good vs evil; law vs chaos


Pathfinder Online

51 to 100 of 136 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Goblin Squad Member

Standings
Security Status

There is no random player killing in a sandbox mmo pvp game... Which means, unlike the nonsense Nihimon tried use as a justifier, PVP in a mmo sandbox pvp game is meant to happen. No matter the reason... Attacking someone just to see if you can beat them in combat is enough of a reason.

Whether both parties know why the PVP is taking place means NOTHING in an Open World Sandbox PVP game.

The devs added Reputation to make sure that its not just another slaughter fest outside the starter gates type game.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Aeioun Plainsweed wrote:
A question for those that have played EVE: Is there a separate reputation/alignment system in EVE like GW plans to implement in PFO? That would be nice to hear.

No.

Imagine if the Alignment and Reputation system in PFO only ever mattered while you were in the NPC Settlements. That's effectively what EVE is like.

Wrong again, that is what the Standings System is for. It covers alignment based on other players and NPC entities. If your standing is low with the NPC's they will shoot at you.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Aeioun Plainsweed wrote:
A question for those that have played EVE: Is there a separate reputation/alignment system in EVE like GW plans to implement in PFO? That would be nice to hear.

No.

Imagine if the Alignment and Reputation system in PFO only ever mattered while you were in the NPC Settlements. That's effectively what EVE is like.

Wrong again, that is what the Standings System is for. It covers alignment based on other players and NPC entities. If your standing is low with the NPC's they will shoot at you.

How stupid of me. Thanks for correcting me.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Aeioun Plainsweed wrote:
A question for those that have played EVE: Is there a separate reputation/alignment system in EVE like GW plans to implement in PFO? That would be nice to hear.

No.

Imagine if the Alignment and Reputation system in PFO only ever mattered while you were in the NPC Settlements. That's effectively what EVE is like.

In PFO it will be effective in the NPC settlements and in the PC settlements that wish to follow it.

If I had a settlement, lets call it "Blighthaven", a Chaotic Evil and Low Reputation settlement. I will open access to this settlement to any alignment and reputation level, including +7500 LG Paladins and at the same time -7500 Chaotic Evil Necromancers.

I don't care what the Gods say or believe. I don't care what the reputation system implies. I only care about two things when it comes to my citizens: How effective are you at what you do?, What have you done for the settlement lately?

The belief is, that a negative Reputation settlement will be gimped compared to a non-negative reputation settlement.

In what way(s)?

What are the goals of the settlement?

What impact on effectiveness are we talking about?

When will we experience the disadvantages created by the low reputation?

Could those disadvantages be compensated for, by numbers?

Will the lack of a steep power curve allow the disadvantaged to largely ignore those effects?

How will Goblin Works respond if this is the reality for a large segment of the server population?

My prediction is that the NPC settlements will be relatively safe (just as Hi Sec in EVE is safe). Everywhere else in the game world, the typical Open World PVP culture will prevail. The average Open World PVP player doesn't care about the lore, alignments, reputation or the vision of the developers. They will make the game into what they want to, "Mob Rule" will prevail.

It is up to the players and their organizations to create the safe zones that they wish. The only way they can do that is by having the strength and the threat of using that strength to protect themselves.

"Roll in force or be rolled by force."

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
In PFO it will be effective in the NPC settlements and in the PC settlements that wish to follow it.

And the devs will make it very costly for PCs to ignore it.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:

If I had a settlement, lets call it "Blighthaven", a Chaotic Evil and Low Reputation settlement. I will open access to this settlement to any alignment and reputation level, including +7500 LG Paladins and at the same time -7500 Chaotic Evil Necromancers.

I don't care what the Gods say or believe. I don't care what the reputation system implies. I only care about two things when it comes to my citizens: How effective are you at what you do?, What have you done for the settlement lately?

The belief is, that a negative Reputation settlement will be gimped compared to a non-negative reputation settlement.

In what way(s)?

What are the goals of the settlement?

What impact on effectiveness are we talking about?

When will we experience the disadvantages created by the low reputation?

Could those disadvantages be compensated for, by numbers?

Will the lack of a steep power curve allow the disadvantaged to largely ignore those effects?

How will Goblin Works respond if this is the reality for a large segment of the server population?

My prediction is that the NPC settlements will be relatively safe (just as Hi Sec in EVE is safe). Everywhere else in the game world, the typical Open World PVP culture will prevail. The average Open World PVP player doesn't care about the lore, alignments, reputation or the vision of the developers. They will make the game into what they want to, "Mob Rule" will prevail.

