UNC Definition of "In Good, Bad and Ugly Standing"


Pathfinder Online

1 to 50 of 142 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

The UnNamed Company considers the label of "In Good Standing" to be a description of the relationship between the UNC and the individual in question.

A character can have a +7500 Reputation and a CN alignment (Our Core Alignment), and be in bad standing with the UNC. The opposite is true as well. A character could be LG and have a -7500 Reputation and be in good standing with the UNC. I understand that these two examples are extreme cases and unlikely, but they are meant to illustrate the main point:

"In Good Standing" belongs to the individual, company or settlement. What others believe of the player-character in question is secondary or perhaps completely meaningless to our decision to deal or not to deal with that individual.

If a settlement allows the UNC (its Bandits and Assassins) access to their markets, taverns and especially their training, they will be "In Good Standing".

If we are denied access, that settlement will not be "In Good Standing".

If the UNC is treated with open hostility, they will be held "In Bad Standing". These will individuals will be met with SADs that are meant to either be declined or meant to gain greater than what we could normally gain from outright killing the individual (a SAD of greater than 75%, but less than the 100% the victim would lose upon death).

If the UNC is confronted with disproportionate reprisal for our actions, including defamation of our "character" on forums or other meta game actions... They will be found to be "In Ugly Standing".

I myself, shiver at the thought of even uttering what this revenge might amount to. It can not be easily defined in the human tongue or emotion, other than perhaps in screams and relentless tears.

Goblin Squad Member

I would consider it an honor if I could be officially proclaimed the very first to be held "In Ugly Standing" with UNC.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
I would consider it an honor if I could be officially proclaimed the very first to be held "In Ugly Standing" with UNC.

I will withhold an in depth comment, it would be too cruel (and accurate) to air. But, your standing has faded in recent months, and not just with UNC.

I'm hopeful that you reconsider some of your recent stances, they have not served you well in my opinion.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
It can not be easily defined in the human tongue or emotion, other than perhaps in screams and relentless tears.

...of laughter.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

But, your standing has faded in recent months, and not just with UNC.

I'm hopeful that you reconsider some of your recent stances, they have not served you well in my opinion.

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

I can't change the fact that I see you as being clearly pro-griefer.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The statements have been made. No need to drag this out. It would be quite tiresome to see the rivalries play back and forth at a meta-level for a whole year to come. Until we have blades and coin to back our views, we shall be in disagreement.

The field of battle shall resolve these disputes.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Can those of us in ugly standing with the UNC have our own clubhouse?

Goblin Squad Member

I hate to post in this thread after the respect given to mine earlier, but I feel something is lacking. I have but two questions.

1) can anyone accurately portray to me what GWs official standpoint is on the subject of "griefing"?

2) can someone explain exactly what RPKing is?

I personally see nothing wrong with the UNCs policy.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:


I can't change the fact that I see you as being clearly pro-griefer.

Yeah, don't let my numerous posts to have open season on GW identified griefers get in the way of your baseless perception.

Goblin Squad Member

Lord Regent: Deacon Wulf wrote:

I hate to post in this thread after the respect given to mine earlier, but I feel something is lacking. I have but two questions.

1) can anyone accurately portray to me what GWs official standpoint is on the subject of "griefing"?

2) can someone explain exactly what RPKing is?

I personally see nothing wrong with the UNCs policy.

1. GW has decided not to say precisely what griefing is. They have said that they will know it when they see it.

They have also not linked a low reputation specifically to griefing. You can prey upon unsanctioned targets without actually griefing them. Which is why I dispute the assumption that all low rep characters are griefers.

2. RPKing is a fabrication of not knowing an attacker's motivation and sucking at PVP. It is easier to just label your defeat as the result of something that is unfair, unseemly or out right griefing, than to admit that you got beat.

3. There is nothing wrong with our policy, because it is our policy. No one else is asked to adopt it, or agree with it. It is just there for informational purposes.

It will also not be subject to crowd forging. It is not up for debate, just clarification if requested.

Why put it up here?

I was asked a direct question from DeciusBrutus, "What does "In Good Standing"?"

I chose to answer that question here, rather than in your thread.

I have laid out the categories of our standings:

Good
Neutral (Not Good)
Hostile (Will attack when chance brings us together)
Enemy (Will actively hunt for these targets).

