Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Don't forget that it's likely to cost you Influence in order to launch a Raid.Although that was not stated, as it was for feuds, it is a possibility. I would hope for, and of course lobby for, PvP to generate influence in a sufficient quantity that it would be self perpetuating.
Don't have enough influence to raid that outpost? SAD or ambush a caravan to gain that influence needed, then go raid the outpost.
I'm wondering if influence will be divided into two, a PvP pool and a PVE pool. You must do an activity at a fairly entry level activity, to earn enough points to unlock access for more complex, dangerous and rewarding activities.
The example you gave is not a subset of the general case you discussed; did you intend to say "PvP should contain influence faucets as well as influence drains"? That's a different situation than each aspect of PvP being self-perpetuating.
Goblin Squad Member
|
Each individual action does not have to be self perpetuating at a 1:1 ratio. For example:
An attack on a caravan that is successful, generates 3 units of influence. An unsuccessful ambush produces 1.
Raiding an Outpost or POI could cost 2 units of influence. A successful raid produces 3 units, while failure produces 1.
If a successful caravan ambush is followed by a successful outpost raid, the raider / bandits will have accumulated enough surplus influence to fund a second outpost raid.
Continued success leads to increased opportunities. While failure reduces opportunities.
If we assume that the basic ability to ambush is the lowest tier of activity, then its influence cost must be 0. Otherwise the system would deny entry to the professional activity or make it impossible to recover from a series of failures.
Of course, the merchants and their guards would have similar costs and faucets with an equal ability to accumulate influence through a continued string of successes. Likewise, their base ability to defend themselves would have 0 cost in influence to perform.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Would you please extrapolate on "the merchants and their guards would have similar costs and faucets with an equal ability to accumulate influence through a continued string of successes"? I could see that as being interpreted at least two ways, so I want to make sure I'm on the same page for what you had in mind there.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Would you please extrapolate on "the merchants and their guards would have similar costs and faucets with an equal ability to accumulate influence through a continued string of successes"? I could see that as being interpreted at least two ways, so I want to make sure I'm on the same page for what you had in mind there.
Operating a caravan with no guards, costs no influence. Delivering those goods successfully would grant 3 units of influence.
Now the merchant can set up an outpost for a cost of 2 influence. Or he / she could spend that influence on hiring guards for the next caravan.
Continued success means more influence, and that would allow for higher tier activities or greater protection for others.
What were your two interpretations?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I thought a company's accumulation of Influence would depend on the deeds and achievements of its members; new characters earned more Influence than old characters. This looks like people want a means of having repeatable actions for gaining Influence outside of character achievements and deeds.
I think having some repeatable acts that allow Influence farming might be problematic. It's like Reputation farming at company scale.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I thought a company's accumulation of Influence would depend on the deeds and achievements of its members; new characters earned more Influence than old characters. This looks like people want a means of having repeatable actions for gaining Influence outside of character achievements and deeds.
I think having some repeatable acts that allow Influence farming might be problematic. It's like Reputation farming at company scale.
Isn't an attempted or successful completion of an activity a deed or achievement?
I'll grant you, an attempt and failure will only gain very low influence. While a successful attempt will grant far more ( in my example 300% more).
What I'm hoping for is that every action makes a meaningful contribution to your influence. It will encourage, ACTIVITY.
Yes, I would expect that repeatable actions will produce influence. That us not necessarily grinding, it's called "Playing".
If you are a successful caravan guard, your influence should grow with each successful caravan that arrives safely to its destination.
What kind of a system did you have in mind?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Don't forget that it's likely to cost you Influence in order to launch a Raid.Although that was not stated, as it was for feuds, it is a possibility.
Sorry, I should have provided a link and quote. It seems clear to me that the design announced in the blogs calls for a Feud to be in place in order to raid.
While feuds are typically a company vs. company affair, a company can also declare a feud against an enemy settlement. This allows a company to launch a raid against holdings in the hexes controlled by rival settlements or engage in low-level skirmishing or guerilla warfare against a target of opportunity.
_____________________________________________________
Don't forget that it's likely to cost you Influence in order to launch a Raid.I'm not sure that's right. I thought Tork said that raiders wouldn't need to declare feud...
