Goblin Squad Member
|
In your statement there is only one resolution and that is to SAD at 100% to then convert the situation to sanctioned.
You were advocating 100% SADs should be sanctioned PvP this morning!
Lets ask straight up to be clear for the record.
Do you believe 100% SAD's on targets that would be unsanctioned should have 0% reputation slide or even prompt reputation gains?
Do you believe SADing people should flag you? How long should that flag last?
Do you believe that SAD's should prompt chaotic or evil alignment slide?
Do you believe that SAD's should allow their victims to place bounties on the person who issued it?
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Could you perhaps describe how you would view a character of high reputation in the eyes of a company or settlement leader?
I wonder how good this character will be in a fight. I wonder if this player will do what it takes to withstand hostile incursions from unknown forces? I wonder how this player will react when called on to take one for the team.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Could you perhaps describe how you would view a character of high reputation in the eyes of a company or settlement leader?I wonder how good this character will be in a fight. I wonder if this player will do what it takes to withstand hostile incursions from unknown forces? I wonder how this player will react when called on to take one for the team.
Would those actions be a reflection of the high reputation or would or would a high reputation be the result of those actions?
Bottom line what many are wondering is, what will generate positive gains in reputation?
Do we gain reputation over time, passively?
Do we gain reputation from active, positive game play?
Do we gain reputation for sanctioned PVP, crafting, exploration, gathering, healing, managing a settlement, etc?
Do we gain reputation from PVE activities?
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Do we gain reputation over time, passively?
I don't know. I thnk that is a part of the plan.
Do we gain reputation from active, positive game play?
Almost certainly.
Do we gain reputation for sanctioned PVP, crafting, exploration, gathering, healing, managing a settlement, etc?
As far as I know there is nothing called "sanctioned PvP". As far as the rest I think almost certainly.
Do we gain reputation from PVE activities?
Almost certainly.
I may be out of synch with the designers, who may be planning a pure rep over time system, but I don't think the plan has been made that final yet.
I may be out of synch with the designers, who may be planning a pure rep over time system, but I don't think the plan has been made that final yet.
Why not have both? The more rewards for positive gameplay the better. And what could be more positive than renewing one's subscription every month? :-)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In your statement there is only one resolution and that is to SAD at 100% to then convert the situation to sanctioned.You were advocating 100% SADs should be sanctioned PvP this morning!
Lets ask straight up to be clear for the record.
Do you believe 100% SAD's on targets that would be unsanctioned should have 0% reputation slide or even prompt reputation gains?
Do you believe SADing people should flag you? How long should that flag last?
Do you believe that SAD's should prompt chaotic or evil alignment slide?
Do you believe that SAD's should allow their victims to place bounties on the person who issued it?
First off Andius, I'm sure you understand using an extreme case to make a counter argument. So to grasp onto the one or two instances where I used an extreme to make a pint, and to ignore the dozens of times I said exactly what I intend is disingenuous at best.
But to answer your questions:
1. Any SAD that is accepted based on the current system receives a Rep bonus. So if someone accepts a 100% SAD, they must have had good reason to do so. Maybe the decay cost of their threaded gear is more than the loot they were actually carrying, and so they accepted the SAD. That would be the one circumstance where that would make sense.
2. My understanding of the SAD system (without the Outlaw flag) is that it opens a trade window, it is therefore not an attack. If the SAD is rejected it immediately makes both bandit and merchant 'Hostile" to each other. That does not guarantee an attack on the part of the bandit, which is a fact that is rarely brought up.
It really depends on the mechanics, but I could see using a SAD just to investigate the cargo being carried by a caravan. If I were in a CG mood and the caravan was carrying medical supplies, I might SAD is for 1 copper piece (to gain my Rep and to grant it the protection of being SADed. I could also be searching for contraband or suspect that the caravan could be transporting slaves, in which case I might look to free them.
3. I could see SADing someone prompting a Chaotic alignment shift, but not evil. Robbery in the River Kingdoms is a praiseworthy venture and is at worse viewed as being neutral. Killing is evil, and if I shifted evil for killing, well that is what it is. I expect to float somewhere within CN.
4. If the merchant accepted the SAD, then I don't see why they would want to pay for the bounty. According to the more recent Dev Blog, Bounties are expensive and are meant to be used sparingly.
