UNC Presents Concept of Meaningful RP-PVP


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 300 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Considering what we believe to be available to us in the realm of PVP, we have combined the ideas of: Contracts, POIs, Settlement Controlled Hexes, Faction Warfare, PVP Flags, Feuds and the Alignment / Reputation Systems into the following "Meaningful, RP-PVP" concept.

Interdiction Contracts - These contracts will be accepted by The UnNamed Company, which will be specifically trained to intercept cargos of contraband, resources taken from Employer controlled hexes without authorization, or resources passing through Employer controlled hexes for possible delivery to parts unknown. Interdiction Contracts will also cover the investigation and potential interference, dismantling or the pressing into the service of the employer’s company or settlement, any unauthorized POI placed within the employer’s area of influence.

Privateering Contracts: The UnNamed Company will accept a Letter of Marque from any company or settlement that is in our neutral or good standing. A Privateering Contract differs from an Interdiction Contract in that The UnNamed Company will be operating, potentially, outside of the employer’s controlled hexes. Privateering Contracts may also include the use of the Feud System (awaiting details).

Faction of The UnNamed Company: Rovagug

The UnNamed Company will be devotees to the faction conflict, on the side of Rovagug. However, as a predominantly Chaotic Neutral company, we will be focused more at the idea of destroying companies, settlements or philosophies that look to limit the freedom of action of any company (Good, Neutral or Evil).

Settlement Capture Policy of The UnNamed Company:

If and when the UnNamed Company captures a settlement, our objective will not be to run it as our own. It will not be to sell it to others. We will exploit its resources, destroy its Lawful and or Good aligned structures, and throw open its gates, welcoming in all player characters of any reputation . We will spend a week or so in total lawless debauchery, until the DI of the settlement is completely ruined. It will be a temporary safe haven for Griefers, Gankers and other Miscreants to get training and to buy and sell their ill gotten loot. It will then be pillaged, left in ruin and abandoned. A pestilent, smoldering hole of destruction as a sacrifice to Rovagug.

[Exception: Unless a sizeable ransom or offer is made for that piece of property!!]

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Rovagug is on no one's side. Rovagug has no meaning other than an end to everyone and everything.

Saying you're on Rovagug's side is like riding an atom bomb out of an airplane and saying you're on the bomb's side.

In Golarion, his humanoid followers are all nihilists (suicidals who just want to take down as much as they can with themselves).

If that's not the angle you're going for, then I strongly encourage you to reconsider your terminology.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
It will be a temporary safe haven for Griefers...

By all means, please keep digging.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:

Rovagug is on no one's side. Rovagug has no meaning other than an end to everyone and everything.

Saying you're on Rovagug's side is like riding an atom bomb out of an airplane and saying you're on the bomb's side.

In Golarion, his humanoid followers are all nihilists (suicidals who just want to take down as much as they can with themselves).

If that's not the angle you're going for, then I strongly encourage you to reconsider your terminology.

It is to be expected that the PF RPG translation will not be exact as it crosses over to PFO. However, if there is the possibility for suicide-Ganking, then I would support that RP play style.

Maybe that could be a Factional Boon for the Rovagug Faction. The ability for the suicide ganking of an enemy faction. That would be awesome to role play and add additional meaningful interaction to PVP.

Goblin Squad Member

From an RP point of view, the reason your character comes back to life in PFO is because of a special blessing from Pharasma, the judge of the dead. Pharasma hates Rovagug though, so the most accurate way to RP a follower of Rovagug in PFO would be through perma death.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andius wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
It will be a temporary safe haven for Griefers...
By all means, please keep digging.

I put that in there just for you.....

I have been playing Darkfall for the past week (reinstalled it, by dumping another game I stopped playing). I discovered three things:

First, the Global Chat is no wheres near toxic, and you have to go out of your way to even pay attention to it.

Second, the PVP is not toxic either. As soon as you enter the danger zone, you are given a warning and more than enough time to get out. That means that when you enter the danger zone, YOU take on all responsibility for your loses. You also get all of the credit for your gains as well.

Third, you can meaningfully participate and assist your clan without ever setting foot out of the safe zones.