I don't recall that, and didn't see it when I searched Tork's posts for the word "raid".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Going A-Viking
We have briefly touched on raiding in a number of previous posts and, while some of the fine detail is still in development, we thought it would be helpful to expand somewhat on how raiding works and what it is used for. As ever, we welcome your feedback on the system so far!
Raiding in PFO is going to be one of the most common events that initiates PvP. Raids are executed on outposts. As you would expect from the title, they are fast, destructive strikes by small groups of players. The intention might be to disrupt outpost production of bulk goods for a nearby settlement or to hijack significant resources for the raiders' own gain.
Outposts produce goods each hour, so every sixty minutes there will something worth stealing. Goods are produced even when outpost owners are offline and moving bulk goods to a safe location is more than a one man job. Thus, there may be some accumulation of goods left in an outpost for a well-planned raid. These goods are the low-hanging fruit for raiders and will be their primary target.
Initiating a raid is as simple as gathering allies, choosing an outpost, and timing your strike. Raiders must first kill any NPC guards at the outpost in order to gain access to the outpost's bulk goods container. They may then load up on its contents (an action that can be interrupted, just as any type of looting can be) and make off with the bulk goods. By default, outpost guards are few and far between. A settlement or Point of Interest (PoI) is able to dedicate some of their own NPC guards to the outpost, but hard choices will have to be made about how comprehensively to protect your supply chain. Do you weaken your major holdings to make your outposts harder to raid?
Although raiding doesn't necessarily require careful organization, there are benefits to be gained from better planning. Watching a PoI or outpost for a while to learn its collection cycles, making pre-raids to disrupt these cycles, or feinting to distract the defenders all might result in a better payoff for your main raid. As well as just building your team for martial might, it is also worth considering bringing along a player with some skill in cultivating the resource found at your target outpost. The more skilled your group is in cultivation, the better they will be able to take advantage of a process we call "strip mining."
No mention of Feud prerequisite or Influence costs.
This particular blog leads me to believe tha GW is trying to shift PvP away from attacking settlements, and making the most common PvP directed at outposts and a bit less common versus POIs.
Settlement sieges will be both rare and more massive affairs.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon
To enable the whole membership to come to the aid of its outposts, a settlement might choose to make raiding a crime in its territory. In that case, initiating a raid will give all raiders the Criminal flag (making them more chaotic and making them sanctioned targets for anyone). However, like all crimes, Criminal flags from raiding may have a detrimental effect on the settlement; even lawful settlements may have to consider whether making raiding a crime risks that their enemies will steal their resources and increase their corruption from frequent raiding. Additionally, the criminal flag is always overcome by active feuds or wars, so raiding will be a legitimate action if you first declare a feud or war on the settlement, PoI, or management company associated with your target outpost.
Rereading that now, I think he's distinguishing at least three raid states: non-feud/non-criminal; non-feud/criminal; and feud or war (which makes criminal or not a moot point). He might be saying that only the last state is "sanctioned", but I'm not sure.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Urman, I realize I failed to make the distinction in my writing that was clear in my mind. As I originally wrote it, I think you and Bluddwolf were both right to question me on it.
Raiding doesn't require a Feud or Influence.
I suppose my default assumptions are around always making sure the PvP I engage in is Sanctioned.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Nihimon
To enable the whole membership to come to the aid of its outposts, a settlement might choose to make raiding a crime in its territory. In that case, initiating a raid will give all raiders the Criminal flag (making them more chaotic and making them sanctioned targets for anyone). However, like all crimes, Criminal flags from raiding may have a detrimental effect on the settlement; even lawful settlements may have to consider whether making raiding a crime risks that their enemies will steal their resources and increase their corruption from frequent raiding. Additionally, the criminal flag is always overcome by active feuds or wars, so raiding will be a legitimate action if you first declare a feud or war on the settlement, PoI, or management company associated with your target outpost.Rereading that now, I think he's distinguishing at least three raid states: non-feud/non-criminal; non-feud/criminal; and feud or war (which makes criminal or not a moot point). He might be saying that only the last state is "sanctioned", but I'm not sure.
To enable the whole membership of the settlement.... Not the company that owns the outpost or POI.