I'm certain that every company has a similar if not the exact same system in place.

Goblin Squad Member

Lord Regent: Deacon Wulf wrote:

1) can anyone accurately portray to me what GWs official standpoint is on the subject of "griefing"?

2) can someone explain exactly what RPKing is?

Neither term can be defined with sufficient precision that a motivated person could not convincingly misapply it. This is one of the truly great things that came out of the latest blog: The Man in the Back Said "Everyone Attack!": there is now a very clearly defined and very mechanically useful phrase of "sanctioned PvP". And it must follow, as the night the day, that engaging in "unsanctioned PvP" is tantamount to being a dick.

[Edit] Is it okay to say that? I half-expected it to be semi-censored, but then it's also used with the same meaning on prime-time network television... My apologies if anyone is offended by the term.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

I didn't think the person I asked to clarify "In good standing" was part of UNC. Was I confused, or confusing?

Goblin Squad Member

If you were asking me, Decius, I assumed my post addressed to you answered your question. If further clarity is required, KoG is currently working on a factional status policy/system that will be published at a later date. If further concerns need to be addressed this evening, please feel free to post within an invitation to evil.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
And it must follow, as the night the day, that engaging in "unsanctioned PvP" is tantamount to being a dick.

I kept the exact wording of the quote to not to be offensive but to keep the exact context of the quote.

Now, to the Wording.. I disagree with this. If people "go" by this, then it would come to the state that anyone who did not want to pvp would just make sure they were in an "Unsanctioned pvp" state. Like gatherers not flying ANY flag, or being attached to any affiliations. Then the danger of gathering is gone. Anyone who attacked this person participated in "unsanctioned pvp"

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwulf wrote:
RPKing is a fabrication of not knowing an attacker's motivation and sucking at PVP

You do your argument no favours when you add such ridiculous qualifiers to your statements. I expect the UNC will attack from prepared ambushes where possible, I expect that the UNC will have vastly superior numbers when it can, and I expect that members of the UNC will be equipped and slotted to best allow them to PvP. When (not if) I die under any or all of such circumstances, it will not make me "suck at PvP". It will mean that the UNC is doing what it should do, behaving the way that bandits should behave and stacking the decks in its own favour. You would be crazy not to.

That being said, you have a point. I know that this is probably not a favoured position in T7V, but I agree with you on RPKing. I actually think the term is an irrelevance. There will be plenty of opportunities for sanctioned PvP, and those who choose to engage in unsanctioned PvP will be penalised in the form of a rep and / or alignment hit. It will be up to each individual to decide whether that hit is acceptable or not. The "victim" need not be party to that decision, not understand what criteria were used to make it - it will be totally opaque to him. This is not a problem until it strays into the realms of griefing, something I think we should all leave to GW to arbitrate (though keep those screen shots and combat/chat logs - you'll need them!).

I have seen many UNC members pretty much say the same thing - Doggan almost verbatim (and more eloquently than I have). What more needs to be said on the matter? It seems to me that RPKing is being used as a term meaning "PvP that I don't like, even though it may not involve me". If that's the case, that's fine, but it is not useful in a debate about what is acceptable in the game. GW have provided sanctions and a clear indication of when they will use them. If those sanctions prove not to be enough in EE, they will ramp them up; if too much, they will ease them. As long as we all agree that griefing (as defined by GW - individuals or companies defining it are just p!ssing in the wind) is not to be tolerated, then all other behaviours are ok, given that they carry their own risks and rewards.

Goblin Squad Member

Andius wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
It can not be easily defined in the human tongue or emotion, other than perhaps in screams and relentless tears.
...of laughter.

Your members in TEO will be begging you to pay us off soon enough, dont worry.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:

The statements have been made. No need to drag this out. It would be quite tiresome to see the rivalries play back and forth at a meta-level for a whole year to come. Until we have blades and coin to back our views, we shall be in disagreement.

The field of battle shall resolve these disputes.

Actually they wont.

Goblin Squad Member

Lord Regent: Deacon Wulf wrote:

I hate to post in this thread after the respect given to mine earlier, but I feel something is lacking. I have but two questions.

1) can anyone accurately portray to me what GWs official standpoint is on the subject of "griefing"?

