollment, it's going to be Europe circa 1900, not Europe circa 0. Everyone who is SERIOUS about running a Settlement is going to be focused on size, cohesion, discipline and security.
We'll keep working on expanding the territory so there's always a place to go and plant a flag and start building, but I can tell you based on what I saw happen in Wormhole Space in EVE that the frontier is going to be claimed by the people who were 2nd best in the last territorial war, and if they learned a thing or two, they'll be even tougher than when they were last beat.
Settlement creation and administration is not a game for casual players.
I think what is dismaying so many people who have posted on this thread is they really loved the idea of having boutique settlements that are part of a bigger network of settlements that make a nation/kingdom. Getting overrun by the same people who always overrun the little guy does sound disheartening. Hopefully GW will have tools in place settlements can use to prevent this "feature" and allow a bit of the freedoms we all imagined a few days ago.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think what is dismaying so many people who have posted on this thread is they really loved the idea of having boutique settlements that are part of a bigger network of settlements that make a nation/kingdom. Getting overrun by the same people who always overrun the little guy does sound disheartening. Hopefully GW will have tools in place settlements can use to prevent this "feature" and allow a bit of the freedoms we all imagined a few days ago.The way you defeat BigTown is by making AnotherBigTown. It's the reason there won't be a bunch of small boutique Settlements with NRDS security policies. They'll be rolled up by the first wave of organized external Guilds when they show up. By Open Enrollment, it's going to be Europe circa 1900, not Europe circa 0. Everyone who is SERIOUS about running a Settlement is going to be focused on size, cohesion, discipline and security.
We'll keep working on expanding the territory so there's always a place to go and plant a flag and start building, but I can tell you based on what I saw happen in Wormhole Space in EVE that the frontier is going to be claimed by the people who were 2nd best in the last territorial war, and if they learned a thing or two, they'll be even tougher than when they were last beat.
Settlement creation and administration is not a game for casual players.
We expect to extend Concord-like security around major NPC settlements, which will not be contiguous. EVE space is a doughnut - the center is high security (but factionalized), surrounded by a ring of low security, surrounded by a ring of no security. Our system will be more like a sea with "islands" of security surrounded by a lot of no security. We are thinking we'll have to extend roads between the islands which may be our equivalent of low security; they're patrolled but breaking the law is not a guaranteed death.
Taking this analogy, if people want smaller settlements, they should build their "islands" into a close-knit archipelago with a central large capital settlement running said kingdom. I think that could be one way to have "boutique" (aka specialist skill-training and other) as well as organized pooling of resources. In EE, a lot of the guilds imo should pool together in such a way, given there's a lot of mutual interest already.
If that land West of the West Sellen River is open for claiming, using the River as a natural barrier would be a useful place to control. The only major consideration would be to have supply lines feeding from East to West in that case. Though it appears initially that area will be outside the map area.
They're good. They're well trained. They're cohesive. And they want your land.
I read this with that movie trailer, gravely voice-over!!!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Obviously if this hacker group comes to PFO, and it is unclear if Ryan knows they are or justs suspects that they might, it is GW's responsibility to detect and ban them as quickly as possible.
Settlement warfare won't come until the later stages of EE, so it will be months of build up time. These hackers won't even need settlement defense for all of that time, and neither will anyone else.
We will all have a good idea which EE settlements are at least short term viable after OE. Once Settlement warfare begins, this is when we will all see who is the most expansionist. These hackers may be the most aggressive, because they feel they have a full proof alert network for their defenses.
This is where GW comes in..... GMs on non GM alts go in to test the response time of suspected hacker settlement. They go every couple of hours, throughout the day and night. The GMs are looking for log in / response. Once they determine that every time they violate the settlements perimeter, the response team logs in, they have discovered the hacker settlement.