It is up to the players and their organizations to create the safe zones that they wish. The...

So if someone would bring a large enough a force of people into the game that only care about what settlement or company colors you wear, completely ignoring the reputation, alignment and faction system, they could brutally rule the world! I hear you. I think this is something GW should consider carefully. Thanks Bludd :)

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:


The average Open World PVP player doesn't care about the lore, alignments, reputation or the vision of the developers. They will make the game into what they want to, "Mob Rule" will prevail.

Which is really sad. The lore and ability to breath life into characters and environment is what RPGs are supposed to be all about. It will be interesting to see how many backers in EE are the Open World PvP crowd versus the Pathfinder Tabletop crowd. The latter group is much more likely to be collaborative and to focus more strongly on the lore elements.

Let's face it, though, the play styles that are most prevalent during EE are likely to determine the nature of players that are drawn in during OE. Incoming players will judge the game by the established player base and from there a feedback loop is likely to establish. This is why EE is going to be a critical time for tweaking systems and making sure incentives and disincentives are balanced properly well before OE.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
In PFO it will be effective in the NPC settlements and in the PC settlements that wish to follow it.
And the devs will make it very costly for PCs to ignore it.

An Unproven assumption and unenforceable if the server population ignoring it is significant or represents the majority.

I listed several questions above which I believe are pertinent to this discussion. It is not just how GW will answer those questions, but whether or not they can create systems to address them.

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
An Unproven assumption...

Everything that's been said about what the game will be like when it's opened for Early Enrollment is currently unproven.

Bluddwolf wrote:
... and unenforceable if the server population ignoring it is significant or represents the majority.

Nonsense.

Simple solution - Any training facility requires Reputation > 0 in order to use. Any Feat facility requires Reputation > 0 in order to slot the feat.

I'm sure the devs will come up with much better solutions than mine.

It doesn't matter how many people are "ignoring" Reputation if they all suck :)

Goblin Squad Member

Bluddwolf wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
In PFO it will be effective in the NPC settlements and in the PC settlements that wish to follow it.
And the devs will make it very costly for PCs to ignore it.

An Unproven assumption and unenforceable if the server population ignoring it is significant or represents the majority.

I listed several questions above which I believe are pertinent to this discussion. It is not just how GW will answer those questions, but whether or not they can create systems to address them.

Assuming that Reputation penalties are something that PCs could or could not band together to ignore is poor form either way. Until we know how the game is going to actually use Reputation as incentive/disincentive we can do nothing more than speculate. And that may as well be useless at this point. So how about we wait and see how the devs intend to build the system out. From there, we can poke holes in it and offer constructive criticism in order to get it to fulfill its intended purpose. We just need to have some patience until that time arrives.

Goblin Squad Member

We know only that as described, Blighthaven will 'suck'. Wasn't that the post? So I assume it will 'suck' in the components that have been mentioned as making up a settlement. Limited DI to spend? Limited functionality of buildings? I believe limited training has been mentioned-though Blighthaven ought to be able to train a CE Necro all the way up, imho. Otherwise, Lord Bozo-I mean Sepherum-does not know.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
An Unproven assumption...

Everything that's been said about what the game will be like when it's opened for Early Enrollment is currently unproven.

Bluddwolf wrote:
... and unenforceable if the server population ignoring it is significant or represents the majority.

Nonsense.

Simple solution - Any training facility requires Reputation > 0 in order to use. Any Feat facility requires Reputation > 0 in order to slot the feat.

I'm sure the devs will come up with much better solutions than mine.

It doesn't matter how many people are "ignoring" Reputation if they all suck :)

And if Marshalls whack 'em and take their stuff-this wherever GW says so. It will be interesting to know where.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
An Unproven assumption...

Everything that's been said about what the game will be like when it's opened for Early Enrollment is currently unproven.

Bluddwolf wrote:
... and unenforceable if the server population ignoring it is significant or represents the majority.

Nonsense.

Simple solution - Any training facility requires Reputation > 0 in order to use. Any Feat facility requires Reputation > 0 in order to slot the feat.

I'm sure the devs will come up with much better solutions than mine.

It doesn't matter how many people are "ignoring" Reputation if they all suck :)

Nonsense.

Your simple solution is assuming that GW does not plan to let Settlements control who can and who cannot train at their training houses... GW already said that settlements will control it.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Aeioun Plainsweed wrote:
A question for those that have played EVE: Is there a separate reputation/alignment system in EVE like GW plans to implement in PFO? That would be nice to hear.

No.