Hostility
A lot of PvP complexity we were previously storing in flags is now summarized in the Hostile state. There are a variety of cases that can make a player appear hostile to another player (e.g., faction membership, being at war, criminal flags, etc.). If you see a player that is hostile to you, there is no alignment or reputation penalty for attacking or killing that player. Often, hostility will be reciprocal (i.e., both players appear hostile to one another because their settlements are at war or their factions are enemies) but this is not required. If hostility is not reciprocal (a player sees you as hostile but you see them as friendly or neutral), once you are attacked, your attacker now appears hostile to you as well. That is, you don't take reputation or alignment penalties for defending yourself, even if you were a sanctioned target for your attacker.
Attacking an outpost will make you and your group hostile to the members of that outpost's managing company (as well as the owners of the controlling PoI if that company has subcontracted outpost management). That means that they can attempt to stop you without penalties. Raiding does not automatically make you hostile to every member of the settlement that owns that territory, however.
To enable the whole membership to come to the aid of its outposts, a settlement might choose to make raiding a crime in its territory. In that case, initiating a raid will give all raiders the Criminal flag (making them more chaotic and making them sanctioned targets for anyone). However, like all crimes, Criminal flags from raiding may have a detrimental effect on the settlement; even lawful settlements may have to consider whether making raiding a crime risks that their enemies will steal their resources and increase their corruption from frequent raiding. Additionally, the criminal flag is always overcome by active feuds or wars, so raiding will be a legitimate action if you first declare a feud or war on the settlement, PoI, or management company associated with your target outpost.
Although this potentially seems complicated, the hostility system is designed and presented in game to simplify on-the-spot combat decision making. We will cover hostility (and related changes to PvP) in more detail in a later blog post.
No mention that Raiding is unsanctioned, resulting in alignment shift or reputation loss. It does however clearly mention that it will criminal flag the raiders towards the owners of the outpost. The owners will see the raiders as hostile. Once the owners attack the raiders, the raiders will also see the owners as hostile. Neither side will face alignment shift or reputation loss.
If a settlement wants to make raiding illegal it can. This allows for all of its citizens to see the raiders as hostile, but at the expense of the crime rate reflecting upon the settlement's DI.
My conclusion: Outpost and POI raids are sanctioned PVP, the most common PVP, and desired by GW.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I suppose my default assumptions are around always making sure the PvP I engage in is Sanctioned.
I think if you keep your raids focused on Outposts and POIs, your PvP will always be sanctioned.
Outposts and POIs are apparently PvP structures. The reason being, they are ether associated with resource gathering or Defensive structures. Even a tavern is utilizing a resource slot that is limited, and therefore it is a valid target as part of the territorial control game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No mention that Raiding is unsanctioned...
Do they really have to repeat every little detail every single time they discuss something in order to make you happy?
They've clearly laid out the specific cases of Sanctioned PvP, and clearly stated everything else is Unsanctioned. So, the existing definitions already suffice to determine that killing someone in a Raid is not automatically Sanctioned. The only reason they would need to say anything about it at all is if they were going to reverse that, and say that "Raids are Sanctioned PvP, even without Feuds". But they didn't.
They might come back and say that later, I really don't know. But the fact that they didn't repeat what they said earlier doesn't mean they're changing what they said earlier.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Outposts and POIs are apparently PvP structures.
Why wouldn't Settlements also count as "PvP structures"?
My conclusion: Outpost and POI raids are sanctioned PVP, the most common PVP, and desired by GW.
We also know that attacks on Settlements are "desired by GW". Are you going to suggest this means that attacking other Settlements is inherently Sanctioned as well?
I think you're engaging in a little wishful thinking, or perhaps it's simple lobbying.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No mention that Raiding is unsanctioned...Do they really have to repeat every little detail every single time they discuss something in order to make you happy?
They've clearly laid out the specific cases of Sanctioned PvP, and clearly stated everything else is Unsanctioned. So, the existing definitions already suffice to determine that killing someone in a Raid is not automatically Sanctioned.
Their previous statements did not establish the elastic clause, like the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
If the Raiding of Outposts was to be potentially unsanctioned, they would have said so. Their description only included evidence that it would not lead to alignment or reputation consequences, which is the hallmark of sanctioned PvP.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ooo! OOOOooo! This is it! It's my turn to post a picked quote from one of the developer blogs to support my position!