Enter the "Hand of God", "Voice of God", "Wrath of God"...... The hand of god flags the responders and their alts with a long term ( one month) KOS flag. The hand of god sets the PvP window of the settlement to 24/7. The hand of god toggles off settlement controls, manager buffs and NPC guards.
The Voice of God, puts out the general alarm..... Open Season on BigTown!
The Wrath of God is the unleashing of the rest of the player community to pillage and burn the hacker settlement.
This will be a harsh lesson to be learned by the hackers, but the rest of the community will have a common foe and a great deal of fun destroying them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with Bludd's sentiment. If such groups enter the game, bent on not only controlling land/resources (a valid game desire), but destroying everyone else's fun in the process (Touweit's "breaking a new game"), I think it will be a very pivotal moment for the community and very telling of the true cohesion of our community. That is, will various community groups (while hopefully gaining assistance from GW) be able to set aside differences and settlement competition to a degree meaningful enough to provide a unified front for the sake of the game which they all wish to see prosper and grow? That will be the real challenge.
Personally, I think we could do it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I agree with Bludd's sentiment. If such groups enter the game, bent on not only controlling land/resources (a valid game desire), but destroying everyone else's fun in the process (Touweit's "breaking a new game"), I think it will be a very telling, pivotal moment for the community . Will various community groups (while hopefully gaining assistance from GW) be able to set aside differences and settlement competition to a degree meaningful enough to provide a unified front for the sake of the game which they all wish to see prosper and grow? That will be the question.
Personally, I think we could do it.
I can virtually guarantee you the community would come together, if offered the free kill spree that the Wrath of God would grant.
Ryan had one time used the expression Grief the Griefers. That us the most effective and content rich way of dealing with griefers, bots and hackers. Make it open season and the hunters will come.
My company of bandits would have a field day and I hope these hackers do show up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My hope is that the community would rally around the good of the game, regardless of the offered killing spree.
I would hope that this community would better equate to a concerned group of neighbors willing to band together to chase out a recent influx of criminals rather than to packs of sharks waiting to participate in another feeding frenzy, should the guys running the boat decide to start chumming. The former illustrates a community hoping their game isn't invaded by yahoos, but prepared to pitch in and run them out if it occurs, while the latter scenario would cultivate a community just dying for the next influx of jerks.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lol, All out PVP is just what they would most like. That approach will give them just the content that they most want.
Somehow, if this scenario ever did develop, we and GW will need to find a way to BORE them to flight.
Based on this statement I can see, you have no idea of what their "content" is and even less of an idea on how to stop them.
You are presented with ravenous wolves, who can never fill their hunger with just kills, because that is not their real goal. You would fight back against them by becoming sheep, and hope they grow bored with killing you.
Their goal is to beat the game. Beating an MMO is done by taking everything from everyone else. You will not have a settlement, they do not run or control. You will not have a level chance, because they will have the numbers or the hacks to defeat you or prevent you from defeating them.
Ryan said it clearly, "They want your land"
They want the headline in the MMORPG Blogs ... "So and So beat Pathfinder Online."
We (UNC) would fight them to the point of being Chaotic Evil with a reputation of -7500. We would prey on their weakest we can find, and we would trip their alarm system every half hour. They would encounter nothing but one of us, naked and with a threaded, rusty dagger.... and a smile on his face "Sleep Yet?"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...the idea of having boutique settlements...
Exactly this. I was actually hoping for a string of villages and inns one could visit as one travelled down a road...a la Fantasy Europe circa 0, although I hadn't put it in those terms to myself.
Europe circa 1900, after the brutality of the Industrial Revolution and with decades of ultra-mass murder looming due to those lingering effects, was NOT a pleasant place, and I dread trying to "play a game" in a world which brings that to mind. Being part of a military-industrial complex whose primary purpose is survival against another one sounds far too much like parts of Earth circa 20th Century :-).
I wish GW luck, and I look forward to hearing more on these developments.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lol, All out PVP is just what they would most like. That approach will give them just the content that they most want.