Imagine if the Alignment and Reputation system in PFO only ever mattered while you were in the NPC Settlements. That's effectively what EVE is like.

Wrong again, that is what the Standings System is for. It covers alignment based on other players and NPC entities. If your standing is low with the NPC's they will shoot at you.
How stupid of me. Thanks for correcting me.

Allow me to correct you even further... Maybe you will understand it, but you know... I thought you played Eve so you would understand already.

Standings are for NPC factions, which allow NPC's and opposed faction players to shoot at you... JUST LIKE ALIGNMENT AND FACTIONS IN PFO WILL BE

Standings are also for Players to set toward each other... You know NBSI or NeRDS? Yeah, thats where it came from.

Secrutiy Status is very similar to Reputation... You will not be accepted in NPC territory, allowing NPC's and Players free reign to attack you if low enough... IN PLAYER AREAS IT IS UP TO THE PLAYERS

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Simple solution - Any Feat facility requires Reputation > 0 in order to slot the feat.

I think we've been told that the NPC burgs will be the settlements of last resort; if a player doesn't belong to a player settlement, then she'll belong to one of the NPC settlements.

I could certainly understand the NPC settlements having rudimentary training, with limited numbers of possible feats. Still, training and slotting feats might require other gates than just belonging to a settlement. Even Thornkeep might not allow the lowest gutter dwellers access to all the possible training in their facilities.

While we know the power curve between levels won't be 'steep', there's a lot of room between not steep and flat. We also don't know the power differential between low rep and high rep, and that might/could be more significant that the power differential between levels.

Serephum wrote:
Limited DI to spend? Limited functionality of buildings? I believe limited training has been mentioned-though Blighthaven ought to be able to train a CE Necro all the way up, imho.

If there is a limit to DI, it will certainly Blighthaven's ability to effectively wage war. I'd say though, that being a necromancer is just evil, it doesn't affect reputation.

Goblin Squad Member

Xeen wrote:
Your simple solution is assuming that GW does not plan to let Settlements control who can and who cannot train at their training houses... GW already said that settlements will control it.

Actually, it's based on my ability to read.

Reputation gating isn't really about what your town wants. There are just buildings that you can't install or keep running if they're going to have disreputable folks around them.

Frankly, I'm glad that UNC has revealed itself to be so blatantly pro-griefer. I'm puzzled by Pax's decision to publicly support this, but if that's what they're really all about, then I suppose it's a good thing the community learns about that now, too.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Xeen wrote:
Your simple solution is assuming that GW does not plan to let Settlements control who can and who cannot train at their training houses... GW already said that settlements will control it.

Actually, it's based on my ability to read.

Reputation gating isn't really about what your town wants. There are just buildings that you can't install or keep running if they're going to have disreputable folks around them.
Frankly, I'm glad that UNC has revealed itself to be so blatantly pro-griefer. I'm puzzled by Pax's decision to publicly support this, but if that's what they're really all about, then I suppose it's a good thing the community learns about that now, too.

Blatantly pro-griefer?

Of course you cannot install certain buildings if you do not have the right alignment or the right reputation. That has nothing to do with training directly (the building may). Also, try taking into context the rest of the quote...

Goblin Squad Member

I've been looking for a quote I vaguely remember, perhaps by Dancey. It sounded like they had already considered the idea of a high rep settlement providing training to low rep allies. iirc, the answer was basically if you don't have the rep to train something, it doesn't matter where you go or how much you're willing to spend.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
I've been looking for a quote I vaguely remember, perhaps by Dancey. It sounded like they had already considered the idea of a high rep settlement providing training to low rep allies. iirc, the answer was basically if you don't have the rep to train something, it doesn't matter where you go or how much you're willing to spend.

Yep, I remember that too. The skills you train have requirements which could include reputation.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Do we need to hijack yet another thread with this fight? Come on folks, this thread is about what causes players to earn points towards Law/Chaos/Good/Evil. I would imagine frequently assaulting/killing other players is a tilt towards evil, but let's take the reputation talk and comparisons to Eve, which has no alignment system to my knowledge, to more appropriate threads.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
comparisons to Eve, which has no alignment system to my knowledge

I explained that it does.

But you are correct, it should end... again

Goblin Squad Member

@Xeen - I thought you described Standings, which is like a Reputation system per faction. Alignment is a single cosmic identifier, completely independent of factions. Many factions have unifying alignments, but factions do not necessarily make judgments based on those alignments. Being Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil does not give you an automatic in with the Hellknights anymore than being Chaotic Good sets you in good graces with neighboring Kyonin.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
Nihimon wrote:
Simple solution - Any Feat facility requires Reputation > 0 in order to slot the feat.