Bottom line, there can not be griefing where the risks are known. The only thing that is toxic is not recognizing the risks and then complaining about them when you suffer them.

In my view, the only thing Darkfall falls short on being a great game is the UI, which is ridiculously clunky and counter intuitive.

Now to the point I was looking to make about Griefers. In the absence of true griefing, other more legitimate forms of PVP will be labeled "toxic" by those who can not handle the loss that comes with taking risks.

Having VERY SMALL numbers of griefers, or VERY INFREQUENT instances of griefing is actually healthy for an Open World PVP MMO. Without it you will not have the contrast needed to differentiate true griefing from the normal risks vs. rewards that come with playing in an Open World PVP MMO.

Goblin Squad Member

Blaeringr wrote:
From an RP point of view, the reason your character comes back to life in PFO is because of a special blessing from Pharasma, the judge of the dead. Pharasma hates Rovagug though, so the most accurate way to RP a follower of Rovagug in PFO would be through perma death.

Part of RPing Chaotic Neutral is that you don't have to care. I'm sure that Religion in Pathfinder is as much a source of misinterpretations by its followers as any RL religions.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

Having VERY SMALL numbers of griefers, or VERY INFREQUENT instances of griefing is actually healthy for an Open World PVP MMO. Without it you will not have the contrast needed to differentiate true griefing from the normal risks vs. rewards that come with playing in an Open World PVP MMO.

So, having a small number of murderers or very infrequent instances of murder is actually healthy for a society? Helps us differentiate the real crimes from the petty ones we would start expanding the punishment for in the absence of murder? I can say with absolutely zero doubt that the victims, those murdered, and their loved ones, would disagree with you.

And I am glad you are enjoying DF...fingers crossed they fix the UI before PFO comes out.

Goblin Squad Member

KitNyx wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:

Having VERY SMALL numbers of griefers, or VERY INFREQUENT instances of griefing is actually healthy for an Open World PVP MMO. Without it you will not have the contrast needed to differentiate true griefing from the normal risks vs. rewards that come with playing in an Open World PVP MMO.

So, having a small number of murderers or very infrequent instances of murder is actually healthy for a society? Helps us differentiate the real crimes from the petty ones we would start expanding the punishment for in the absence of murder? I can say with absolutely zero doubt that the victims, those murdered, and their loved ones, would disagree with you.

You do realize this is a game right? Talk about examples of not differentiating.

Goblin Squad Member

So you think those griefed will agree with you?

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the level of griefers we should accept in PFO is as many as can survive a whole-hearted effort on the part of the GMs and the community to wipe them out entirely. That sounds like a good number to me.

I'm glad you enjoy a game where outside 4 tiny sections of the map anyone can kill you for any reason with 0 consequence, and you feel a warning makes that non-toxic. It perfectly illustrates for everyone what you advocate turning this game into, and why anyone who isn't ok with the environment present in Darkfall and EVE should be opposed to UNC.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

@Andius I'm not opposed to UNC, the in-game entity, because they haven't done anything yet. I generally find a lot of Bluddwolf's proposals are... different from where I hope the game will go. If GW sees Darkfall as their competition, we're in a world of hurt. (Not to say that a lot of DF's players probably couldn't find themselves in PFO before it's over).

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

Faction of The UnNamed Company: Rovagug

The UnNamed Company will be devotees to the faction conflict, on the side of Rovagug. However, as a predominantly Chaotic Neutral company, we will be focused more at the idea of destroying companies, settlements or philosophies that look to limit the freedom of action of any company (Good, Neutral or Evil).

Um.

Pathfinder Wiki on Rovagug wrote:
His worshipers are savage monsters and human nihilists.
More from Pathfinder Wiki on Rovagug wrote:
His worshipers are only slightly less dedicated, glorying in destruction for its own sake and dismissing building and creating as a pastime for those too weak to destroy. Some worshipers do so out of nihilistic misery, others out of self-loathing, and yet others through a simple, burning rage towards the universe. All are dedicated to Rovagug's destructive mission.

Just to confirm, does this represent your company and what you are going for? I had got a much different impression from your earlier posts.