Somehow, if this scenario ever did develop, we and GW will need to find a way to BORE them to flight.
Based on this statement I can see, you have no idea of what their "content" is and even less of an idea on how to stop them.
You are presented with ravenous wolves, who can never fill their hunger with just kills, because that is not their real goal. You would fight back against them by becoming sheep, and hope they grow bored with killing you.
Their goal is to beat the game. Beating an MMO is done by taking everything from everyone else. You will not have a settlement, they do not run or control. You will not have a level chance, because they will have the numbers or the hacks to defeat you or prevent you from defeating them.
Ryan said it clearly, "They want your land"
They want the headline in the MMORPG Blogs ... "So and So beat Pathfinder Online."
We (UNC) would fight them to the point of being Chaotic Evil with a reputation of -7500. We would prey on their weakest we can find, and we would trip their alarm system every half hour. They would encounter nothing but one of us, naked and with a threaded, rusty dagger.... and a smile on his face "Sleep Yet?"
I am sorry Bluddwolf. I don't think that you understand me at all. That is ok by me, though. *Hugs*
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The way you defeat BigTown is by making AnotherBigTown. It's the reason there won't be a bunch of small boutique Settlements with NRDS security policies. They'll be rolled up by the first wave of organized external Guilds when they show up. By Open Enrollment, it's going to be Europe circa 1900, not Europe circa 0. Everyone who is SERIOUS about running a Settlement is going to be focused on size, cohesion, discipline and security.
...
Settlement creation and administration is not a game for casual players.
This is incredibly depressing, and the first thing I have read on these boards that has made me worried that PFO won't be the right game for me.
I want a creative variety of settlements that encourage visitors and non-combat interaction between them.
If someone wants to make a small boutique settlement, they should have to be careful not to deliberately antagonize their neighbors, but the rule of the land should not be "merge or die".
I want meaningful losses and wins in settlement vs settlement conflicts that don't result in the complete obliteration of one side.
I want to be able to build a crafting town or religious center or market forum without worrying about how much combat efficiency it is generating.
I want settlement "power" to be more about how well designed and managed they are, rather than how much land they control.
I want a community that values and expects roleplaying, defined as considering a character's motivations and goals, instead of just the player's.
Hopefully, through a combination of game mechanics and social pressure from the community we can shape PFO to avoid the bleak scenario that Ryan describes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am sorry Bluddwolf. I don't think that you understand me at all. That is ok by me, though. *Hugs*I'm willing to give it a shot, at understanding you. How do you intend to bore them?
Well, I am not sure exactly. I certainly don't like the idea of "rolling over" and letting them have their way. I don't like (though I am sure that you do) the idea of opening no consequence PVP everywhere.
Limited non consequence PVP in their area only? Why not just ban them if you know exactly who they are?
Perhaps the best way of "boring" them is by making them have to do things just the same way that we all do.
If you get a particular group come over from EvE, with its 9000+ members, they won't need bots or hacks to have 24/7 coverage or upper tier training and take whatever settlement territory they want, using the same Zerg tactics they used in EvE.
What will be the defense against such a sensationalist, night mare provoking, unlikely event that you suggest? If it does happen, what is the big deal? If they are here to wreck the game, they will get booted. If they are here to play, watch out!
If they have special bot and mass influx strategies, there won't be much that we can do. Perhaps settlements should have the same sentry features that they will hack anyway. If they come. They will come in, make things miserable in a limited or medium area, get tired, slowly disband, and move on.
The best way to beat them is to make them play like the game was intended to be played.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Bringslite,
I thought about not responding but that would not be fair, so I will keep it brief.
None of your suggestions will work because you are not understanding their goal. You think by trying to bore them by forcing them to play the game as intended will work. They won't play by those rules. They are already using hacks in other games, and I'm sure when they get caught they do the same thing, roll new characters or open new accounts and go right back to it.