I think we've been told that the NPC burgs will be the settlements of last resort; if a player doesn't belong to a player settlement, then she'll belong to one of the NPC settlements.

I could certainly understand the NPC settlements having rudimentary training, with limited numbers of possible feats. Still, training and slotting feats might require other gates than just belonging to a settlement. Even Thornkeep might not allow the lowest gutter dwellers access to all the possible training in their facilities.

While we know the power curve between levels won't be 'steep', there's a lot of room between not steep and flat. We also don't know the power differential between low rep and high rep, and that might/could be more significant that the power differential between levels.

Serephum wrote:
Limited DI to spend? Limited functionality of buildings? I believe limited training has been mentioned-though Blighthaven ought to be able to train a CE Necro all the way up, imho.
If there is a limit to DI, it will certainly Blighthaven's ability to effectively wage war. I'd say though, that being a necromancer is just evil, it doesn't affect reputation.

I sincerely hope you can roleplay CE, raise undead, get the Heinous Flag, etc. and still have high rep. That's the meaningful pvp we want to base the game on./Edit yeah just saw the post above referenced by Nihimon that says Stephen Cheney thinks a high rep CE settlement will be difficult but possible.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
@Xeen - I thought you described Standings, which is like a Reputation system per faction. Alignment is a single cosmic identifier, completely independent of factions. Many factions have unifying alignments, but factions do not necessarily make judgments based on those alignments. Being Lawful Neutral or Lawful Evil does not give you an automatic in with the Hellknights anymore than being Chaotic Good sets you in good graces with neighboring Kyonin.

Security status is similar to Reputation

Standings are similar to alignment... The big difference (which is why its not called alignment) is that Standings are what others think of you not how you are... You may be considered a LG hero in Amarr Empire but considered a CE villain in the Minmatar Republic.

It is blurred a bit

You could swap security status and standings to do the comparison... The thing to consider though is this..

Security Status is based on combat with other players in unsanctioned ways. But it also is a single cosmic identifier...

They are not the same things, but we can compare them to consider certain conclusions. They will not be completely correct but it will give us a basis.

Goblin Squad Member

Lifedragn wrote:
Do we need to hijack yet another thread with this fight? Come on folks, this thread is about what causes players to earn points towards Law/Chaos/Good/Evil. I would imagine frequently assaulting/killing other players is a tilt towards evil, but let's take the reputation talk and comparisons to Eve, which has no alignment system to my knowledge, to more appropriate threads.

I think what the problem is is trying to tie an alignment system, which is role playing, to a point system which is game mechanics. Then there is the "soft demand" that players will role play their alignments, and at the same time favoring certain alignments over others.

My contention is that the Open World PVP community will not conform to that.

In PFO you will have a zerg company of 1500+ members named "The Devil Went Down to Georgia" led by a Necromancing - Paladin named "Luke Skywalker" living in a settlement named "Barbie Princess's Crystal Palace".

This is what you get from the Open World PVP culture. I personally would rather have a little bit of RP remain sacred, but I've learned to accept the realities of this genre of gaming.

So if there is a system that has you earn points towards one alignment or another, what is GW's response if a vast majority of the server population ends up being Chaotic Evil (for example)?

What if only two factions end up with 90% of the server population, and the choice of them has nothign to do with RP and everything to do with min/maxing?

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
Lifedragn wrote:
Do we need to hijack yet another thread with this fight? Come on folks, this thread is about what causes players to earn points towards Law/Chaos/Good/Evil. I would imagine frequently assaulting/killing other players is a tilt towards evil, but let's take the reputation talk and comparisons to Eve, which has no alignment system to my knowledge, to more appropriate threads.

I think what the problem is is trying to tie an alignment system, which is role playing, to a point system which is game mechanics. Then there is the "soft demand" that players will role play their alignments, and at the same time favoring certain alignments over others.

My contention is that the Open World PVP community will not conform to that.

In PFO you will have a zerg company of 1500+ members named "The Devil Went Down to Georgia" led by a Necromancing - Paladin named "Luke Skywalker" living in a settlement named "Barbie Princess's Crystal Palace".

This is what you get from the Open World PVP culture. I personally would rather have a little bit of RP remain sacred, but I've learned to accept the realities of this genre of gaming.

So if there is a system that has you earn points towards one alignment or another, what is GW's response if a vast majority of the server population ends up being Chaotic Evil (for example)?