2) can someone explain exactly what RPKing is?

I personally see nothing wrong with the UNCs policy.

GW has said that they will not define griefing.

RPKing is Random Player Killing and is use by the self righteous because they cannot stand to deal with PVP on others terms.

Goblin Squad Member

Tigari wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
And it must follow, as the night the day, that engaging in "unsanctioned PvP" is tantamount to being a dick.

I kept the exact wording of the quote to not to be offensive but to keep the exact context of the quote.

Now, to the Wording.. I disagree with this. If people "go" by this, then it would come to the state that anyone who did not want to pvp would just make sure they were in an "Unsanctioned pvp" state. Like gatherers not flying ANY flag, or being attached to any affiliations. Then the danger of gathering is gone. Anyone who attacked this person participated in "unsanctioned pvp"

We are guaranteed to see this in its full extent. Since GW decided to make it that... "you can never opt out of PVP, but if anyone attacks you they will not be able to train their characters for long." You can bet on it.

Goblin Squad Member

Tigari wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
And it must follow, as the night the day, that engaging in "unsanctioned PvP" is tantamount to being a dick.

I kept the exact wording of the quote to not to be offensive but to keep the exact context of the quote.

Now, to the Wording.. I disagree with this.

Reputation is the score that indicates how much of a d**k you are...

Tigari wrote:
If people "go" by this, then it would come to the state that anyone who did not want to pvp would just make sure they were in an "Unsanctioned pvp" state. Like gatherers not flying ANY flag, or being attached to any affiliations. Then the danger of gathering is gone. Anyone who attacked this person participated in "unsanctioned pvp"

First, the danger is never "gone".

Second, they've already made it clear that to be really effective at something like Gathering, you're going to need to increase your exposure to PvP.

Third, Wars and Feuds can be declared to punish folks who flaunt their un-flagged status.

Goblin Squad Member

Lhan wrote:
I know that this is probably not a favoured position in T7V, but I agree with you on RPKing. I actually think the term is an irrelevance.

???

Bluddwolf wrote:
RPKing is not griefing, according to Dancey.
Irrelevant. "RPKing" is "unsanctioned".

I think the position that these are irrelevant terms is the favoured position in T7V.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Tigari wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
And it must follow, as the night the day, that engaging in "unsanctioned PvP" is tantamount to being a dick.

I kept the exact wording of the quote to not to be offensive but to keep the exact context of the quote.

Now, to the Wording.. I disagree with this.

Reputation is the score that indicates how much of a d**k you are...

No, it is only a measure of how often you attacked someone who is trying to opt out of PVP, for any reason, even reasons that are acceptable.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Lord Regent: Deacon Wulf wrote:

1) can anyone accurately portray to me what GWs official standpoint is on the subject of "griefing"?

2) can someone explain exactly what RPKing is?

Neither term can be defined with sufficient precision that a motivated person could not convincingly misapply it. This is one of the truly great things that came out of the latest blog: The Man in the Back Said "Everyone Attack!": there is now a very clearly defined and very mechanically useful phrase of "sanctioned PvP". And it must follow, as the night the day, that engaging in "unsanctioned PvP" is tantamount to being a dick.

No, that is your opinion, and your hope that it will. It will in fact be tantamount to what the old system stated.

You can attack an unflagged character, but suffer the reputation system and alignment hits as part of the cost of doing so.

This does not amount to griefing, it is a decision to attack outside of the terms of the consequence free PVP system.

You have once again conveniently missed the point of the Blog or you are being intentionally misleading.

In one thread / post you had claimed that the new Dev Blolg represented everything you had hoped for, yet it does the exact opposite. True to form, never admit you were wrong.

I was asking for a consequence free zone, and I got the whole map!!! Granted under certain circumstances, but those circumstances are weighted in my favor. You can not begin to claim that your hopes were realized.

@Lhan,

That comment I made was clearly not directed at someone such as yourself, and your response made that case. You are not the type to through the term "RPK'er" around willie-nilly any time you might lose in PVP. If you took it to include you, I apologize, I meant to paint with a very specific brush of those that would complain no matter what the circumstances of their loss.

@ DeciousBrutus

You did not direct you question to a specific individual, but I did bring it here rather than taint the OP's thread with our back and forth.