You are still thinking they will be satisfied with taking a small or even large corner for themselves. PFO will be so small, they will want the whole thing.
I'm not so sure Ryan Dancey posted such an unsolicited post, barely connected to the OP, unless he had a reason to.
You are right about the 9000+ zerg tactics though. That is technically not breaking any rules, and we will just have to deal with that.
* Please stop mischaracterizing my views on PVP, as being consequence free and everywhere. Nowhere in any of my statements support any part of that view. It is a complete fabrication on your part, and it is beneath you.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
The best way to bore such players is to make it so that they don't feel any sense of accomplishment when they log out. Harrasing them by making them log in to defend against repeated feints is one way to cause that; it must be combined with never engaging them at their gatecamp equivalent and making as many of their activities as possible fail.
This is the same strategy they will use against other players. There are levels and levels of PvP gaming far beyond CvC battles.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
The PvP window idea that we're working on makes it hard to kill a small Settlement. But you are going to be faced with the meaningful choice that growth lowers your security. To continue to strive for depth in character development and crafting infrastructure, you will need to grow.
Some people may decide to stop developing and hold at a smaller size. Displacing them will be very hard (it will require overwhelming force applied in a very narrow window of time). But they'll face the competitive pressures that will come to bear as other Settlements develop and attractive to destinations for those players who seek a deeper development path.
As a small nation you'll have to worry about logistics, blockades, propaganda, espionage and sabotage. Your ability to be independent will be a factor of how effective you are at managing and overcoming these challenges.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The PvP window idea that we're working on makes it hard to kill a small Settlement. But you are going to be faced with the meaningful choice that growth lowers your security. To continue to strive for depth in character development and crafting infrastructure, you will need to grow.
Some people may decide to stop developing and hold at a smaller size. Displacing them will be very hard (it will require overwhelming force applied in a very narrow window of time). But they'll face the competitive pressures that will come to bear as other Settlements develop and attractive to destinations for those players who seek a deeper development path.
As a small nation you'll have to worry about logistics, blockades, propaganda, espionage and sabotage. Your ability to be independent will be a factor of how effective you are at managing and overcoming these challenges.
How does this prevent or balance out the hacking scenario you described above?
The hacking scenario seemed to me to be more of a defensive exploit that would allow for a small group or even one player to manage a settlement with a wide-open PVP window. This would grant them a much higher DI, but have an automated third party alarm system, so that they could log-in defenders, only when needed.
I know you said this is very hard to detect, but what is the response if it is detected? How will the damage done, be undone?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think it the first thread I start that keep going on. Yeah!
@ Gaskon I want that too.
It seem to me that the solution, it's not an another big town. It is a another big town and their allies. Because differents factions will a have different aligment, number and specialisation, the balance of power will shift to them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...the balance of power will shift to them.
Remember another characteristic of these very large, very coordinated meta-groups: they're *expert* at getting alliances other than theirs to fall apart. They can cause eight kinds of internal strife before breakfast, and it takes an alliance as strong as theirs--and they depend on there being few of those--to resist them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
...the balance of power will shift to them.Remember another characteristic of these very large, very coordinated meta-groups: they're *expert* at getting alliances other than theirs to fall apart. They can cause eight kinds of internal strife before breakfast, and it takes an alliance as strong as theirs--and they depend on there being few of those--to resist them.
I guess that all settlements/nations, regardless of size, will have to be on their best game just as Ryan suggests. If any are run in a fashion that makes them "easy pickings" they will need to fear the wolves. No matter what direction the wolves come from.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think it the first thread I start that keep going on. Yeah!
@ Gaskon I want that too.
It seem to me that the solution, it's not an another big town. It is a another big town and their allies. Because differents factions will a have different aligment, number and specialisation, the balance of power will shift to them.
I think that's what Ryan is implying: Lesson from eve such a simulation of powerblocks means the big organised groups will dictate terms?