Here's hoping that GW puts out a naming policy for characters, companies, settlements, etc and sticks to it, at least.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sennajin wrote:
Here's hoping that GW puts out a naming policy for characters, companies, settlements, etc and sticks to it, at least.

They've been remarkably consistent...

A lot of folks choose to grief others right from the start, through the selection of their character names. This griefing can come in the form of simple anachronisms—using names that are wildly out of scope for the game in question. But there are also more overt uses of this tactic, like naming a character "Jesus" or "Hitler"—names designed to really anger some segment of the player population. And there is the issue of character names owned by someone else—names from popular fiction or movies, or well-known celebrities, or even pseudonyms with well-known personalities behind them, like CmdrTaco or Gabe and Tycho.

All of these problems fall into a bucket I call "bad names." A bad name is a name that makes our game less fun, angers someone else, breaks immersion, is a copyright or trademark infringement, or identity theft.

We're going to have a very tough policy on bad names. We reserve the right, at any time, for any reason, to make you choose a new name.

Goblinworks Executive Founder

1 person marked this as a favorite.

We can talk about alignment and reputation without directing attacks at other players, can't we.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:

So if there is a system that has you earn points towards one alignment or another, what is GW's response if a vast majority of the server population ends up being Chaotic Evil (for example)?

What if only two factions end up with 90% of the server population, and the choice of them has nothign to do with RP and everything to do with min/maxing?

I'd suggest that if the vast majority of the active server population ends up in one alignment, then They didn't balance things very well. I'll assume/predict that things can be adjusted before any one alignment (or alignment band) becomes too dominant.

Likewise, if two factions (whether you mean NPC factions or PC national alliances) end up with 90% of the server population for an extended time, then possibly They could have or will introduce incentives/rewards/consequences that discourage hegemony. Tork has already explained that it will be more expensive for a large company to feud against a small company; such maths will likely also be in play at the settlement and nation levels of play.

For every criminal act, every good act, every lawful and every evil act, there will a number or set of numbers: what the consequences are, positive or negative. If there is a number in the bowels of Their server-side code, it can be adjusted if They need to adjust it for balance. If the players think the penalties of being alignment XZ are insignificant compared to the benefits, then They can quietly (or not) adjust those consequences.

Goblin Squad Member

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:


My contention is that the Open World PVP community will not conform to that.

In PFO you will have a zerg company of 1500+ members named "The Devil Went Down to Georgia" led by a Necromancing - Paladin named "Luke Skywalker" living in a settlement named "Barbie Princess's Crystal Palace".

This is what you get from the Open World PVP culture. I personally would rather have a little bit of RP remain sacred, but I've learned to accept the realities of this genre of gaming.

So if there is a system that has you earn points towards one alignment or another, what is GW's response if a vast majority of the server population ends up being Chaotic Evil (for example)?

What if only two factions end up with 90% of the server population, and the choice of them has nothign to do with RP and everything to do with min/maxing?

I would not say the majority needs to conform to that. We simply need enough to do so in order to make Alignment meaningful. My assumption is that most players will choose an alignment based on potential benefits (such as alignment specific skills). It is then up to the game system to measure as to whether they are playing appropriately and adjusting / gating skill use as appropriate. Slotting Smite Evil and Animate Undead at the same time should be impossible through game mechanics.

If the majority of the server population ends up being Chaotic Evil, that would mean that they failed to balance to benefits of various alignments properly. If they think they'll make more money by letting it stay that way, then there is little I can do but take my money elsewhere.

There is a lot of speculation here that the player base is going to go the complete opposite direction of where the developers hope to design for. I am not naive enough to think that there will not be problematic elements actively trying to break the game for others. But I fully expect the developers to be putting deep thought into these exact situations you describe so that they can design appropriately.

Many good things have come out of situations where others were yelling "It'll never work!" This may not be one of them. But perhaps we can stop naysaying long enough to see how it develops?

Back on topic... having a zerg company of 1500+ members named "The Devil Went Down to Georgia" led by a Necromancing - Paladin named "Luke Skywalker" living in a settlement named "Barbie Princess's Crystal Palace" would definitely be a Chaotic Act. Potentially Evil as well.

Goblin Squad Member

Teeth are fine, to a point. Just look at poor Agrajag.

A reputation system with severe, undesirable, and lasting repercussions may seem ideal, but be careful what you wish for, you may get it.

I've pointed out a fair number of instances across multiple threads where the reputation system will 'punish' me for participation in activities that, while unsanctioned, are valid, viable, and ultimately desirable options. Many are even options that a LG+Rep settlement will want to use to combat the ravening hordes that will threaten their doorstep.