Now if the SAD was rejected and we went ahead and killed and looted the merchant, I would fully expect that a bounty would be placed on my head. I would hold no ill will towards the merchant for doing so.
In general I don't mind bounties being placed on me, that is part of the fun of being an outlaw. I want to be player content, just as caravans and outposts will be my content.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not very straight answers.
1. Lets say you deliver a 100% SAD on a target that would give a rep hit if you just ambushed them, they reject it and you kill them. Should that incur any negative rep slide at all?
2. This isn't about how you understand the system to work but how it would ideally work if you were designing it. If you SAD someone, especially if they refuse and you kill them, should you be flagged to anyone other than your target, and if so, for how long?
3. So you do support a chaotic drift for SADs. And I think you are saying you should shift evil if you kill them after a refused SAD. Is this correct?
4. I'm not asking if they will do it but if you think they should be able to do it. I see you do support the ability to place a bounty if you kill them. Should a merchant who you rob have the ability to place a bounty on your head if he accepts the SAD?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Not very straight answers.
1. Lets say you deliver a 100% SAD on a target that would give a rep hit if you just ambushed them, they reject it and you kill them. Should that incur any negative rep slide at all?
2. This isn't about how you understand the system to work but how it would ideally work if you were designing it. If you SAD someone, especially if they refuse and you kill them, should you be flagged to anyone other than your target, and if so, for how long?
3. So you do support a chaotic drift for SADs. And I think you are saying you should shift evil if you kill them after a refused SAD. Is this correct?
4. I'm not asking if they will do it but if you think they should be able to do it. I see you do support the ability to place a bounty if you kill them. Should a merchant who you rob have the ability to place a bounty on your head if he accepts the SAD?
Round 2....
1. I'm going to be CN with this one and ask a question... If I issue a 5% SAD and the merchant rejects it, should he lose Rep for doing so?
Now to your question... I'm not sure. I would never issue a 100% SAD, I would just ambush and not lose the element of surprise. If that means I get a rep hit and alignment shift, well I had weighed that into my risk vs. reward calculations already.
2. I should be "Hostile" for anyone in the same company as the merchant. But a third party, no. You would have to enter into unsanctioned PVP in order to interfere in another's business. This is how the system works now, and I'm good with it.
3. yes on both counts. I intend to be Chaotic, and if I'm Good, Neutral or Evil makes little difference to me. I assume I'll be Neutral.
4. I answered that, he can put one if he wants to, but it would not be cost effective. I may believe he has the right to do it, but I'd also believe he is an idiot as well.
The next time I spotted him, he would likely not be granted the SAD at all, or I would add anything I lost at the hands of the Bounty hunter to the SAD offer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So to summarize.
You're not sure if you should get rep slide for delivering 100% SADs.
You don't believe they should flag you to anyone who is not affiliated with the target and present while it's happening.
You do think it should be a chaotic action and evil if the target is killed.
You do think people should be able to put a bounty on you, but bounties should be expensive.
Fairly accurate?
Follow up question. Do you believe there should be downsides to being chaotic and evil? If so how strong?
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I could see a mechanic where all +rep activities also cost influence getting widespread support; It's reasonable to me that participating in a declared war or or feud should be +rep, and SAD offers are already posited as +rep, with widespread concurrence that they could be -influence....I would also add Raids on Outposts and POIs as part of that Rep gaining list. I also would not mind having to spend influence to engage in certain activities, and I have posted on that topic previously.
I would only argue that every play style has:
1. Low level activities that require no influence to engage in, and actually grant influence when you successfully complete them.
2. The success in all activities generates enough influence to offset the initial cost, and to work towards funding the next activity. Kind of like a "Buy 2, get 1 Free" system.
3. Have Activities Tiers, so that lower tier activities cost no influence, and upper tier activities cost significantly more.
This goes for banditry as well, so much for me wanting Banditry EZ mode, I guess.
Other than point 2, which paraphrases as "Influence is a gate limiting access to activities", I agree. I think that +rep being tied to -influence requires that the -influence activities have a significant cost (measured here in boredom/grinding).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Follow up question. Do you believe there should be downsides to being chaotic and evil?
There should be differences between the alignments, but no downsides or advantages.
If any alignment becomes advantaged over others, the min maxers will flock to that alignment and not give one crap if they are playing it or not.
Alignment is a role playing feature, and perhaps a social feature. There should be no game mechanics attached other than for gate keeping certain skills or spells.