@ Tigari,

That is exactly how I feel about the Dev BLog's true meaning.

@ ALL,

It has been clearly stated by the Devs, at the core of PFO is PVP! THat is a change from the KS description, and what many of you might have believed or argued against, but now it is a reality you must accept.

Bigtown vs. AnotherBigTown is the mindset, and it is a PVP mindset.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would argue that unsanctioned PVP is, on its own, most definitely not griefing. Griefing is more akin to bullying and harassment, neither of which absolutely require unsanctioned PVP to accomplish but it is the easiest of the tools to use to that end. Griefing is an intent. PVP is a tool.

Nihimon wrote:
And it must follow, as the night the day, that engaging in "unsanctioned PvP" is tantamount to being a dick.

Unsanctioned PVP is not necessarily being a 'dick'. Just because I may kill someone who is unflagged in the wilds doesn't mean I simply wanted to be contrary. If I am guarding an operation for my own group, for example, and it's more secure and expedient to ambush and kill a trespasser before they stumble upon our super-secret operation, I am going to do it. And I am going to do it regardless of the PVP sanctions for that character. And should they persist in their insistence to be there, I will continue with my insistence that they not until such time as the security is no longer needed. I don't care why they are there, only that they should not be.

Neutral alts being used as scouts are another case that will likely be common. If my rules of engagement state 'no neutrals', then the neutrals will be removed, either through warning or through force. If the rules of engagement state 'no neutrals, no conversation', then they will be removed with prejudice without regard for their PVP status or intentions.

There will also be groups who desire to live, more or less, off the radar. They will unofficially claim territory, and equally unofficially defend it. Chances are very good that those they consider trespassers will not be 'sanctioned'. Gatherers on 'their land' stealing 'their nodes' must be removed, regardless of whether or not they are sanctioned. Warnings and negotiation are a courtesy, not a mandate.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Lhan wrote:
I know that this is probably not a favoured position in T7V, but I agree with you on RPKing. I actually think the term is an irrelevance.

???

Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
RPKing is not griefing, according to Dancey.
Irrelevant. "RPKing" is "unsanctioned".
I think the position that these are irrelevant terms is the favoured position in T7V.

Personally, I think that anyone who griefs is a *$^&ing (*&%@"(* {please use expletive of choice here} but I see nothing dickish about engaging in unsanctioned PvP. It exists, it has penalties. If there is too much of it then the penalties are obviously too lenient, but if there is not enough - for example, to the extent that gatherers run no risk at all while out in the wilds, as Tigari pointed out - then the punishments are too severe, and we may as well all go and play on a WoW PvE server where we can flag up for faction war, or not, to our heart's content (I am talking purely with regard to PvP here - not all the other sandbox elements of PfO).

With respect Nihimon, if you are calling someone a dick for engaging in unsanctioned PvP, whether it also called RPKing or not, then it is obviously not irrelevant to you. I am far more interested in us balancing the amount of sanctioned vs unsanctioned PvP to a level where it has meaning without becoming overbearing than I am in dictating play styles to others. Ultimately, they should be the ones deciding that sanctioned PvP is the best option for them (most of the time), not the rest of us deciding for them by pointing fingers at them and decrying the way they play the game. I will be perfectly willing to support anybody who ganks me when I am unflagged as a player while despising them and calling them all the names under the sun as Lhan (griefers need not apply). That will only be true, however, if I am reasonably sure that they have had to make a difficult decision as to whether that attack will be worth the consequences to them or not.* Of course, those consequences will and should include denial of service at certain training facilities or markets and so on and so forth, but that is the way to influence behaviour, and make that influence meaningful. If, for example, a member of the UNC really wants to attack you and carry off your loot, but know that if they do they will lose access to the only place that can train them in Skill X because you weren't flagged, isn't that a more meaningful process than just pointing fingers?

*Ah, who am I kidding? Of course they're going to attack me.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Reputation is the score that indicates how much of a d**k you are...
No...
Bluddwolf wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
... engaging in "unsanctioned PvP" is tantamount to being a dick.
No...

You guys crack me up :)

It's a logical proof.

... sanctioned PvP (i.e., PvP that won't cause alignment or reputation losses)...
Of course, PvP is possible at any stage in Pathfinder Online, but without the sanction of warfare, bounties, feuds, or voluntary player actions—characters performing criminal or heinous acts, for example—there are consequences of reputation and alignment.
Reputation is the score that indicates how much of a d**k you are...

