Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
4. More Than A Gankfest- Unlike other Open World PVP MMO's currently on the market, Pathfinder Online actively discourages meaningless PVP.That was Andius' statements, and not binding in any way for GW to hold to that.
That is from the kickstarter page ,it is not a quote from Andius. Or did you mean GW may change their minds about what they want to do?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is from the kickstarter page ,it is not a quote from Andius. Or did you mean GW may change their minds about what they want to do?4. More Than A Gankfest- Unlike other Open World PVP MMO's currently on the market, Pathfinder Online actively discourages meaningless PVP.That was Andius' statements, and not binding in any way for GW to hold to that.
@Andius on the Pathfinder Forums, complied this awesome list of what makes the game different from other MMOs you may have played in the past.
HAHA, a loop-hole, thanks Bludd. When I said "they" I meant the Devs (obviously), and Andius isn't a dev. The discussion continues! Lawyered.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
That is from the kickstarter page ,it is not a quote from Andius. Or did you mean GW may change their minds about what they want to do?4. More Than A Gankfest- Unlike other Open World PVP MMO's currently on the market, Pathfinder Online actively discourages meaningless PVP.That was Andius' statements, and not binding in any way for GW to hold to that.@Andius on the Pathfinder Forums, complied this awesome list of what makes the game different from other MMOs you may have played in the past.
Ok I thought you were saying it did not come straight off the kickstarter page , it did. And it IS the kickstarters explanation of what PFO will be , not just what Andius thinks as you are implying. All these threads that try to redesign an mmo after the devs have made it clear what they are doing just start useless arguments.
It is self delusion to believe this game was designed to be yet another FFA PvP game with no purpose. Otherwise, Rep and Alignment and SADs wouldn't exist.
PvP with no reason in an FPS.
Allowing one FFA PvP opt-in system doens't take away from the other systems (which I said a million frigan times, and if people are wondering why I'm so nasty, it might be because for lack of an argument, people keep bringing up the same g+~ d~~n points over and over again even when said objections are easily handled).
You think allowing people to have one opt-in PvP system turns the entire game into a gankfest? Give me a break.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It is self delusion to believe this game was designed to be yet another FFA PvP game with no purpose. Otherwise, Rep and Alignment and SADs wouldn't exist.
PvP with no reason in an FPS.
They don't exist, they are just "nice to haves" (in some people's opinions)at this point, and there is a long, long time before they are in the game if at all.
You haven't answered all the points of disagreement that have been raised. You have ignored more than a few, in fact, or dismissed them with a snide remark.
That is not the same as proving that the problem raised is not valid.
Well, there was too many for me to refute them all, I got an onslought. Any in particular I can quickly and easily handle for you all?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
They don't exist, they are just "nice to haves" (in some people's opinions)at this point, and there is a long, long time before they are in the game if at all.It is self delusion to believe this game was designed to be yet another FFA PvP game with no purpose. Otherwise, Rep and Alignment and SADs wouldn't exist.
PvP with no reason in an FPS.
They don't exist (for us) until we play, you mean:
We know that striking the right balance of how fast Reputation and Alignment changes is going to be critical to making these systems work and be fun. During Early Enrollment we'll be experimenting with all the "dials" on these boards, seeing how various changes affect the play experience. We're also going to be talking with the community about the kinds of things that should cause Reputation loss, and changes in Alignment. As with all Pathfinder Online game systems, our goal is to start with a simple, basic set of rules, and then allow the Community to help guide us in making them more complex over time.
That seems clear to me that some, 2/3 at least, will be there in some form.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Well, there was too many for me to refute them all, I got an onslought. Any in particular I can quickly and easily handle for you all?You haven't answered all the points of disagreement that have been raised. You have ignored more than a few, in fact, or dismissed them with a snide remark.
That is not the same as proving that the problem raised is not valid.
Yes. Creators and "Qallzi Designers" (<--see what I did there?) are always busy folks.
I am neither. The burden is on you to convince us of the merit of your idea. I won't read back through the 20% deleted chain to find those lost objections and arguments.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My current objection is that it draws a stark line between PvPers and non-PvPers when you throw in significant bonuses. You're right that it would be wrong to not have any incentives to using the flag; that's a whole lot of extra risk for no reward. But, a binary on/off flag which gives such significant advantages would, in my opinion, not mesh well with the game's overall goals of blending the PvE, PvP, and other camps of players into one big unified player base.
The reasoning is simple: a PvP character is already significantly advantaged against a non-PvP character before your flag's bonuses. With the flag's bonuses available too, I'd worry that non-PvPers would see no reason at all to try and fight PvPers; they don't have the build for it and they don't have the massive buff the enemies have (and if it isn't a massive buff, most PvPers will not use it because of the value of surprise and the protection of the Rep system). These non-PvPers would likely die in every encounter with PvPers which they didn't have a very significant numbers advantage; assuming both sides can field equal numbers, they'd have no reason to try and participate in small-scale PvP.
It seems to me like it further exaggerates the difference between "sheep" and "wolves", making it even more pointless for a sheep to try and fight anybody who self-identifies with constant PvP (it was practically unwinnable for the sheep already as-is). Might as well just start running, as you might survive that way.