As for your summary, I posted what I believe at the moment. No need to summarize it, it is there for all to see and it is not long. Also note, that game mechanic announcements or a reasonably well argued position could change my mind on how I view things.
I reserve the right to be chaotic ;)
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Remix tape time!
You live in fantasy land. I have always been the biggest proponent of issuing reasonable SADs. My numbers have typically been between 20 - 25%, and that was after it was revealed that a bandit could loot 75% from a defeated merchant / caravan.
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).
My numbers have typically been between 20 - 25%.
(a SAD of greater than 75%, but less than the 100% the victim would lose upon death).
My numbers have typically been between 20 - 25%.
If the UNC is treated with open hostility,
My numbers have typically been between 20 - 25%.
greater than 75%, but less than the 100%
You live in fantasy land.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Other than point 2, which paraphrases as "Influence is a gate limiting access to activities", I agree. I think that +rep being tied to -influence requires that the -influence activities have a significant cost (measured here in boredom/grinding).I could see a mechanic where all +rep activities also cost influence getting widespread support; It's reasonable to me that participating in a declared war or or feud should be +rep, and SAD offers are already posited as +rep, with widespread concurrence that they could be -influence....I would also add Raids on Outposts and POIs as part of that Rep gaining list. I also would not mind having to spend influence to engage in certain activities, and I have posted on that topic previously.
I would only argue that every play style has:
1. Low level activities that require no influence to engage in, and actually grant influence when you successfully complete them.
2. The success in all activities generates enough influence to offset the initial cost, and to work towards funding the next activity. Kind of like a "Buy 2, get 1 Free" system.
3. Have Activities Tiers, so that lower tier activities cost no influence, and upper tier activities cost significantly more.
This goes for banditry as well, so much for me wanting Banditry EZ mode, I guess.
What is it about #2 you disagree with?
If the influence cost is "significant" than you might price players out of being able to do anything but grind killing rabbits in the woods.
That is why I suggested applying a success modifier so that the successful completing on an activity pays for the entry to it and helps fund the next chosen activity.
I posted it somewhere before, but too tired to type anymore... get back to you tomorrow.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I put the summary to make a point. Basically, the only meaningful downside to SADing someone you support, is something you think should be expensive to implement. You aren't sure whether there should be any downside to demanding everything on a player and then killing them when they refuse, you don't believe other's should be able to jump in and assist targets being robbed without reputation loss, or that there should be any lasting effect that will allow them to hunt you. You're ok with alignment slide but you think alignment should be a social/flavor mechanic. So really that leaves bounty hunting, which you think should cost a lot. Which brings me back to believing you want EZ-Mode For Bandits Online.
Lets do a final follow up question. Why would anyone not play a bandit if SAD's worked as you would like?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Remix tape time!
You live in fantasy land. I have always been the biggest proponent of issuing reasonable SADs. My numbers have typically been between 20 - 25%, and that was after it was revealed that a bandit could loot 75% from a defeated merchant / caravan.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).
My numbers have typically been between 20 - 25%.
(a SAD of greater than 75%, but less than the 100% the victim would lose upon death).
My numbers have typically been between 20 - 25%.
If the UNC is treated with open hostility,
My numbers have typically been between 20 - 25%.
greater than 75%, but less than the 100%
You live in fantasy land.
Perhaps you don't understand the difference in dealings with "Openly Hostile" targets commonly referred to as "Reds" and anyone else?
Honestly, you do look foolish..... Imagine that I'm saying this slow..... "IN BAD STANDING WILL INCUR DIFFERENT TREATMENT" Duh!!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Lets do a final follow up question. Why would anyone not play a bandit if SAD's worked as you would like?
Ask the devs because I described the system that is currently in place. Also, important to note, you don't have to be a bandit / outlaw to SAD, it is now a trainable skill.
You want it, train it, kind of simple.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Most of the information we have on SADs is actually based on an old flag that marked you as consequence free target to anyone and everyone. We don't know how the current system is going to work.
My point is that system is so powerful that it will be a must have skill that everyone who engages in PvP with any regularity will train. It's a "Give me everything you have or die!" system with no serious drawbacks to balance it out.
I don't honestly think we are any danger of this ending up in game, I just want people to recognize how extreme your positions are. Thank you for bringing them to light.
@DJ Decius- Can I find that on iTunes?