Probably a VERY good idea for us forum'ers to start doing likewise and not be caught out and mopped up in dribs and drabs, before these groups arrive?
We'll have to knock heads together, and when we know more about alignments and so on, and preferences attempt to get some sort of treaty on the grounds to amalgamate and attack said big groups when they arrive, when they're at their weakest and our groups, if unified, have a headstart on them. Afterall we also know their reputation before they hit the game.
That could be the primary goal to any of our secondary goals. We might need to start the wheels on that one - so that we can sustainably then think about those secondary goals more realistically once we've "secured the area".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We may all very well have to adjust our imagined smaller settlements and come together under a few larger but more cohesive settlements. Perhaps a sad reality, but better than being driven into the Sellen.
I had posted a few months ago about how many hexes a nation of several settlements could control with a large core settlement surrounded with six smaller settlements (smaller settlements are three hexes out from center.) It was a lot, I think 37 total hexes as your sphere of influence. Patrols are really mandatory...boring perhaps, but essential. The large settlement helps all the smaller ones, and everything in between is a resources generation hex with farms, mines, quarries, breweries, inns, etc. Sounds good, and it is exactly what I hope to see.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Probably a VERY good idea for us forum'ers to start doing likewise...
The idea of herding the cats I've come to know on these boards into a group as coherent as what Ryan's described makes me chuckle. I think you're right that we'll have to find some sort of free-market response, because we'll never be able to accept the dictatorial one :-).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If settlements are only siege-able by similarly sized settlements, (by tiers based on buildings/DI/crafting or some other criteria);
then the zerg at least has to work for their lulz.
And is 'vulnerable' during the growth process.
As long as turning off the PVP window clears them out of our streets that is ;p
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think I'm not understanding it the same way you are.
To me, it sounded like Andius was asking for a simple way to set Settlement Laws that would automatically flag (not pvp-flag, just flag as in identify with a flag) characters who were either 1) not on a Whitelist, or 2) on a Blacklist. That would be the extent of the involvement with the system. Everything else would be human beings reacting to the flag that's there to identify the other characters.
I totally agree that NBSI should probably have alignment repercussions. Ryan said as much when he said "some Settlement Alignments may dictate NRDS."
[Edit] 1 would be NBSI, 2 would be NRDS.
NBSI is the root of all the "bad PvP" experiences we have been skewering in here. If this is how the game will play out then PFO really is just EVE with swords. We were all under the impression that there would be open trade between non evil nations.
This is a complete 180 into the play style of all other hard core PvP games. I don't see how you reconcile "killing every stranger that walks into town" with "killing is evil" from the supposed alignment system.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the reconciliation was "I expect most successful player settlements to be Lawful Evil.".
Evil empires have a very large espionage advantage. I'm hoping that a player settlement claws its way to being the major trade hub of the area, so that a viable alternative that requires NRDS gets attention.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
NBSI is the root of all the "bad PvP" experiences we have been skewering in here. If this is how the game will play out then PFO really is just EVE with swords. We were all under the impression that there would be open trade between non evil nations.
This is a complete 180 into the play style of all other hard core PvP games. I don't see how you reconcile "killing every stranger that walks into town" with "killing is evil" from the supposed alignment system.
For every comment Ryan has made that PFO is not EVE, he has made three that compare it to EVE.
There is a reason that you don't see Alignment Systems in MMOs, and not in most other RPGs (PnP or PC) either. It is too simplistic to capture the true RP of any character, it is too clunky to actually mess around with, and no game actually needs it to make it better than any other game that does not have it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe GW has put a lot of thought into the alignment system. Let's be honest, Ryan, Lee, Stephen, and others who have posted about content and mechanics don't sound like a bunch of dummies. They are working out the details and the mechanics of alignment will make the in-game system pretty dynamic until we all get used to it. Personally I think it will be hard as hell to remain lawful good (especially if you run around killing everything you see like in WoW or Rift) so paladins and clerics are gonna have a tough time keeping their LG bonuses.