Also can you define what definition of griefer you are working under Bluddwolf? I suspect my own differs greatly so to understand where you are coming from it would be extremely helpful to know.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
@Andius I'm not opposed to UNC, the in-game...

I was referring more toward their campaign to turn this game into EvE or Darkfall. Once blades start crossing the best service people can do us against UNC is to stand back and watch the fireworks.

That way I can enjoy it a bit longer. >:D

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

So you want to be a griefer?

You figure if you claim some half baked rp excuse to grief its not really griefing, but RP?

I wouldn't mind GW's interpretation on weather this is "meaningful player interaction" or griefing.

The answer will most likely make or break the game.

Goblin Squad Member

Summersnow wrote:

So you want to be a griefer?

You figure if you claim some half baked rp excuse to grief its not really griefing, but RP?

I wouldn't mind GW's interpretation on weather this is "meaningful player interaction" or griefing.

The answer will most likely make or break the game.

It wont make or break the game.

Griefing is based on perspective. Which is why GW decided not to define it, they will probably handle it in a case by case basis.

I havent talked to him directly about it, but I would say his swing from previous stances as CN Theif to CN/CE lets do it all... is probably the nonsense spouted about Griefing and RPKing when we have examples like Darkfall that lacks any high amount of both.. and Eve where its all exaggerated as well.

Sure it exists in both, but I bet its a low percentage of the players.

The fact you are warned about the areas you are entering is enough for you to think. If you cant do that then oh well.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Having VERY SMALL numbers of griefers, or VERY INFREQUENT instances of griefing is actually healthy for an Open World PVP MMO.

No, it isn't. It is only good for those who want to grief. Only by using truly twisted and convoluted logic could you think otherwise.

It seems I am not alone in thinking this is wrong. And I *really* hope that GW thinks the same.

I shall be very vocal in my opposition to this idea until GW either makes a statement clearing this up or tells me to shut up. And if you truly want to grief, at least have the courage of your convictions. As I said before, there is no excuse for griefing, and trying to dress it up in RP is not just disingenuous, it's cowardly too.

Dark Archive Goblin Squad Member

These posts always blow slightly out of proportion, it gives me no small amount of joy to see these topics and your argumentative reasonings. Though it is true that society as a whole is enhanced with the fear of a "Boogeyman" or creature like Jack the Ripper, all chaotic villans do is enforce law into societies. Remember, an anarchic entity of destruction will be contained if to powerful or out of control, being able to balance violence and control will be a key. Rovagug himself is caged and Asmodeus holds the key.

As for the meaningful Pvp standpoint, it is something I can understand and appreciate, without risk what is the reward, and players being a foil can make far more memorable moments than simply slaying AI opponents, and with more of the game unfolding and the community learning more we can only gain more insight before swinging at wild conclusions.

Now for players that wish to avoid player conflict, or even fully fledged "Care Bear" players I trust the devs to find an elegant solution to this, I do hope there are areas they can go fully enjoy themselves without having to worry about player grief, honestly, I would like to be able to take a walk and enjoy the scenery from time to time without an escort.

However my deepest desire will always be a peaceful solution, and if a mediator be needed they may always call upon the members of House Carnath and the keepers of Golgotha.

Goblin Squad Member

You have to have people care about their effect on the world. And likewise care if they are affected. Griefing disrupts that cycle so you define it post hoc as suits I'd say. Social vs antisocial gameplay is a major consideration to that.

Bludd I think you mean some horror can enhance stories because first you care about the characters?

I think capturing a player's avatar (they can leave their spirit) and take the body back to a settlement to sacrifice for eg would be great) But if used to stop te player playing the game and they are stuck they don't care. They might care if the sacrifice also allows their head on a spike of the evil settlement and their blood powers the enemy settlement somehow. The player has lost but atst it's fun horror for the character's grizzly demise. As well as items lost.

Darfall sounds exciting because it's players choosing and deciding in a truly adventurous world (because danger = adventure). But PvP as major interaction just play a FPS game I think? It's a bit one dimensional story which requires context to actions. If I want action eg FPS or beat'em-up games. It comes back to Blue/Red shoot or not shoot. Permissions for movement around the place having to deal with different relationships is ultimately more social than binary fight/flight animal reaction.