Goblin Squad Member

Sintaqx wrote:
I've pointed out a fair number of instances across multiple threads where the reputation system will 'punish' me for participation in activities that, while unsanctioned, are valid, viable, and ultimately desirable options.

And I've pointed out just as often that your assumption that those activities will be unsanctioned is baseless.

Goblin Squad Member

If you honestly believe that Bludd of all people is trying to push the game towards a griefer haven I can only assume that you haven't dealt with actual griefers in any legitimate sense. I say this with the utmost respect, but Bludd is a pussy-cat compared to some people that will come into this game. Bludd wants to play by the rules, he has a general respect for RP, and he seems like a legitimately pleasant person. Those things are not going to be true of the people you actually have to worry about.

Hell, he doesn't even hold the most 'extremist' views on these forums. If I had my way I would push the game in a much more unforgiving direction.

Bluddwolf isn't who you have to worry about. He isn't going to be the harbinger of the Fall. He doesn't have the stomach for it (and I say that, again, with the utmost respect towards Bludd, I consider that an admirable quality.)

Goblin Squad Member

Morbis wrote:
... Bludd... seems like a legitimately pleasant person.

I agree. When I've chatted with him on TeamSpeak, I've found him to be quite personable and reasoned.

What I fail to understand is why he is so convinced that PFO will fail to do the things that Ryan has been saying from the very beginning are critical to its success.

How do you reconcile these two statements?

Bluddwolf wrote:

My contention is that the Open World PVP community will not conform to that.

In PFO you will have a zerg company of 1500+ members named "The Devil Went Down to Georgia" led by a Necromancing - Paladin named "Luke Skywalker" living in a settlement named "Barbie Princess's Crystal Palace".

Ryan Dancey wrote:
We're going to have a very tough policy on bad names. We reserve the right, at any time, for any reason, to make you choose a new name.

What goal is served by Bluddwolf loudly and consistently claiming that Ryan will fail in his stated goals?

Goblin Squad Member

Morbis wrote:

If you honestly believe that Bludd of all people is trying to push the game towards a griefer haven I can only assume that you haven't dealt with actual griefers in any legitimate sense. I say this with the utmost respect, but Bludd is a pussy-cat compared to some people that will come into this game. Bludd wants to play by the rules, he has a general respect for RP, and he seems like a legitimately pleasant person. Those things are not going to be true of the people you actually have to worry about.

Hell, he doesn't even hold the most 'extremist' views on these forums. If I had my way I would push the game in a much more unforgiving direction.

Bluddwolf isn't who you have to worry about. He isn't going to be the harbinger of the Fall. He doesn't have the stomach for it (and I say that, again, with the utmost respect towards Bludd, I consider that an admirable quality.)

I would agree to the mechanic that once you hit -7500 Reputation, Pharasma will reject you, and all of your threads are revoked for an extended time period.

For those that say, "Well that just means that a player will go to -7499 and then stop." That is the nature of nearly everything. There always has to be a start and a cut-off point.

Goblin Squad Member

Sintaqx wrote:

Teeth are fine, to a point. ... A reputation system with severe, undesirable, and lasting repercussions may seem ideal, but be careful what you wish for, you may get it.

I've pointed out a fair number of instances across multiple threads where the reputation system will 'punish' me for participation in activities that, while unsanctioned, are valid, viable, and ultimately desirable options. Many are even options that a LG+Rep settlement will want to use to combat the ravening hordes that will threaten their doorstep.

Agreed. Any bandit group worth talking about will have 1 or more LG(high rep) camp follower who is just devoted to the bandit king and wants to carry his treasure and protect it from counter bandit patrols. Armies will travel with mis-aligned scouts. All sorts of shenagigans will be played in this fashion. The alignment/reputation system needs to have enough wiggle-room to allow people to eventually recover from killing such alts.

And sometimes players will just decide to change the path their character is on. There needs to be space in the alignment/reputation system for a bandit to turn champion and a paladin to forsake his vows.

Goblin Squad Member

Nihimon wrote:
Morbis wrote:
... Bludd... seems like a legitimately pleasant person.

I agree. When I've chatted with him on TeamSpeak, I've found him to be quite personable and reasoned.

What I fail to understand is why he is so convinced that PFO will fail to do the things that Ryan has been saying from the very beginning are critical to its success.

How do you reconcile these two statements?

Bluddwolf wrote:

My contention is that the Open World PVP community will not conform to that.