GIVEN that sanctioned PvP will not cause Alignment and Reputation loss;

GIVEN that unsanctioned PvP will cause Alignment and Reputation loss;
GIVEN that reputation is a measure of how much of a dick you are;
THEREFORE unsanctioned PvP is tantamount to being a dick.

_____________________________________________________________________

Bluddwolf wrote:
It has been clearly stated by the Devs, at the core of PFO is PVP!
I think telling someone that Pathfinder Online is all about PvP is like saying football is all about tackling. It fundamentally misses the point, while being technically logically defensible.

________________________________________________________________ _____

Oh, and one more thing:

Bluddwolf wrote:
True to form, never admit you were wrong.

I'll admit I'm true to form. It's just not the form you're trying to portray.

The more I think about all of this, the more I think I'm wrong...

I was wrong.

... excellent job of proving why I was wrong...

For the record, I was wrong.

... clearly what I said was wrong.

I see that my impression was wrong.

Upon more sober reflection, I believe I was wrong to ask for this.

I was wrong.

Clearly, I had the wrong impression...

... I was wrong about that...

Goblin Squad Member

Sintaqx wrote:
I would argue that unsanctioned PVP is, on its own, most definitely not griefing.

I completely agree with this.

Sintaqx wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
And it must follow, as the night the day, that engaging in "unsanctioned PvP" is tantamount to being a dick.
Unsanctioned PVP is not necessarily being a 'dick'.

While it's true that it's not "necessarily" the same, it is practically the same. And I say this as someone who has been very clear that I can foresee situation where I myself would be willing to be a bit of a jerk in order to accomplish some goal.

And can we all please stop pretending that I'm calling someone a "jerk" or worse when I quote the devs using those terms?

What I've tried to do is ensure that there is enough meaningful PvP (and by that I mean PvP with mechanical, RP, world shifting, and rewarding consequences) so that those who want to fight will focus on that kind of PvP, and not running about the woods ganking everything they see. Its about incentivising desirable behaviour, rather than limiting behaviour across the board.

Unsanctioned PvP is undesirable. It's allowed, because there's a recognition that it might occasionally be worth the costs. But it's not what Goblinworks is looking for in PFO.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:

GIVEN that sanctioned PvP will not cause Alignment and Reputation loss;

GIVEN that unsanctioned PvP will cause Alignment and Reputation loss;
GIVEN that reputation is a measure of how much of a dick you are;
THEREFORE unsanctioned PvP is tantamount to being a dick.

No it isn't. That's like saying:

The amount of blood you have is a measure of your health.

GIVEN that not taking someone's blood will cause no problems and is obviously ok,
GIVEN that taking all of someone's blood is tantamount to being a murderer, and how much blood you take shows how much of a murderer you are,
THEREFORE taking someone's blood is murderous behaviour.

Except, doctors and nurses do it all the time, and for very good reason. Now if they do it too much, they'll kill their patients and get struck off - which is what we want. But a little bit of leeching here and there is actually healthy for the patient (old school thought - replace with drawing blood for blood tests in the C21st).

You are making an absolute out of a cline. It is not that simple. And in fact, I would go as far as to argue that limited unsanctioned PvP will be not just healthy but vital for a robust PfO.

Goblin Squad Member

Does not matter what Tork or Ryan have said.

It is a measure of how many times you attacked someone who has tried to opt out of PVP.

What your intent is, or how angry you are, cannot be measured by a game mechanic.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
While it's true that it's not "necessarily" the same, it is practically the same.

What? Did you actually say that? And mean it?

Nihimon wrote:

Unsanctioned PvP is undesirable. It's allowed, because there's a recognition that it might occasionally be worth the costs. But it's not what Goblinworks is looking for in PFO.

Then tell me why they say you cannot opt out of PVP? If its not something they are looking for in PFO then why have it?

***In fairness, I do not think GW can make up their minds on what to do for PVP. Back and forth.

Goblin Squad Member

@Lhan, I like your arguements

Goblin Squad Member

Lhan stated more or less what I was going to say, but his analogy is much better.