Goblin Squad Member

Just so we are quite clear, I am opposed to griefing , not ganking. There is a world of difference, and there is nothing "carebear" about opposing a play style whose sole purpose is to ruin the game for others.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:


First, the Global Chat is no wheres near toxic, and you have to go out of your way to even pay attention to it.

Second, the PVP is not toxic either. As soon as you enter the danger zone, you are given a warning and more than enough time to get out. That means that when you enter the danger zone, YOU take on all responsibility for your loses. You also get all of the credit for your gains as well.

Third, you can meaningfully participate and assist your clan without ever setting foot out of the safe zones.

Fourth: The game is almost empty of players. Even PvP enthusiasts have migrated away for lack of prey.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Andius wrote:
I think the level of griefers we should accept in PFO is as many as can survive a whole-hearted effort on the part of the GMs and the community to wipe them out entirely. That sounds like a good number to me.

I liked this part enough to want to "favourite" it, but I don't want to appear to be backing the on-going cross-poster battling...WHICH I WISH COULD JUST STOP. I'm enough of a realist, though, to hold my nose, scan each poster's name and words quickly to discern whether there's meat there for me, and move on.

Goblin Squad Member

Ah yes, bat-s**t crazy, the Chaotic Neutral cover for the Chaotic Evil player.

Sorry Bluddwolf - I don't think that PFO is going to throw away all their hard work just to cater to people who want to run rampant killing their subscribers at a whim. It just strikes me as counterintuitive to their business strategy. It's also not 'realistic' RPing.

But lets look at your proposal and put it in real-world analogy. Namely, 17th century piracy. (It was the Letters of Marquis that got me thinking that). Motion pictures portray piracy as glamorous, exciting swashbuckling adventures where the cool guy got the girl but didn't have to have a relationship with her. But of course that's not true. For every country that gave a letter of Marquis to a pirate company there were a dozen other powers willing to kill its members on sight. And easy? Ha! Do you think pirates wanted to bury all their treasure because they exceeded their encumbrance? Nor was it much fun to stay in the worst harbors with the worst amenities in the Caribbean. So, yes, feel free to contract privately with any group for a job and enjoy all the RPing that the 17th century has to offer.

Oh, and lastly, I'm a little disturbed about your caveat at the end. We will follow the teachings of Rovugug unless we can make a buck off it? For shame! I, for one, call you out as not a true follower of The Rough Beast.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lhan wrote:
It seems I am not alone in thinking this is wrong. And I *really* hope that GW thinks the same.

It is very discouraging that Bluddwolf and his faction have succeeded in making people question Ryan's commitment to avoiding the problems of non-consensual PvP that have turned so many people off to those kinds of games. Foreseeing this likely result is what motivated me to try to counterbalance his statements with reminders that Ryan has been very consistent about what he intends to do. Unfortunately, that seems to have alienated a number of people who simply grew disgusted with what looked like constant bickering.

Have Faith! Don't Despair!

Goblin Squad Member

Under the one-step alignment rule, Rovagug is a valid choice for CN, if a bit questionable. I would suggest we just let this go and let UNC walk their road. If they wind up as griefers, they will be dealt with. At the moment we keep falling into arguing this and that which is not really all that constructive and lends credit to some of their worst ideas.

Perhaps we should start ignoring their bad ideas and let them shout in their bubble. Just remember to ignore the ideas, not the people. Everyone gets both good and bad ideas, and we don't want ignore good ones they may have.

Goblin Squad Member

I am glad there is an organized group setting out to test the evil spectrum in EE, since it sure as $h** will be tested in OE.

IMO, it is clear from the blogs that the griefing 'line' will be defined by GW, and defined in game, likely on a case by case basis.

Saying 'you can't do that in game' is like saying 'you can't fly' . Let them try it. They will learn the lesson much faster and in a more lasting way. And GW will learn too.

The way I see it, for evils, EE has to be a time for 'Do what thou wilt, and see if you get hit with the grief-hammer.' A time to find the limits, to test them, & to give GW some practice enforcing their vision for acceptable play.