In PFO you will have a zerg company of 1500+ members named "The Devil Went Down to Georgia" led by a Necromancing - Paladin named "Luke Skywalker" living in a settlement named "Barbie Princess's Crystal Palace".

Ryan Dancey wrote:
We're going to have a very tough policy on bad names. We reserve the right, at any time, for any reason, to make you choose a new name.
What goal is served by Bluddwolf loudly and consistently claiming that Ryan will fail in his stated goals?

I think PFO can succeed, even if one or more of Ryan Dancey's visions fail.

I've never been a fan of the alignment system, not since 1977, because I find it limits role playing. I've been consistent with this.

I've never had an issue with reputation consequences for my actions, I have always considered them a part of the role. What I have not liked is the perceived imbalance of them, especially when there were alignment based flags.

I have never felt they had a strong enough response to true griefers. Even though they may eliminate most griefing from the starter settlements.

I will never support game mechanics to limit player interactions, when a better solution is to allow players to do that for themselves.

Even in my most recent idea of a -7500 character being stripped of the graces of Pharasma, it is other players that will truly punish this individual.

My ultimate goal is to rob other players, consistently, and to maintain a +5000 Reputation while doing it. That means using SADs, Feuds, Wars, Faction and occasionally ambush against unsanctioned targets.

Goblin Squad Member

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bluddwolf wrote:
They will make the game into what they want to, "Mob Rule" will prevail.
Bluddwolf wrote:
I have never felt they had a strong enough response to true griefers.

With respect Bludd, this is why I will fight you tooth and nail on everything you say that encourages this to happen. If you want mob rule, then play Darkfall. Or any of the other failing games out there (by the way, your claim that there are now more people playing DF just isn't true - the NA pop has dropped from 8.5k to 5.7k since Goblin Squad started). We have an opportunity here with PfO to create something different - and I for one hope that we can. And why the qualification of true griefers? I'm sorry but neither you nor I get to decide who or what a true griefer is. That is GW's call and theirs alone. Your constant attempts to muddy those waters are - to use Pentagonspeak - unhelpful.

Please note that I am categorically not advocating a "carebear" environment. I am just advocating the acceptance that a) not everybody wants to play this game the same way, b) we are all paying customers and c) that is the bottom line. People don't care whether something is random or not - they care whether it is fair - and unfortunately just about everyone has a different definition of fair. Most people won't pay for a game they consider to be unfair to them and their friends (they won't care about the rest of the community much). I am sure that GW is not blind to the opportunity to tap into a market that EvE will never get, the PvE/"fair" (whatever that may mean) PvP crowd - which is frankly likely to be a much larger market than the die-hard PvP market. Bear that in mind.

Bluddwolf wrote:
My ultimate goal is to rob other players, consistently, and to maintain a +5000 Reputation while doing it. That means using SADs, Feuds, Wars, Faction and occasionally ambush against unsanctioned targets.

If that is true, then I applaud you for it. Until, of course, such time as you'll be robbing me :)

Goblin Squad Member

Bludd's right there will be many more steps in the design process in regards to this conversation I would think: If any of the systems are protean then this must be one of the most so?

One idea that struck me among eg range of Pharasma taking away her favour, would be Alignment based on proximity to other same aligned? I wonder if that sort of way to describe if someone really is a particular alignment has some utility amongst others?

Goblin Squad Member

@Bludd, thus far I believe only the bannable offences have been said to be vague and arbitrary, not the penalties for low reputation or possible penalties for alignment. There very well could be a reduction of threads as your reputation decreases, with certain people dancing along the threshholds for losing more threads. That scenario is not removed from the realm of possibility, as far as I know. You seemed to imply with "there has to be a start and cut-off point" that these systems would be arbitrary as well, which I don't think they will. Sorry if I misunderstood the intent of the example.

Digital Products Assistant

Removed a few posts. Leave personal sniping out of the discussion.

Goblin Squad Member

Urman wrote:
We also don't know the power differential between low rep and high rep, and that might/could be more significant that the power differential between levels.

We don't need to know that. All we need to know is that from the beginning, the devs have been clear that if you're Low Reputation, your character will suck, and that you become Low Reputation by engaging in generally griefy behavior.

The number of humans who really enjoy mindlessly killing others is much smaller than people think it is, but the damage they can do to a community or to a game design that doesn't anticipate their actions is massively disproportionate to their numbers.
You'll very likely be unable to kill whomever you want. A lot of characters will be more powerful than you, and have better stuff than you, and when you die and lose stuff, it will be harder (more expensive) for you to replace it.