If I am not mistaken that may be why they are allowing "alignment drift" while the player is logged out (iirc, you establish a "core" alignment, and play. If your behaviors change your alignment, you can correct it in game fairly quickly, or out of game fairly slowly). Keeping you LG will be hard. Much harder than a rampaging killer keeping CE. For all the crying I have read about the disadvantages of CE characters, keeping CE alignment ain't one of 'em.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the reconciliation was "I expect most successful player settlements to be Lawful Evil.".
Evil empires have a very large espionage advantage. I'm hoping that a player settlement claws its way to being the major trade hub of the area, so that a viable alternative that requires NRDS gets attention.
I don't understand this turn of events everything we have heard about the alignment system seemed to be geared towards pushing player behavior AWAY from killing everything that is not on "your team". That was the distinction, that was the hook for PFO style PvP.
I think this is the most drastic change we have heard so far. Now the game just sounds like another EVE or Darkfall. I thought the whole point was that you had to put up with people spying in your town because if you just killed them on sight you would take big penalties.
Plus this game was supposed to be built around trade between settlements and so now I guess that all of that trade only happens within a given kingdom?
Color me confused.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I believe the reconciliation was "I expect most successful player settlements to be Lawful Evil.".
Evil empires have a very large espionage advantage. I'm hoping that a player settlement claws its way to being the major trade hub of the area, so that a viable alternative that requires NRDS gets attention.
I never saw that post. Actually what I remember was "Lawful Evil will be a viable obstacle to the good and neutral nations." I don't see what appeal forcing players to be play Lawful Evil characters gains. I never saw until now that Machiavellian Lawful Evil will be the defacto play style for most players.
This converts the alignment system from a deterrent towards those acts to a label. Does PFO just want to laugh at us and tell us that we are all really evil?
Spying is only an advantage if one can do it and the other can't. I do not like the idea of another EVE like game where the spying is taken to a purely meta game level. This was not supposed to be a game of paranoid guilds and walled in communities.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I never saw that post.
Ryan-posts:
A lawful evil Settlements is likely to be the strongest opposition for the forces of good. The challenge for them will be remaining lawful while maximizing evil.
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.
The natural opposition to Lawful Good Settlements will be Lawful Evil Settlements.
I think the strongest opposition that Lawful Good Settlements will face will come from Lawful Evil Settlements.
[A Lawful Evil settlement] 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.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The whole point isn't to play something because it will be the Uber Bestest. Rather it is to play what you enjoy and get the most fulfillment from.
Here on this forum, I see a very small percentage advocating all out evil. Admittedly, this is not a good source even for later EE demographics, but perhaps the "philosophy" of Role not Roll could start here and be expanded into the gen pop. At least a good headstart of Neutral and Good Kingdoms to face whatever may come....
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't know where some of you have gotten the idea that Ryan, in particular, does not want PFO to be in many ways just like EVE.
He clearly wants to capture that "you are never safe" feel that EVe has. The "Don't carry what you can't afford to lose" and if you do lose it, that is good for the economy.
The PC Body Looting that was recently announced, along with the item decay, upped the ante on death penalty and that went virtually unresponded to. Sure, it is not quite EvE's death penalty, but it is darn close and much more severe then most MMOs.
Now he has added in the NBSI and even pointed out his opinion that NDRS alliances are not viable.
They don't want unassociated settlements freely trading with each other. This game is about settlement hex control and competition over limited resources. It is about settlement warfare!!
Maybe the reason Ryan posted about the impending doom of the hackers or the zerg fleet, is to get this community thinking more about settlement vs. settlement competition and warfare?
From what this thread has produced in ideas, I'd think it would be a good idea for every kingdom / nation to consider having a Lawful Evil settlement as a part of it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The alignment and the reputation system make it much different than EVE. Or at least as far as I understand EVE. Yes there are some similarities, and I think that Ryan does want to use some of what works, and he likes, from EVE.