As happens a lot these days, you're getting the unvarnished "we had this idea one week, presented it to the major stakeholders the next, and nobody had an immediate objection so you get to see it the week after that" design ideas. Keep in mind that any of these ideas can and most likely will change (potentially drastically) as we move deeper into implementation.
What is considered Sanctioned at the moment may not be Sanctioned at EE. What is considered Unsanctioned at the moment may become Sanctioned at OE. Stop looking to the blogs for concrete information, for folly lies down that path.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think if you keep your raids focused on Outposts and POIs, your PvP will always be sanctioned.
As an aside, the blog entry on raiding said Raids are executed on outposts. They could have said and POIs, but they didn't. I'm sure we'll have some mechanism for attacking POIs. It might not be raiding. It might be raiding, or it might be raiding and something else. I don't think we know.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
No mention that Raiding is unsanctioned...Do they really have to repeat every little detail every single time they discuss something in order to make you happy?
They've clearly laid out the specific cases of Sanctioned PvP, and clearly stated everything else is Unsanctioned. So, the existing definitions already suffice to determine that killing someone in a Raid is not automatically Sanctioned.
Their previous statements did not establish the elastic clause, like the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
If the Raiding of Outposts was to be potentially unsanctioned, they would have said so. Their description only included evidence that it would not lead to alignment or reputation consequences, which is the hallmark of sanctioned PvP.
I'd also add this evidence...
Raiding in PFO is going to be one of the most common events that initiates PvP. Raids are executed on outposts.
In order for your to be correct that Raids are unsanctioned unless otherwise stated, then you would also have to believe that the "Most common events that initiates PVP" are unsanctioned.
Would GW devise a system where the most common form of pvp is pvp that they wish not to see very much of?
I believe you may be the one that is engaging in a bit too much wishful thinking, and it is clouding your vision of the obvious conclusion.
PFO is about building, controlling and conquering settlements. Raiding is the entry level activity in the struggle to prevent your rivals from achieving those goals.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But Law leaves an open gate to Tyranny. And what truth is there in Good when it is imposed upon all by the strength of a state? Through liberty and freedom does true Goodness arise. For only when men and their hearts are set free can we really see what lays within! A man who is free to do as he pleases, yet still chooses to hold to the path of benevolence to others is the very epitome of what it means to be a Good Man!Also known as: My argument for Chaotic Good.
Completely acknowledge that you can have your own house-rules/personal interpretations for alignment. That being said, that take has nothing to do with LG in Pathfinder.
I think I'm drawn to the part of LG in Pathfinder that doesn't allow for the ends to justify the means--LG characters in Pathfinder don't get to cut ethical corners. So far, that's what the Devs are saying is going to define LG: that you have less options because flexing your ethics directly endangers your alignment.
Personally as a Marine, and having a commitment to ethical education of young Marines, LG intuitively makes sense to me. It's why the USMC and US Army strive for LG in real life--we know that people who flex their morals flex them when the stakes are highest, and invariably flex them in favor of their own self-interests.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No mention that Raiding is unsanctioned...Do they really have to repeat every little detail every single time they discuss something in order to make you happy?
They've clearly laid out the specific cases of Sanctioned PvP, and clearly stated everything else is Unsanctioned. So, the existing definitions already suffice to determine that killing someone in a Raid is not automatically Sanctioned.
Their previous statements did not establish the elastic clause, like the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
If the Raiding of Outposts was to be potentially unsanctioned, they would have said so. Their description only included evidence that it would not lead to alignment or reputation consequences, which is the hallmark of sanctioned PvP.
I'd also add this evidence...
Raiding in PFO is going to be one of the most common events that initiates PvP. Raids are executed on outposts.In order for your to be correct that Raids are unsanctioned unless otherwise stated, then you would also have to believe that the "Most common events that initiates PVP" are unsanctioned.
Would GW devise a system where the most common form of pvp is pvp that they wish not to see very much of?
I believe you may be the one that is engaging in a bit too much wishful thinking, and it is clouding your vision of the obvious conclusion.
PFO is about building, controlling and conquering settlements. Raiding is the entry level activity in the struggle to prevent your rivals from achieving those goals.