PS. Feel free to put me through a similar line of questioning on the mechanics I feel should be available to good aligned PvPers.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Aaaannddd this is now the longest thread on the forums. Serious legs.
Ryan, is there a term you would like us to use to differentiate between PvP that does incur Reputation and Alignment penalties versus PvP that does not?
Mbando, thanks for pointing out Urman's analysis re: newbies and Reputation. I think I see the light now. There's no real need for an Innocence score or to give newbies max Rep because they shouldn't be significantly exposed to unwanted PvP until they've had an opportunity to work up their Reputation. I've skimmed a lot of posts the last few days and had missed that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I put the summary to make a point. Basically, the only meaningful downside to SADing someone you support, is something you think should be expensive to implement. You aren't sure whether there should be any downside to demanding everything on a player and then killing them when they refuse, you don't believe other's should be able to jump in and assist targets being robbed without reputation loss, or that there should be any lasting effect that will allow them to hunt you. You're ok with alignment slide but you think alignment should be a social/flavor mechanic. So really that leaves bounty hunting, which you think should cost a lot. Which brings me back to believing you want EZ-Mode For Bandits Online.
Lets do a final follow up question. Why would anyone not play a bandit if SAD's worked as you would like?
1. Bounties are expensive according to the Dev Blog, not me, read it. If you want there to be cheap bounties take up the contracts Pro Bono yourself. Issue solved?
2. Read the Dev Blog on Hostility, it clearly states 3rd parties have to initiate an attack and therefore may not be consequence free. Who is the one not willing to take a Rep hit?
3. I did not remove the flagging system, the Devs did. We don't know if there is an Attacker Flag or not any more. How long it may last or who will get one for what action.
I clearly stated that I would take alignment shift and rep hit if the risk vs. reward calculations still showed to be in my favor even with those consequences.
There are now a multitude of ways to enter into consequence free PVP activities. You can engage evil in combat as often as you like without consequences provided you select your targets with care.
I certainly plan on doing the same and expect that I will be CN and High Reputation while doing so. I think this is what is getting under your skin. You don't believe anyone but "Good Aligned" characters should have access to High Rep or be welcomed into High Rep settlements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Perhaps you don't understand the difference in dealings with "Openly Hostile" targets commonly referred to as "Reds" and anyone else?
So if you plan to rob and/or kill someone, aren't you being openly hostile to them? Even if you don't consider it hostile (that is, a wealth redistribution tax), I'm sure the player being SADed will consider it hostile.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
[Sarcasm]
I would like to propose a new mechanic. Let's call it "Repent or Die!"
You can run up to anyone and deliver them a ROD. When you ROD someone, they are given the option to Repent. They repent by delivering a specified amount of their possessions to an agent of good... which is you. It flags you to them, and their associates, but not anyone outside their group of associates, and the flag goes away as soon as you are finished with the ROD. Any third party interlopers who attempt to interfere with your ROD take alignment and rep hits as normal. You also get a slide toward lawful because you were so generous to give up your chance to ambush them and RODed them instead.
If they accept your ROD, you gain reputation. If they reject your ROD, you are free to kill them without any reputation loss, though you may slide toward good for putting an end to their villainous ways.
Now the one big downside to RODs, is that people can put out assassination contracts if you do it. It will be expensive to put these contracts out, and all curses from a normal assassination go away making it really just a regular kill that's sanctioned. But hey. It's not like ROD's are so powerful they need much more downside than that.
Oh and one more thing. I'm not really decided on whether you should suffer any rep loss at all when you ROD someone for 100% of their stuff. Doesn't seem like that big of a deal to me.
But hey. RODs are a skill and take training. You want it, you train it, kind of simple.
PS. I no longer care if you are flagged when you SAD people. If I catch someone in the act of a SAD I'm just going to ROD them for 100%.
[/sarcasm]
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I know there is nothing called "sanctioned PvP".
Here is where the term arose from:
Much more important are the tense and complicated relationships between rival factions—and this is where we have chosen to refocus the world for opt-in PvP. By "opt-in," we mean that individual players choose how much PvP they want to see outside the larger struggles of settlements and companies. (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.)