There's been no change on this front from what we've told you about alignment and rep previously. That is, we expect the majority of CE characters to also have very low reputation, because ganking lowers all three axes. So Ryan's shorthand is "CE will suck," because we genuinely believe that there won't be very many CE players that maintain high reputation.

There are a few of you that plan to play CE as a roleplaying choice, and try to make sure you're only doing it in a way that doesn't cost you too much rep. That's awesome, and we really hope you succeed. If you have a high-rep CE town, the penalties are the minimal ones that we've mentioned before; it's the low-rep that really hurts you. But we still expect that CE will be very strongly correlated with low-rep, because we don't expect that the majority of players coming in outside of the forum community will be choosing CE for roleplay, just drifting there due to behaviors that also lower rep.

If the early enrollees manage to set up enough high-rep CE settlements to create and maintain an expectation of "playing CE but not being a jerk about it" among later players, that'd be great. Just don't get your hearts set on pulling it off :) .

*Reputation on the other hand have a major power effect on settlements and what they can build. Low Reputation will mean your town is a wretched hive of scum and villainy, not the sort of thing that attracts high end trainers, scholars, merchants, etc. Reputation is generally lowered by more grief oriented PvP, which also often will trend a PC towards CE, so if a settlement has a low Reputation it will most likely also be CE. This is not necessarily true, but likely. If you have a town full of CE people who are bloodthirsty barbarians who don't do a lot of griefing but instead are declaring war all the time, they can totally have a high Reputation, max level Barbarian trainer, etc (but not a Monk trainer since they are Chaotic, a only CN/NE/NE temples, and inefficient upkeep costs). One of the reasons for settlement Reputation is to discourage pointless griefing on a social level; if someone from your town is out ganking new players and tanking his Reputation that affects the whole town's Reputation and you don't want him to do that.

Goblin Squad Member

Chris Lambertz wrote:
Leave personal sniping out of the discussion.

I shall endeavor.

Goblin Squad Member

Lhan wrote:
Bluddwolf wrote:
They will make the game into what they want to, "Mob Rule" will prevail.
Bluddwolf wrote:
I have never felt they had a strong enough response to true griefers.

With respect Bludd, this is why I will fight you tooth and nail on everything you say that encourages this to happen. If you want mob rule, then play Darkfall. Or any of the other failing games out there (by the way, your claim that there are now more people playing DF just isn't true - the NA pop has dropped from 8.5k to 5.7k since Goblin Squad started). We have an opportunity here with PfO to create something different - and I for one hope that we can. And why the qualification of true griefers? I'm sorry but neither you nor I get to decide who or what a true griefer is. That is GW's call and theirs alone. Your constant attempts to muddy those waters are - to use Pentagonspeak - unhelpful.

Please note that I am categorically not advocating a "carebear" environment. I am just advocating the acceptance that a) not everybody wants to play this game the same way, b) we are all paying customers and c) that is the bottom line. People don't care whether something is random or not - they care whether it is fair - and unfortunately just about everyone has a different definition of fair. Most people won't pay for a game they consider to be unfair to them and their friends (they won't care about the rest of the community much). I am sure that GW is not blind to the opportunity to tap into a market that EvE will never get, the PvE/"fair" (whatever that may mean) PvP crowd - which is frankly likely to be a much larger market than the die-hard PvP market. Bear that in mind.

Bluddwolf wrote:
My ultimate goal is to rob other players, consistently, and to maintain a +5000 Reputation while doing it. That means using SADs, Feuds, Wars, Faction and occasionally ambush against unsanctioned targets.
If that is true, then I applaud you for it. Until, of course, such time as you'll be robbing me :)

Lhan,

You are fighting tooth and nail in the wrong battle. You are confusing what I want, with what I expect, with what I will accept. The three are not the same, as you will likely acknowledge.

I have stated several times, how I intend to play the game. I have stated what I believe to be griefing and have pledged that I would not lower myself to that behavior under most circumstances. I leave that last part in for those that would be griefers towards me or my own. I'm an "Eye for an Eye" kind of guy.

If you ask me, do I think PFO will be any different culturally from other Open World PvP MMO out there? My honest answer is no. If PFO turned out to be that way, would it be a deal breaker for me? Absolutely Not. Would I prefer a bloodbath? No. Can I have fun in a bloodbath? Sure!

None of this is advocating for the game to be one way or the other. It is just an expectation.

51 to 100 of 136 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Licensed Products / Digital Games / Pathfinder Online / good vs evil; law vs chaos All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.