Things will become clearer, as we go. I guess that I will try it and decide if I enjoy it or not. I haven't anything more than an "interest" and "hope" investment in it, so far. Others that have money input, well their mileage may vary from their expectations. We will see.
I don't think that the great team Ryan has put together are going to make the game that the most of us don't want to play.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
NBSI is the root of all the "bad PvP" experiences we have been skewering in here. If this is how the game will play out then PFO really is just EVE with swords. We were all under the impression that there would be open trade between non evil nations.
Sadly, this seem to be right on the money to me. How are merchant caravans between settlements supposed to happen under this system, unless rigorously controlled and pre-vetted? So much for the free-wheeling freedoms and "chaos" (not the alignment here) of the River Kingdoms. This may be a fun game but it won't be what I have been expecting, nor will it capture the feeling of the River Kingdoms of Golarion IMHO.
The whole point isn't to play something because it will be the Uber Bestest. Rather it is to play what you enjoy and get the most fulfillment from.
That's exactly what made PfO seem so attractive to me. Now it seems we are being told that if we don't knuckle down and turn into the equivalent of a large EvE like corporation, with its NBSI policies and all the rigmarole and shenanigans that go with that, that we will be swamped by an influx of players from outside. That to me is profoundly disappointing, as is the suggestion that everyone will need a LE settlement to be able to compete (no dig at Bluddwolf - he may well be right, but I hope not).
Whatever happens, I'm sure there'll be a robust game to play; I'm not sure that it'll be the game I envisaged it being from previous posts and updates here on the forum.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"They don't want unassociated settlements freely trading with each other."
This makes little sense. Sure, GW can make us hate each other, unless we find a way to not hate each other within the rulebook. Trade, not combat, is what I hope is the lifeblood of PFO. If all GW is doing is looking at a spreadsheet calculating "coin in, coin out", folks won't be having enough fun to hang around long. Then Ryan, Lee, Stephen and all the other programmers will be looking for new jobs.
Now he has added in the NBSI and even pointed out his opinion that NDRS alliances are not viable.
Ryan has not added anything, the NBSI / NRDS options have always been there inherent in the system. All he has done is say that he expects most settlements to go down the NBSI route. The reason for that is perfectly obvious. NBSI in many ways is easier to institute.
I think many here would indeed be disappointed if this turns out to be a mainly NBSI game, as most of us would prefer to be able to visit other settlements in the times of uneasy peace much as you would in real life.
While NRDS failed in eve the dynamics of Eve are subtley different. In Eve a sovereign space can easily be self sufficient (except for the industry weakpoint). The industry weakpoint however can be easily got around by using highsec. This workaround will not however work in PfO as NPC settlements offer only low grade craft facilities.
The other subtle difference between Eve and PfO is training. In Eve it doesn't matter who you are you can get all the training you want. Just goto the NPC station and buy a book. In PfO training will be gated above low to mid level by the player settlements. People will want the opportunity to visit other settlements to train. Settlements likewise will welcome the coin that comes from selling their excess slots.
Currently Aeternum's stance is that we will operate outside wartime on an NRDS basis. It is however fair to say that this stance is going to be undergoing scrutiny in light of Ryan's recent statements. Once that discussion has been had I will naturally come back to the forums with the results of that decision. I believe other large organisations also had plans to be NRDS perhaps they could confirm that?
On the other issue of large organisation joining
If they join to grief it is up to the community to form a response in my opinion and if people pull together we can certainly blunt the effort.
If they join to hack then frankly there is little the community can do except make it clear to Goblinworks that we regard it as their responsiblity to keep on top of it. Will they be able to stop it completely? Of course not but they again can keep it down to manageable proportions. The players can naturally do the little bits they can such as keeping their response team hopping by faking incursions every half hour, however we do not have the tools to deal with it without resorting to the same tactics.