Goblin Squad Member

I have a better idea....

Lets all be nice.

Lets all work together for the better of the community.

Lets all forcefully remove anyone from the game we consider griefers and RPKers.

Lets all be allied in game.

Still want to play?

You do!!!! Great, cause there will only be a few of us and we can be the most powerful in the game.

You dont? Then you must be a nasty person, good riddance.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Considering what we believe to be available to us in the realm of PVP, we have combined the ideas of: Contracts, POIs, Settlement Controlled Hexes, Faction Warfare, PVP Flags, Feuds and the Alignment / Reputation Systems into the following "Meaningful, RP-PVP" concept....

I support the spirit of thread Bluddwolf. You have made it clear you aim to be the faction we love to hate and are declaring a commitment to roleplay that role.

The important thing here is not to abandon that when we actually hurt each other's interests. The commitment to foster an RP environment even when we are crashing each other's sand castles must be maintained at a cooperative, meta game level.

As long as the above is adhered to, you have my support.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Nice Straw man, Xeen.

Being anti-griefing is not being anti-Pvp nor is it being all "let's hold hands in a circle". I do love the way that every time somebody has anything negative to say about any aspect of PvP, in your eyes it is suddenly an attack on all PvP and we are all carebears, who want to do nothing more than ally up and take all the teeth out of the game. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Bluddwolf made a very clear distinction between ganking and griefing a long time ago, one that was concise and useful. Ganking is (to paraphrase loosely) the use of overwhelming force in a PvP situation, stacking the odds as heavily in your favour as you can. Bluddwolf has said he is in favour of ganking - and I agree with him. If you are a bandit, you'd be crazy to do it any other way. Only an idiot (or a paladin, which may be the same thing) fights fair.

Griefing is, by following Bludd's definition and mine, not about the game. It's about the guy on the other client and about ruining his game time. It has nothing to do with PfO at all, that's just incidental, a tool to be used to p!ss someone else off. It shows itself in many ways, such as corpse camping, constant harassment or even just abuse over chat channels. It is this that I object to. I can't see how anyone with any modicum of social decency would not.

Please stop trying to conflate the two. We are quite clear that there will be PvP in PfO. We are quite clear that it will be everywhere. Nobody is objecting to that. The objection is to people behaving like three year olds (badly socialised ones at that), emulating Lord of the Flies and expecting to get away with it.

Goblin Squad Member

Straw Man?

Straw Man means it has no basis, and has not happened... Look at games like SWTOR... and countless others... Put no real PVP into the game, including the "bad" stuff and you get crap.

Loads and Loads of crap, with no income.

Starts off big, and dies a slow death.

Why? and I will make it clear.

YOU MAY AS WELL BUY A GAME OFF THE SHELF

its only $60 with no continued subscription, and you can play them multiplayer.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Xeen wrote:
Ryan doesnt chime in on the hot topics and set things straight...

I expect that's a deliberate choice. As unseemly as it is to have the posters going back and forth ad nauseam, it's even worse for a CEO to get involved in that kind of flaming.

You want to make a name for yourself on Something Awful? Troll a forum. If you get the denizens riled up, that's a win. If you get the mods riled up, that's sweet, sweet tears of rage you brag about. You get an owner riled up? It's as good as counting coup! Put that trophy on the wall and brag about it forever!

I expect Ryan has better things to do than to fight the same battle over and over. He's already made it clear that he doesn't want to create a game with the same kind of PvP people have experienced in EVE and Darkfall. What could he possibly gain by wading into this cesspit?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really get a huge laugh out of these threads. I did make one mistake though, when I combined the UNC Contract Policy to the OP....

That was the serious part. It deserves its own thread, but I was tired last night and too lazy to type two separate threads.

Now as for the Rovagug part:

First off, I did not read the wiki on Rovagug, because I couldn't care less. It is not my intention of following him because Greed is not one of his focus beliefs. I used Rovagug because he is open to CN, being a corner alignment. I also used Rovagug because I knew the reaction that I would get.

Just as I used the term "griefing". You will notice in my OP, I never said that I or any member of UNC would grief. What I said was, in the circumstance that I captured a settlement, I would open its doors to griefers.