It's entirely possible that most raids are expected to be done under a feud or war, but that the sanctioning element of the engagement is separate from the 'taking stuff' part which is central to the raid; in other words, it's possible that not everything which qualifies as a raid qualifies as sanctioned PvP.
That leaves plenty of room for edge cases which I can't provide examples of at the moment, but am confident will exist.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Personally as a Marine, and having a commitment to ethical education of young Marines, LG intuitively makes sense to me. It's why the USMC and US Army strive for LG in real life--we know that people who flex their morals flex them when the stakes are highest, and invariably flex them in favor of their own self-interests.
Interesting, I would have qualified the US Government and hence any force which represents it as LN. Ideally, we are suppose to be a nation of laws, tolerant of differences...and we have some compassionate elements, but those elements do not rule us absolutely.
I think your own link supports this.
Just to avoid miscommunication, I mean no offense to the US, its people, or its military; I too, after all, volunteered to serve.
EDIT: For clarification,...served voluntarily.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I thought a company's accumulation of Influence would depend on the deeds and achievements of its members; new characters earned more Influence than old characters. This looks like people want a means of having repeatable actions for gaining Influence outside of character achievements and deeds.
I think having some repeatable acts that allow Influence farming might be problematic. It's like Reputation farming at company scale.
Isn't an attempted or successful completion of an activity a deed or achievement?
I'll grant you, an attempt and failure will only gain very low influence. While a successful attempt will grant far more ( in my example 300% more).
What I'm hoping for is that every action makes a meaningful contribution to your influence. It will encourage, ACTIVITY.
Yes, I would expect that repeatable actions will produce influence. That us not necessarily grinding, it's called "Playing".
If you are a successful caravan guard, your influence should grow with each successful caravan that arrives safely to its destination.
What kind of a system did you have in mind?
It very much depends on how reputation/alignment recovery work and how settlement DI works.
Alignment/Rep, Influence, and DI are currencies. They will be spent in PFO to enter into non-consensual PVP. To a degree they are fungible; members of a settlement can draw from their Align/Rep, Influence, or DI pools as they wish, depending on their position in social groups. They can use DI to attack with a sanctioned war. They can use Influence to attack with a sanctioned feud. And if they don't have enough of the other two currencies then they might take the Align/Rep hit to make an unsanctioned attack.
I would expect all three of these currencies to recover with similar mechanisms. If the primary mechanism to recover rep is time, then I'd expect when companies spend Influence (say, in the cost over time of a prolonged feud), they will recover that Influence over time. I would expect that the Influence members earn for the company might be more of a cap or ceiling, the company's hit points as it were. You can lose them, but will heal in time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bringslite, you're right to key on "strives"--there are failures. But in their real life practice--in how they train, and in the conduct of their missions--it's pretty close to paladinhood.
I'm pretty sure that's what I'm so committed to RPing LG--US soldiers and Marines routinely live out this code:
GuardiansGuardians respect life and believe there is no greater duty or higher calling than protecting the lives of innocents and those who are too venerable to protect themselves. These brave, unwavering individuals gladly risk life and limb in defending whoever or whatever they have vowed to protect, whether it's a city, village, fortress wall, or even a strategic pass. They willingly sacrifice themselves to the last soul to carry out their duty, and they find their honor, valor, and glory in defense rather than in taking the battle to others. When not actively involved in protecting their charge, they spend their time teaching defensive tactics and skills to those willing to learn.
If you are a guardian, you:
- Protect the lives of others at your own risk.
- Are motivated to protect the weak and the innocent.
- Improve the tactics and defensive skills of those you aid.
Code: You risk your life to protect the lives and well-being of others.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That is what I thought that you meant and of course not everyone can live up to a perfect ideal in any walk of life. I greatly admire all of those that serve our country and I also admire that code that you have shared.
I am leaning toward a LG character myself for PfO. even though there seems (often) to be misunderstanding, IMO, of what LG stands for.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It's entirely possible that most raids are expected to be done under a feud or war, but that the sanctioning element of the engagement is separate from the 'taking stuff' part which is central to the raid; in other words, it's possible that not everything which qualifies as a raid qualifies as sanctioned PvP.