From that, rose the term Sanctioned PvP, to distinguish between PvP which is penalized, and PvP which is not. Unfortunately "PvP which is not penalized by the reputation system" or "PvP which is penalized by the reputation system" are common enough ideas in recent discussions that I don't think people will stop using the sanctioned/unsanctioned terms unless there is a better alternative.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As far as I know there is nothing called "sanctioned PvP".Here is where the term arose from:
Much more important are the tense and complicated relationships between rival factions—and this is where we have chosen to refocus the world for opt-in PvP. By "opt-in," we mean that individual players choose how much PvP they want to see outside the larger struggles of settlements and companies. (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.)From that, rose the term Sanctioned PvP, to distinguish between PvP which is penalized, and PvP which is not. Unfortunately "PvP which is not penalized by the reputation system" or "PvP which is penalized by the reputation system" are common enough ideas in recent discussions that I don't think people will stop using the sanctioned/unsanctioned terms unless there is a better alternative.
Finally a constructive post from you. Now to your sarcastic post:
I have always supported your "Apprehend System" as being the equivalent of the SAD, but more likely than not a Lawful based skill. But, as a Neutral I could see you having access to it as we'll.
This would leave SADs to CG, CN, CE, NG, N, NE
This would leave Apprehend to LG, LN, LE, NG, N, NE
There you go a balanced and fair system!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Perhaps you don't understand the difference in dealings with "Openly Hostile" targets commonly referred to as "Reds" and anyone else?So if you plan to rob and/or kill someone, aren't you being openly hostile to them? Even if you don't consider it hostile (that is, a wealth redistribution tax), I'm sure the player being SADed will consider it hostile.
Players experienced in Open World PvP MMOs understand the difference between having a social standing of hostile towards someone, and simply engaging in PvP with someone.
You will either learn to adapt to the culture or you won't.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do we gain reputation over time, passively?I don't know. I thnk that is a part of the plan.
I was going back through Dancey's comments from yesterday and parsing them for information. I realized last night last night I read the bit above as:
"I don't know (about rep gain over time). I think that (ie, the fact that he doesn't know) is a part of the plan."
I thought it was amusing, that there was a hint of the design team deliberately keeping him in the dark. Now I see that I need to read a little closer, reading that:
"I don't know (about rep gain over time). I think that (rep gain over time) is a part of the plan."
instead. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You will either learn to adapt to the culture or you won't.You mean the culture that you are still trying to force onto PFO. Sometimes under threat of organised griefing.
If you believe that all PvP or player looting is "griefing" then you will either have to adapt to the reality that PFO is and Open World OvP MMO or you won't.
The Devs have said, there is a lot of PvP planned for PFO. It is all about settlement safety, power and cohesion. The competition for limited resources, including the settlement hex itself, is designed to generate almost continuous conflict. Those conflicts will be based on the desire to claim Economic Power, Military Security / Power and Social Cohesion.
Your question to Ryan about "Sanctioned Griefing" and "Unsanctioned Griefing" gives the impression that you view all PvP as griefing, and you'll never view it in any other way.
I suggest you speak to the other members of your company, maybe play another PvP centric MMO with them and try to learn to change your view and learn to deal with your misgivings.
Edit: If I'm not forcing the culture down your throat, the OE crowd will certainly do that. At least I'm giving you a little heads up.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
"I don't know. I think that (ie, the fact that he doesn't know) is a part of the plan."
Ryan's putting out a secret message for help! He suspects the design team is keeping him in the dark in regards to their nefarious schemes, and he knows not what their cruel minds are capable of! (Lesson of the day: cherry picking and dressing quotes is fun!)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Mbando, thanks for pointing out Urman's analysis re: newbies and Reputation. I think I see the light now. There's no real need for an Innocence score or to give newbies max Rep because they shouldn't be significantly exposed to unwanted PvP until they've had an opportunity to work up their Reputation. I've skimmed a lot of posts the last few days and had missed that.
Well, Urman's pretty sharp, and I appreciate that he's trying to carefully think this stuff out. I think randomwalker is too, Decius and Nightdrifter are trying to bring their respectable quantitative analytical skills (the nerd is strong with those two) to bear on this, and so on.
It sure beats ceaselessly flogging your own advocacy :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bludd: I don't view all PvP as griefing.
And I was referring to a post of yours in the past year ( I don't remember what thread is was in) where you not only suggested but flat out stated that if PFO will not satisfy your demands on the openness of PvP you have people in EVE that you can call over to grief the PFO players to force them to adapt the your views.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Bludd: I don't view all PvP as griefing.