If there are any "griefers", by the player's definitions, than there can only be a few explanations for their presence:

1. That their activities were not considered griefing by GW Devs / DMs, and the players need to change their definition.

2. The systems that GW have in place to curtail griefing are not working.

3. GW has accepted a certain amount of griefing as tolerable.

Regardless of what you think of my OP post.... The point I'm trying to make is, some of you need to stop labeling minor differences of opinion or perception as "toxic". In my view, based, on the descriptions of Darkfall, the perception of what is "toxic" is so loosely linked to real acts of what would be considered toxic by your average player just don't rise to that level.

RPKing is not griefing, according to Ryan Dancey. Ganking is not considered greifing according to almost anyone who understands the term. Calling these things toxic, is in itself "toxic" because it tainst a game that would otherwise have greater appeal than what you have given it credit for.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's a really cool OP, Bludd. Definitely good that different communities are forming concrete goals for the game. I'm with what avari3 said above.

Certainly we can all agree it's ideal if different communities can offer different experiences/expecations in game. :)

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It is my sincerest wish that the "villains" of PFO take their cue from players like Bluddwolf. We would be extremely lucky if the arsehats of the game are active in the community, possess a conceptual difference between open PVP and greifing and play under the mantle of "light RP".

We can only hope to be so lucky.

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
The point I'm trying to make is, some of you need to stop labeling minor differences of opinion or perception as "toxic". In my view, based, on the descriptions of Darkfall, the perception of what is "toxic" is so loosely linked to real acts of what would be considered toxic by your average player just don't rise to that level.

Public chat channels filled with homosexual slurs, racial slurs and descriptions of sexual acts are toxic.

A community that provides no guidance to new members, and instead gleefully lies to them about game mechanics is toxic.

Game mechanics that encourage the strong to prey on the weak, while avoiding anything that looks like an even fight are toxic.

Bluddwolf wrote:
RPKing is not griefing, according to Ryan Dancey. Ganking is not considered greifing according to almost anyone who understands the term. Calling these things toxic, is in itself "toxic" because it tainst a game that would otherwise have greater appeal than what you have given it credit for.

If RPKing can be defined as "The person I just attacked has no idea why I did it", then it absolutely is toxic to the community and the game.

Levels of distrust and paranoia that make cooperation with strangers impossible are toxic.

All these things are deliberately created by the community of players and developers, they apparently enjoy playing in that sort of toxic environment.

I truly hope the differences between PFO and Darkfall are vastly more significant than "minor differences of opinion."

Goblin Squad Member

4 people marked this as a favorite.

There seems to be a lot of concern about whether PvP will become too "toxic" and drive many away.

Also worth discussing, I think, is how toxic discussion on these forums have become, and not just on the surface. When I speak to individuals in this community on different issues through PM or voice chat, I am hearing a common thread to what many of you are saying: that you have your position, the other guy has his position, and making your statement is more about making more noise for Goblinworks' sake than for the purpose of convincing those you are debating.

I suggest another approach: have confidence that the folks over at Goblinworks already know what they want the game to look like as far as how aggressive PvP will look. So what if someone keeps saying something you disagree with over and over. Just let stupid comments speak for themselves.

All you're accomplishing by nitpicking every little comment you disagree with is to rub some of the stupid off on yourselves.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Gaskon, I hope you stick around and post for a long time; I like the way you think. Having 12 of your 21 posts garner at least one "favourite" vote is impressive.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

Gaskon wrote:

If RPKing can be defined as "The person I just attacked has no idea why I did it", then it absolutely is toxic to the community and the game.

I'm not sure if RPK is the best term to describe that, but we definitely need a word to name that phenomenon.

Other than the professed confusion about what Rovagug is all about and the inconsistency about whether UNC works freelance or by contract, this looks like a document that could be used by a productive organization. Characters dedicated to stealing even if it is suboptimal produce lots of mutual content with other types.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gaskon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
RPKing is not griefing, according to Ryan Dancey. Ganking is not considered greifing according to almost anyone who understands the term. Calling these things toxic, is in itself "toxic" because it tainst a game that would otherwise have greater appeal than what you have given it credit for.
If RPKing can be defined as "The person I just attacked has no idea why I did it", then it absolutely is toxic to the community and the game.