Given that GW seems to want meaningful PvP and they seem to like the idea of company and settlement level wars, I'd expect that this is true. Outpost Raids will be much more common than POI battles which will be much more common than Settlement conquests. They expect that settlements will criminalize raiding, but raids against soft targets may happen without feud protection.
So what other PvP do we expect? SAD attacks. Opportunity attacks on harvesting groups. Feuds. Faction warfare. Newbies killing each other before they realize their Rep is in the toilet. GW might expect Rep to drive most players to mostly use sanctioned PvP or other consensual means like faction warfare. GW just expects raids to be one of the most frequent PvP initiators, not the top. In the top 3, maybe.
(edited to remove quote; didn't change context)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think the reputation system should have a balancing 'notoriety' system, equal and opposite in effect. Characters may gain notoriety whenever they lose reputation through willful actions.
The purpose of the Reputation system is to encourage positive gameplay. What would be the purpose/use of the notoriety system?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I just see reputation/notoriety as a scale, like law/chaos or good/evil. We don't need 4 scales to measure law, chaos, good, and evil, two work.
Unless you're thinking of notoriety and reputation being related, maybe the reverse of the core alignment and active alignment relationship. So as you build a long history of reputation losses, it gets harder and harder to regain rep over time.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reputation is not a pathfinder core rule book rule. So why has GW added it into the game? I think they want unsanctioned pvp in the game because many people get their thrills out of it, but they also want to control that thrill a little bit. I think it makes sense although I could see PFO thrive even without unsanctioned pvp and maybe even have more players interested in it without it...
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the use of the words "sanctioned" and "unsanctioned" with regard to PvP. I think those terms imply a level of top-down approval/disapproval review that we don't intend and won't enforce.
There's a difference between griefing someone - which we'll loosely define for the purpose of this discussion as taking some actions with the overwhelming intent to piss off another player or ruin their play experience without a meaningful in-game reason other than causing distress; and engaging someone in unwanted combat for some meaningful in-game reason.
The former is something we want to work really hard to discourage, as we've discussed ad nauseam. The latter is a feature of the game and we want to ensure that people understand that.
Trying to destroy a Point of Interest is almost always going to have a meaningful in-game purpose. It should not be the kind of thing that happens randomly, and should require substantial preparation and a prolonged effort to achieve. Points of Interest are a critical part of the economic fabric of the game so destroying one will have a material affect on the economics of the surrounding area. In the struggle for control of territory, that will almost always have significant consequences. We expect Points of Interest to be defended and for their owner/operators to have arranged in advance for reinforcements to be called if needed. Destroying one should not be something that one character does on a whim in a few minutes.
This is not to say that such actions won't have consequences - they certainly will have consequences. I just don't want to blur the line between things we (and the community) feel are "ok", and things we don't by using words like "sanctioned" or "unsanctioned".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the use of the words "sanctioned" and "unsanctioned" with regard to PvP. I think those terms imply a level of top-down approval/disapproval review that we don't intend and won't enforce.
...
This is not to say that such actions won't have consequences - they certainly will have consequences. I just don't want to blur the line between things we (and the community) feel are "ok", and things we don't by using words like "sanctioned" or "unsanctioned".
I hear you, but...
There needs to be a word to describe the state of PvP, in wars and feuds, for example, where one group has spent DI or Influence and its members have a window to attack an enemy without reputation or alignment consequences.
Maybe the word isn't "sanctioned". Maybe it's something else, because sanctioned is a loaded term with preexisting meaning. Almost every word in the English language comes pre-loaded that way. Law. Good. Evil. Those were slapped on the game almost 40 years ago and the community still can't agree on what they mean.
edit: and rereading my comment; I'd bet the commenters on this thread don't have an agreement on what sanctioned or unsanctioned mean, either. We need more definitions, but to some degree it's hard to create definitions from our end with incomplete understanding.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the use of the words "sanctioned" and "unsanctioned" with regard to PvP. I think those terms imply a level of top-down approval/disapproval review that we don't intend and won't enforce.
There's a difference between griefing someone - which we'll loosely define for the purpose of this discussion as taking some actions with the overwhelming intent to piss off another player or ruin their play experience without a meaningful in-game reason other than causing distress; and engaging someone in unwanted combat for some meaningful in-game reason.