Excessive or exclusive unsanctioned PVP is bad. Those who participate in this are targeting people who do not wish to be targets, and are generally just there to harass others.

Moderate unsanctioned PVP is not bad. Those who participate in unsanctioned PVP accept loss of reputation can be a cost of doing business. Those who place themselves in a situation where they would be subject to moderated unsanctioned PVP need to accept that possibility as a cost of doing business as well. Those who participate in moderate unsanctioned PVP also recognize the need to participate in sanctioned PVP activities to maintain an acceptable reputation.

The key here is moderation. Painting all unsanctioned PVP activities with the same brush is rather ludicrous.

Goblin Squad Member

Lhan wrote:

GIVEN that not taking someone's blood will cause no problems and is obviously ok,

GIVEN that taking all of someone's blood is tantamount to being a murderer, and how much blood you take shows how much of a murderer you are,
THEREFORE taking someone's blood is murderous behaviour.

You left out the whole part about it being "Sanctioned".

GIVEN that Sanctioned Bloodletting does not subject the bloodletter to criminal penalties;
GIVEN that Unsanctioned Bloodletting does subject the bloodletter to criminal penalties;
GIVEN that being subjected to criminal penalties is a measure of how much of a criminal you are;
THEREFORE Unsanctioned Bloodletting is tantamount to being a criminal.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Lhan wrote:

GIVEN that not taking someone's blood will cause no problems and is obviously ok,

GIVEN that taking all of someone's blood is tantamount to being a murderer, and how much blood you take shows how much of a murderer you are,
THEREFORE taking someone's blood is murderous behaviour.

You left out the whole part about it being "Sanctioned".

GIVEN that Sanctioned Bloodletting does not subject the bloodletter to criminal penalties;
GIVEN that Unsanctioned Bloodletting does subject the bloodletter to criminal penalties;
GIVEN that being subjected to criminal penalties is a measure of how much of a criminal you are;
THEREFORE Unsanctioned Bloodletting is tantamount to being a criminal.

Ok, so how can it be unsanctioned when you cannot opt out of PVP? Doesnt that make PVP sanctioned no matter what?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Good - You will not be SADed and can expect help.

No Standing - Treated fairly, decent SAD options

Bad - You will be SADed but not fairly

Ugly - Reputation? What is this reputation you speak of?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@ Nihimon

I don't believe that the sanctioned part is necessary in what I said above - it is analagous to not taking blood. But if we move to your paradigm, I do not see what you have achieved. Being a criminal is easier to define than being a dick - but it too is a cline, and just because someone is a criminal it does not follow that they are bad. So calling them a criminal does not help.

Not all criminals are the same. Almost everybody has broken the law at some time or other - that makes them a criminal (putting aside the legal niceties of the differences between felonies and misdemeanours, and breaking of civil codes). How many people writing on this board have never, ever broken a single law? I know I have (underage drinking for one). In fact, in some cases, being a criminal is a heroic act. Just think about all those who smuggled Jews out of Nazi Germany, or Rosa Parks for that matter. They undoubtedly broke the law, and were therefore criminals. Were these people dicks too (to mix the analogy)?

By labelling all such behaviour dickish, your are denuding the word of all meaning. Certainly, repeated unsanctioned PvP may give a very strong indicator through the reputation mechanic that the player in question has played ... questionably. But it might just be the case that this player has the role of "remover of unwanted harvesters" for a particular group, as Sintaqx mentioned above, or something similar.

I honestly think you are looking for problems where they do not exist. The rep system will be refined through the period of EE so that it will help identify those who play in a way that is not conducive to an enjoyable experience for all. We should be concentrating on making sure that that system is robust enough to differentiate properly between the idiots and those who are engaging in legitimate unsanctioned PvP, and willingly paying the price for it.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:

_____________________________________________________________________

Bluddwolf wrote:
It has been clearly stated by the Devs, at the core of PFO is PVP!
I think telling someone that Pathfinder Online is all about PvP is like saying football is all about tackling. It fundamentally misses the point, while being technically logically defensible.
...

Overruled by the latest Dev Blog. You can keep on using obsolete Ryan Dancey quotes all you like, but the game direction has changed since then.

There is also a difference between a vision of the game, and what design is possible or even advisable.