Simple rule of thumb if you've just been RPKed: You had stuff, the RPK wanted it and was able to overpower you and take it. That's it. That's a reason right there. Is that toxic? Nope. It's harsh. Get RPKed enough and you'll learn to travel through safer areas, or in groups, or learn how to fight. Adapt or die.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Gaskon wrote:

If RPKing can be defined as "The person I just attacked has no idea why I did it", then it absolutely is toxic to the community and the game.

I'm not sure if RPK is the best term to describe that, but we definitely need a word to name that phenomenon.

Other than the professed confusion about what Rovagug is all about and the inconsistency about whether UNC works freelance or by contract, this looks like a document that could be used by a productive organization. Characters dedicated to stealing even if it is suboptimal produce lots of mutual content with other types.

I did not profess confusion about Rovagug. I professed a lack of concern for what the Wiki wrote about him. I used the emotionally charged words of Rovagug and Griefing to manipulate the discussion to get a certain response. Once I got that response I presented my intent and my counter argument.

As for the UNC being inconsistent as to whether it uses contracts or it goes freelance, no inconsistency exists. We will do both. That is the beauty of it, you will never know which it is. We are looking to plant the seeds of paranoia and fear. We want you thinking, did another company or settlement hire them to do this to me?

Settlement conflict is our bread and butter. It is always something about the coin. Then there is the fun and or the revenge.

Goblin Squad Member

I think your philosophy Bludd is that "real impact" eg "coin" is one of the only verifiable forms of what makes people "care"? This seems to be your driving philosophy? Fluff, Mechanics etc are pure distraction or "only a matter of time" to come back to eg "coin". By providing a settlement to "Griefers" you're providing a middleman service that fuels your ability to take more coin and assets which liquidize into coin from players who don't toughen up on where it really matters where it hurts ie coin = time invested by players to build settlements?

Your little Agatha Christie villain speech is highly entertaining btw! *chuckles softly and lights up a cigar* "You FOOLS! It was so easy... Oh don't give me THAT *spits it out with emphasis and sneers* they deserved to die... they were so-o pathetic!!" Poirot *shudders*: "Ah the mask of evil reveals itself, it is always the same face."

Goblin Squad Member

Doggan wrote:
Gaskon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
RPKing is not griefing, according to Ryan Dancey. Ganking is not considered greifing according to almost anyone who understands the term. Calling these things toxic, is in itself "toxic" because it tainst a game that would otherwise have greater appeal than what you have given it credit for.
If RPKing can be defined as "The person I just attacked has no idea why I did it", then it absolutely is toxic to the community and the game.
Simple rule of thumb if you've just been RPKed: You had stuff, the RPK wanted it and was able to overpower you and take it. That's it. That's a reason right there. Is that toxic? Nope. It's harsh. Get RPKed enough and you'll learn to travel through safer areas, or in groups, or learn how to fight. Adapt or die.

Ooh Ooh, guess what that means??? Anyone? Anyone?

Hint: Means you werent RPKed.

I dare someone to give an example of real RPK, bet you cant.

Goblin Squad Member

DeciusBrutus wrote:
Gaskon wrote:
If RPKing can be defined as "The person I just attacked has no idea why I did it", then it absolutely is toxic to the community and the game.
I'm not sure if RPK is the best term to describe that, but we definitely need a word to name that phenomenon.

It seems that RPK is the perfect descriptor to denote Player Killing that occurs for no apparent reason - i.e. Randomly.

Doggan wrote:
Simple rule of thumb if you've just been RPKed: You had stuff, the RPK wanted it and was able to overpower you and take it. That's it. That's a reason right there. Is that toxic? Nope. It's harsh. Get RPKed enough and you'll learn to travel through safer areas, or in groups, or learn how to fight. Adapt or die.

I don't believe that's the dynamic Goblinworks is hoping for in Pathfinder Online.

1 to 50 of 300 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / UNC Presents Concept of Meaningful RP-PVP All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.