The former is something we want to work really hard to discourage, as we've discussed ad nauseam. The latter is a feature of the game and we want to ensure that people understand that.
Great post. I think some of the RP'ers (TT or otherwise) and PvE'ers are still kind of just hoping the game won't be as PvP-focused as it clearly is.
One thing people need to understand is that the game IS PvP-focused (I know it's obvious though some people disagree with this point).
What I mean by that is the world is molded by PvP. The main game here is about settlements/kingdoms expanding their borderlines and growing and expanding their interests, and as there is a finite amount of space and resources, people will be left with no choice but to fight if they want to continue to grow.
So, as I said, the world will be molded by PvP... just like in real life. Every government in the world exists because at some point (or points) they fought for what they have, and were able to defend what they had against potential aggressors, and it will be no different in PFO.
Crafting, Caravaning, SAD's, Hideouts preventing fast-travel, etc. Are all just "mini-games" that fuel the larger conflict.
I hear you, but...
There needs to be a word to describe the state of PvP, in wars and feuds, for example, where one group has spent DI or Influence and its members have a window to attack an enemy without reputation or alignment consequences.
Maybe the word isn't "sanctioned". Maybe it's something else, because sanctioned is a loaded term with preexisting meaning. Almost every word in the English language comes pre-loaded that way. Law. Good. Evil. Those were slapped on the game almost 40 years ago and the community still can't agree on what they mean.
edit: and rereading my comment; I'd bet the commenters on this thread don't have an agreement on what sanctioned or unsanctioned mean, either. We need more definitions, but to some degree it's hard to create
definitions from our end with incomplete understanding.
We could call it Faction Warfare or "FvF".
Faction conflict has already been defined, as the PvP between flagged members of factions. While it's also without reputation/alignment consequences, wars and feuds are something else.
Well then I think the word you're looking for is Wars/Feuds.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think Urman is right. All you (pl.) are doing is using labels for PvP that is min. or zero affect on your influence/reputation negatively vs PvP that is max. (or at least significantly above base-line) negative change (-ve) to your Influence/Reputation.
The OP question (title question) I take to be some sort of philosophical quandary. I mean you the "Un-" derives from somewhere! I'd ramble and rave on some more about a quote along the lines of:
"The law breathes through it's loop-holes."
To tag different forms will form clusters on a graph that could be loosely grouped between Un- and Sanctioned or whichever words will do.
Sanctioned by ye deities not necessarily by GW.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the use of the words "sanctioned" and "unsanctioned" with regard to PvP...
Is there some other "bright line" distinction that can be used to determine whether or not a particular instance of PvP will cause Reputation loss?
There's a difference between griefing someone... and engaging someone in unwanted combat for some meaningful in-game reason.
I was under the impression that Reputation loss wasn't necessarily supposed to be equated with "griefing".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I appreciate that clarification from Ryan--I was troubled by the implications of "sanctioned," and I'm glad there isn't a top-down approval/disapproval for PvP.
Maybe the word is formal and ad-hoc: some cases of PvP are formally recognized and regulated in special ways, while some PvP happens in a more general, on the fly way.
But neither kind is "sanctioned."
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One thing people need to understand is that the game IS PvP-focused (I know it's obvious though some people disagree with this point).
*starts handing out torches and pitchforks so some people can be driven off*
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One thing people need to understand is that the game IS PvP-focused (I know it's obvious though some people disagree with this point).*starts handing out torches and pitchforks so some people can be driven off*
I have learned that there is more use in keeping the torches and pitchforks in the barns, and welcoming in those that are wary of Open World PvP.
Some will be the sheep that I prey upon.
Some will become sheep dogs, and occasionally present me with a challenge to get to the sheep.
Others, will get the taste for blood, and become wolves themselves.
The only two types I want to see driven from the game:
The sheep dogs, who think they are wolves, because they only prey upon baby sheep.
The baby sheep who are militant and loud, and want the wolves turned into house dogs.
But I don't want game mechanics to drive them away. I want the Sheep Dogs and Wolves to do that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'm a little bit uncomfortable with the use of the words "sanctioned" and "unsanctioned" with regard to PvP...Is there some other "bright line" distinction that can be used to determine whether or not a particular instance of PvP will cause Reputation loss?