Clearly the game developers (the actual programmers)are doing what can be done and should be done from the standpoint of making the game a viable product. What vision the CEO had may,in the end, be somewhat lost in the process.

The new Dev Blog, clear as day said, PVP is at the core of PFO. You can make whatever you want of that, but you can't make it what Ryan previously stated. The game focus has clearly changed.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Ok, so how can it be unsanctioned when you cannot opt out of PVP? Doesnt that make PVP sanctioned no matter what?

Ryan's been trying to make it clear from the very beginning that just because PFO will allow you to do attack other players for no reason at all, they don't want you to do so. Here's the latest restatement of this principle. Certain very specific and clearly defined behaviors are considered "Sanctioned PvP". Everything else is "Unsanctioned PvP".

If you want to PvP without consequence in PFO you will have to do it in one of the following ways;

1) Catch a flagged character (criminal, heinous, etc).
2) Start a feud, literally giving you the chance to choose which enemies are meaningful to you.
3) Start a war, again giving you the chance to choose with whom to fight.
4) Join one or more factions in order to take on one or more enemy factions.
5) Stand and Deliver (within its limitations).
6) Assassination (again, within its limitations. More on that another time!)
7) Pick up some bounties.
8) Take ownership/management of one or more elements of a PoI and defend them from attackers (who have initiated an attack).

Any other PvP is griefing [[ edit - too dogmatic/incendiary a term - its not 'griefing' but its PvP behaviour that only has meaning for the killer and that meaning is more often than not the maniacal joy of killing. Sometimes its for looting a player, and in such instances the benefits of potential loot should be weighed against the loss of rep/alignment. There is an appropriate trade off]]. Attacking a player without provocation or sanctions will result in reputation and alignment loss. It's basically murder. Players who engage in a lot of this behaviour will find their reputation is adversely affected, and so is the reputation of their company or settlement. Eventually their company or settlement will suck.

If you want to engage in PvP in PFO without incurring negative rep then choose one of the myriad options above. The ONLY kind of PvP that is not sanctioned is jumping players who have no quarrel with you at all and who have deliberately avoided flagging themselves for PvP. That kind of PvP is completely open to you, but it will cost you reputation and alignment. Just as it would in the Pathfinder universe, and it is afterall Golarion that we are simulating in PFO.

Goblinworks is going to make your character suck if you engage in a lot of this kind of behavior because they really don't want a lot of this kind of behavior. Their clearly stated goal is to get the players who enjoy engaging in this kind of behavior to refocus elsewhere.

On a personal note, my own judgment of the success or failure of PFO will entirely depend on whether or not my wife quits playing because she keeps getting killed for no apparent reason. If that happens, I will consider PFO a failure.

Goblin Squad Member

Lhan wrote:
By labelling all such behaviour dickish, your are denuding the word of all meaning.

I'm extremely comfortable making the judgment call that Low Reputation characters are jerks. The entire point of the Reputation system is to provide me with that particular information.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
The new Dev Blog, clear as day said, PVP is at the core of PFO.

You're right. I was wrong to take issue with your wording because I was conflating "at the core" and "all about".

At the core of Pathfinder Online is player versus player (or PvP) combat.

Goblin Squad Member

I can see now how some have said this Dev Blog has catered to Andius and Nihimon's wishes, but only if we accept the premise that unsanctioned PVP is griefing (which Nihimon attempts to imply by saying "engaging in "unsanctioned PvP" is tantamount to being a dick.")

What is alleged is that they are looking PVP to be placed in a predictable, consensual, and controlled box. Since they can't get the Devs to actually call it griefing, they will try to get the community to agree that is unseemly and just short of the borderline of griefing.

This may be why Nihimon has been so opposed to my saying that a negative reputation can not be used as an absolute indicator of griefing. This is why he and others have bee resistant to the idea that a company can have its own self interested view of "In Good Standing".

The good news is, that camp of thinking has lost almost every battle, starting with the Treaty of Rovagug. That camp has been bleeding support ever since.

Few players want theme park PVP in their Open World PVP Sandbox MMO.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nihimon wrote:
I'm extremely comfortable making the judgment call that Low Reputation characters are jerks. The entire point of the Reputation system is to provide me with that particular information.

And I have no problem with that at all (though I don't agree with it 100%).