And I was referring to a post of yours in the past year ( I don't remember what thread is was in) where you not only suggested but flat out stated that if PFO will not satisfy your demands on the openness of PvP you have people in EVE that you can call over to grief the PFO players to force them to adapt the your views.
Again... You fail to understand the use of the 'Worse Case Scenario or Devil's Advocate" to make a point. If the pendulum swings too far in either direction you often invite an unintended consequence.
I had argued that I can play in any culture an MMO as to offer:
Soft: PVE Focused w/ some consensual PVP (your average Them Park MMO)
Medium: PVP focused / PVE w/ mixed consensual and nonconsensual pvp (your typical Sandbox, Open World PVP MMO)
Hard: PVP Centric, limited PVE w/ nonconsensual and strong death penalty (PVP server ThemeParks, Open World PVP MMO with limited consequences, except for losing.)
I prefer the Medium (leaning towards Hard) and I expect that PFO is being developed to be that.
Examples:
Soft: WOW, RIFT, TSW, SWTOR, NWN, etc...
Medium: SWG, Fallen Earth, EVE Online, AOC
Medium - Hard: EVE Online
Hard: EvE Online, Darkfall or any MMO PVP server
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If the pendulum swings too far in either direction you often invite an unintended consequence.
I did not claim otherwise so stop claiming that I did. You are trying to project all kinds of opinions on me that I do not have.
Also since when does straight up blackmailing a community constitutes Devils Advocate?|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To address the question of the thread, do we now have to ask if there is?
1. no unsanctioned PVP because it is all sanctioned.
2. No unsanctioned PVP because the term is no longer in use.
3. No unsanctioned PVP because no one can attack each other outside of sanctioned PVP.
4. Or "Now for something completely different".
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Other than point 2, which paraphrases as "Influence is a gate limiting access to activities", I agree. I think that +rep being tied to -influence requires that the -influence activities have a significant cost (measured here in boredom/grinding).I could see a mechanic where all +rep activities also cost influence getting widespread support; It's reasonable to me that participating in a declared war or or feud should be +rep, and SAD offers are already posited as +rep, with widespread concurrence that they could be -influence....I would also add Raids on Outposts and POIs as part of that Rep gaining list. I also would not mind having to spend influence to engage in certain activities, and I have posted on that topic previously.
I would only argue that every play style has:
1. Low level activities that require no influence to engage in, and actually grant influence when you successfully complete them.
2. The success in all activities generates enough influence to offset the initial cost, and to work towards funding the next activity. Kind of like a "Buy 2, get 1 Free" system.
3. Have Activities Tiers, so that lower tier activities cost no influence, and upper tier activities cost significantly more.
This goes for banditry as well, so much for me wanting Banditry EZ mode, I guess.
What is it about #2 you disagree with?
If the influence cost is "significant" than you might price players out of being able to do anything but grind killing rabbits in the woods.
That is why I suggested applying a success modifier so that the successful completing on an activity pays for the entry to it and helps fund the next chosen activity.
I posted it somewhere before, but too tired to type anymore... get back to you tomorrow.
I don't think that once a group has earned enough influence to unlock an activity, they should be able to engage in that activity as often as they choose to. That replaces the intent (of limiting the number of wars and feuds and SADs to those which are meaningful) and replaces it with a gate (newer companies can't participate until they grind out the influence).
I don't think the costs should be very high.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
To address the question of the thread, do we now have to ask if there is?
1. no unsanctioned PVP because it is all sanctioned.
2. No unsanctioned PVP because the term is no longer in use.
3. No unsanctioned PVP because no one can attack each other outside of sanctioned PVP.
4. Or "Now for something completely different".
From the OP:
Please understand I'm not even remotely suggesting that the game mechanics disallow Unsanctioned PvP, or even that the consequences should be onerous enough that most people choose not to engage in it. For the sake of this hypothetical question, let's pretend that there are absolutely no system-enforced consequences for engaging in it.
Could Pathfinder Online thrive as a successful game if everyone simply chose not to engage in Unsanctioned PvP?
I believe the answer is clearly "Yes", and conversely that the game would suffer immeasurably if the majority of PvP were Unsanctioned, but I'm curious to read others' arguments.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Bludd: I don't view all PvP as griefing.
And I was referring to a post of yours in the past year ( I don't remember what thread is was in) where you not only suggested but flat out stated that if PFO will not satisfy your demands on the openness of PvP you have people in EVE that you can call over to grief the PFO players to force them to adapt the your views.