There's a difference between griefing someone... and engaging someone in unwanted combat for some meaningful in-game reason.I was under the impression that Reputation loss wasn't necessarily supposed to be equated with "griefing".
Do the devs have any short terms for defining Reputation Positive (including no change) and Reputation Negative actions?
I was under the assumption the Reputation System was a top down approval/disapproval system. The largest difference was that it did not provide extreme punishment for only occasional infractions, but became very harsh towards those who consistently perform the disapproved actions. It was more about approval/disapproval of long-term behavioral trends and not single incidences.
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
I agree that "sanctioned/unsanctioned" is a bad word choice. Put 'griefing' in it's own category, which will overlap with all other categories. Then there's a category of 'Target of PvP is actively engaged in PvP behavior, including being inside of a declared war zone (and other things not mentioned) or has otherwise declared themself engaged in PvP'. There's a second category of behavior which is 'The attacker has paid some price (probably influence, but all prices can be measured using units of player-time) to engage (e.g. unilateral feuds, wars, and banditry)'.
The third category, and the only one that I think should have inherent reputation penalties, is where the defender was not doing anything which should draw the ire of the attacker, and the attacker did not expend a finite resource or have sufficient reason to engage, but did so anyway.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, I'm pretty far off the reservation now, so you'll have to indulge me. This is very much theorycrafting and opinion rather than fact or plan.
I remain a bit skeptical that the reputation system will work as intended by the designers - as a check on griefing behavior. I am of the opinion that because it can be quantified, people will use it as a currency - they'll "pay the cost" to gank someone, and the calculus of the cost/benefit of doing that will be pretty easy to compute. They'll also know what they need to do to remediate minor reputation hits. Players will rapidly gain a sense of how often they can whack someone without suffering any lasting meaningful penalties.
I think that the biggest impact of the reputation system will be in aiding a social group in identifying and removing bad actors; the people who just can't keep the crazy locked down and who pose a continuing risk of upsetting carefully maintained tradeoffs being made by the rest of the group.
I think the alignment system is going to be the major impediment to griefers. I think they'll find that we've intentionally designed the game so that people who behave badly often find themselves at a serious power deficit vs. their peers and I know from experience there's nothing that drives those kind of people around the bend faster than thinking that someone else has an advantage they don't have. As the alignment system forces these people to cluster together I expect it will be very much Lord of the Flies within those groups. I think that they'll serve as a great example of what not to do. The horror stories of maltreatement and constant upheaval coming out of the Chaotic Evil settlements are going to look really unappetizing to everyone else. (And every once in a while the CE people will rally behind some strong leader and come boiling out across the map ready to pillage, but that's just more great content for everyone else so I think it's a feature not a bug).
The reputation system could end up doing the same thing, forcing bad actors to cluster regardless of how the alignment system is implemented. I'm not going to rule out the idea that there could be some really low reputation Settlement that doesn't degenerate to CE, I just think it's extremely unlikely.
I guess I see the two systems as more of a "carrot & stick" pair than as two layers. The reputation is the carrot - keep your group from being jerks, and your group will maintain significant advantages; the alignment is the stick - act like a jerk and you'll find your options for character development limited and your peers likely to be as bad or worse than you are.
One thing people need to understand is that the game IS PvP-focused (I know it's obvious though some people disagree with this point).*starts handing out torches and pitchforks so some people can be driven off*
That comment wasn't specifically directed at you Nihimon... just people in general you don't understand that PFO would be in the category of PvP-focused Sandbox MMO.
I think that the biggest impact of the reputation system will be in aiding a social group in identifying and removing bad actors; the people who just can't keep the crazy locked down and who pose a continuing risk of upsetting carefully maintained tradeoffs being made by the rest of the group.I think the alignment system is going to be the major impediment to griefers. I think they'll find that we've intentionally designed the game so that people who behave badly often find themselves at a serious power deficit vs. their peers and I know from experience there's nothing that drives those kind of people around the bend faster than thinking that someone else has an advantage they don't have. As the alignment system forces these people to cluster together
On that note, I think that the reputation system will segregate people in the positive way in which you mentioned, and that alignment will just really segregate people in an annoying way.