But your statement above is not that. It is essentially that all unsanctioned PvP is dickish. That's a huge step to take. As I said above, if someone repeatedly behaves in such a way, there's a pretty good chance that this is the case. But to label someone a dick for any and all unsanctioned PvP is over gilding the lily somewhat.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
The new Dev Blog, clear as day said, PVP is at the core of PFO.

You're right. I was wrong to take issue with your wording because I was conflating "at the core" and "all about".

At the core of Pathfinder Online is player versus player (or PvP) combat.

I appreciate that you have corrected the record.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
The good news is, that camp of thinking has lost almost every battle, starting with the Treaty of Rovagug. That camp has been bleeding support ever since.

This seems to be a rather large over-exaggeration as well...

One of the reasons I joined T7V is precisely because I can argue like this freely with Stewards such as Nihimon. There is no party line that I have to toe, and I know that my arguments will be listened to, if not necessarily agreed with.

You may see it as a sign of weakness, Bludd. I see it as a sign of tolerance and a willingness to discuss (and, yes, argue) the point. That openness and inclusiveness, and more importantly freedom to express my own ideas, whatever your perception of it may be, is something I value in T7V and in Nihimon in particular.

Goblin Squad Member

Lhan wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
The good news is, that camp of thinking has lost almost every battle, starting with the Treaty of Rovagug. That camp has been bleeding support ever since.

This seems to be a rather large over-exaggeration as well...

One of the reasons I joined T7V is precisely because I can argue like this freely with Stewards such as Nihimon. There is no party line that I have to toe, and I know that my arguments will be listened to, if not necessarily agreed with.

You may see it as a sign of weakness, Bludd. I see it as a sign of tolerance and a willingness to discuss (and, yes, argue) the point. That openness and inclusiveness, and more importantly freedom to express my own ideas, whatever your perception of it may be, is something I value in T7V and in Nihimon in particular.

The Seventh Veil is a bit newer in this dispute, which is why I referred it back to the Treaty of Rovagug.

You have also been a somewhat vocal, independent voice and much more level headed then I. I have read your comments, stepped back, and said to myself, "yeah I came off harder than I should have, what a stubborn ass I can be sometimes.

I am also not saying that anyone has a weakness of their convictions, but there is a weakness of their argument or at least it is being sold weakly.

Goblin Squad Member

Lhan wrote:
... I know that my arguments will be listened to, if not necessarily agreed with.

I know that feel, bro :)

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
I can see now how some have said this Dev Blog has catered to Andius and Nihimon's wishes, but only if we accept the premise that unsanctioned PVP is griefing...
Tork Shaw wrote:
Any other PvP is griefing...

Putting aside the merits of the statement, it's utterly clear that the general idea is present in the minds of the devs.

The only real qualm I have with what you said, though, is the implication that this blog in isolation caters to my preferences with regard to PvP. In fact, the entire history of the developers' communication with us has done so.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Ryan's been trying to make it clear from the very beginning that just because PFO will allow you to do attack other players for no reason at all, they don't want you to do so. Here's the latest restatement of this principle. Certain very specific and clearly defined behaviors are considered "Sanctioned PvP". Everything else is "Unsanctioned PvP".

If they dont want you to do that at all (unsanctioned), they should remove the ability.

Nihimon wrote:
On a personal note, my own judgment of the success or failure of PFO will entirely depend on whether or not my wife quits playing because she keeps getting killed for no apparent reason. If that happens, I will consider PFO a failure.

Well of course it will be a failure to you, if she quits then you will be pressured to do the same.

I swear Im going to have a -10,000 rep character just because of discussions like this.

Oh and favorite this so you can quote it later, trust me, its effective.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
The only real qualm I have with what you said, though, is the implication that this blog in isolation caters to my preferences with regard to PvP. In fact, the entire history of the developers' communication with us has done so.

Done what? Catered to your preferences with regard to PVP?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwulf wrote:
You have also been a somewhat vocal, independent voice and much more level headed then I. I have read your comments, stepped back, and said to myself, "yeah I came off harder than I should have, what a stubborn ass I can be sometimes.

Bludd, I thank you for that, but believe me I have felt exactly the same about you on more than one occasion.

1 to 50 of 142 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / UNC Definition of "In Good, Bad and Ugly Standing" All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.