Again... You fail to understand the use of the 'Worse Case Scenario or Devil's Advocate" to make a point. If the pendulum swings too far in either direction you often invite an unintended consequence.
I had argued that I can play in any culture an MMO as to offer:
Soft: PVE Focused w/ some consensual PVP (your average Them Park MMO)
Medium: PVP focused / PVE w/ mixed consensual and nonconsensual pvp (your typical Sandbox, Open World PVP MMO)
Hard: PVP Centric, limited PVE w/ nonconsensual and strong death penalty (PVP server ThemeParks, Open World PVP MMO with limited consequences, except for losing.)
I prefer the Medium (leaning towards Hard) and I expect that PFO is being developed to be that.
Examples:
Soft: WOW, RIFT, TSW, SWTOR, NWN, etc...
Medium: SWG, Fallen Earth, EVE Online, AOC
Medium - Hard: EVE Online
Hard: EvE Online, Darkfall or any MMO PVP server
I like that Bludd. Some sort of Scoville Scale for how "hot" any given mmorpg is.
Of course chilli is a spice not the actual good and so it is/should be with PvP
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I may be out of synch with the designers, who may be planning a pure rep over time system, but I don't think the plan has been made that final yet.
I would support a pure rep over time system, because then it couldn't be gamed in any way. Maybe giving/taking away at your own cost could also make sense in some situations.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most of the information we have on SADs is actually based on an old flag that marked you as consequence free target to anyone and everyone. We don't know how the current system is going to work.
My point is that system is so powerful that it will be a must have skill that everyone who engages in PvP with any regularity will train. It's a "Give me everything you have or die!" system with no serious drawbacks to balance it out.
I think it actually might be useful to have a common trainable skill, perhaps called something other than SAD, perhaps called "Threaten" or "Intimidate", maybe with some STR prerequisite. There will be times where people of any alignment might choose to threaten a target to achieve some outcome, whether it is extorting goods or coin, or forcing some action, like someone leaving the area.
Why would people use Threaten instead of just killing the target? Because killing has rep penalties, issuing a threat doesn't. But if the person ignores the threat, and the Threat user has to escalate to an attack, that should have full rep penalties, just like any other killing.
Likewise, if I issue a Threat and my target complies (gives me goods or coin, or leaves the hex), I don't necessarily earn Rep for this - that is an interaction that is entirely game-able with friends or alts.
Why do I need a formal threat, rather than just using chat? Because chat is ignored. A threat pop-up has to be addressed. (But should not appear if someone is already in combat.) The formal threat might also make the Threat issuer a legitimate target for a short time, like a minute, to prevent pop-ups being spammed.
I do think SAD can be dropped onto the dust-bin of design, and replaced with another mechanism like Threaten, if only because SAD now has an accumulation of perceived powers and effects. The devs could drop it and start anew, with a new name, when they have the new mechanics ready for launch.
Examples:
Soft: WOW, RIFT, TSW, SWTOR, NWN, etc...
Medium: SWG, Fallen Earth, EVE Online, AOC
Medium - Hard: EVE Online
Hard: EvE Online, Darkfall or any MMO PVP server
Have to disagree with you here Bludd... I played WoW on a PvP server, and it was still soft as a warm fuzzy kitten. lol
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I would argue that the current incarnation of SAD (or any similar "threatening") mechanic would be a waste of development resources for the following reasons:
* as long as there are some sort of chat channels (say, whisper), the threatening/negotiating can be handled by the players involved without any separate system being developed
* if some sort of "appraising" or "evaluation" skill is going to be developed, it should be usable whenever you have sufficient time to rummage through the goods of another player (uninterrupted), so no separate mechanic would need to be developed
* as long as there are means to carry out a trade between the players (such as a generic trade window), no separate mechanic needs to be delivered to turn over the agreed goods
* if you are successful in SAD (or threatening), you get what you want, which should be enough of a reward on its own
* if you are not, you can either carry out your threat or go about your merry ways (with the latter carrying no mechanic consequences); you would only suffer (mechanic) consequences in case you would actually do something, which according to the “laws of the game” would warrant such consequences
* developing an automated system to handle such a threatening would arguably reduce the amount of "meaningful player interaction" as it would automatize something, which would otherwise be carried out by players actually interacting with each other (you know, like talking to each other...)