In conclusion, I definitely agree that we should include as many ways for PvPers to blow off steam as we can. However, we need to be careful about making the PvPers too strong compared to the other players as a result. In a game that hopes to have PvPers, PvErs, crafters, and everything else all playing in the same space, I don't want to see PvPers "ruling" that space; every person should have a place where they can contribute to the game world and feel rewarded, otherwise our game turns into a PvP-only game as the other camps leave to...
I'd like to know your response to this objection. TL;DR, if the system provides an always-on buff of any significant amount, that puts opt-in PvPers far ahead of others in PvP situations that are separated from the opt-in system (as an example, in outpost raiding), which I think detracts from the "melting pot" of gamestyles I believe this MMO is trying to achieve.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly man, I still really can't comprehend how you think a team based Faction vs. Faction system with only two factions (or even 3-4) is remotely similar to the on/off FFA PvP flag which I describe in the OP.On topic: the colored organizations will already provide a system for alignment and reputation agnostic fighting.Those were a joke that you came up with. I don't think we should take time to discuss those seriously. And in any case, even if people did do these, they would be faction-based, overlapping the player settlement system, and thus taking away from it. A player who joined one of these colored things probably wouldn't be able to join another "real" settlement. And they're not really much different from the NPC-faction setup tbh.Neither are they a joke nor were they of my invention.
The only thing that they would remove from the company or settlement system is players who wish to play in a manner other than the expected and intended manner.
And the NPC factions are likely to attract players who don't want to participate in the murder simulator subgame, or who don't want fights to be fair.
Wait, did you intend for that to be 'every one person against every other one person'? Because 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1 deathmatch sucks.
Wait, did you intend for that to be 'every one person against every other one person'? Because 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1 deathmatch sucks.Honestly man, I still really can't comprehend how you think a team based Faction vs. Faction system with only two factions (or even 3-4) is remotely similar to the on/off FFA PvP flag which I describe in the OP.On topic: the colored organizations will already provide a system for alignment and reputation agnostic fighting.Those were a joke that you came up with. I don't think we should take time to discuss those seriously. And in any case, even if people did do these, they would be faction-based, overlapping the player settlement system, and thus taking away from it. A player who joined one of these colored things probably wouldn't be able to join another "real" settlement. And they're not really much different from the NPC-faction setup tbh.Neither are they a joke nor were they of my invention.
The only thing that they would remove from the company or settlement system is players who wish to play in a manner other than the expected and intended manner.
And the NPC factions are likely to attract players who don't want to participate in the murder simulator subgame, or who don't want fights to be fair.
Not every man for himself. People could still group up, and of course there's Chartered Companies. I don't believe people in CC's should be able to attack eachother, or in groups. I've played A LOT of FFA PvP, and people group up FAR more often than they engage in those 1v1v1 battle royales believe me (though the oocasional battle royale is fun too).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
4. More Than A Gankfest- Unlike other Open World PVP MMO's currently on the market, Pathfinder Online actively discourages meaningless PVP.That was Andius' statements, and not binding in any way for GW to hold to that.
It's important to not that was reviewed, edited, and posted by GW employees.
If you compare the original list to that found on the Kickstarter you will note that it's slightly different and missing some elements on the Kickstarter page.
I only ever submitted the original so GW has pretty much stamped their approval on the statements made in the version posted on the Kickstarter page, as infuriating as that may be to individuals such as Bluddwolf.
4. More Than A Gankfest- Unlike other Open World PVP MMO's currently on the market, Pathfinder Online actively discourages meaningless PVP.That was Andius' statements, and not binding in any way for GW to hold to that.It's important to not that was reviewed, edited, and posted by GW employees.
If you compare the original list to that found on the Kickstarter you will note that it's slightly different and missing some elements on the Kickstarter page.
I only ever submitted the original so GW has pretty much stamped their approval on the statements made in the version posted on the Kickstarter page, as infuriating as that may be to individuals such as Bluddwolf.
And how do we know that you're the Andius that made that post? It was a long time ago. Id like to see some proof!
|
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Not every man for himself. People could still group up, and of course there's Chartered Companies. I don't believe people in CC's should be able to attack eachother, or in groups. I've played A LOT of FFA PvP, and people group up FAR more often than they engage in those 1v1v1 battle royales believe me (though the oocasional battle royale is fun too).Wait, did you intend for that to be 'every one person against every other one person'? Because 1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1v1 deathmatch sucks.Honestly man, I still really can't comprehend how you think a team based Faction vs. Faction system with only two factions (or even 3-4) is remotely similar to the on/off FFA PvP flag which I describe in the OP.On topic: the colored organizations will already provide a system for alignment and reputation agnostic fighting.Those were a joke that you came up with. I don't think we should take time to discuss those seriously. And in any case, even if people did do these, they would be faction-based, overlapping the player settlement system, and thus taking away from it. A player who joined one of these colored things probably wouldn't be able to join another "real" settlement. And they're not really much different from the NPC-faction setup tbh.Neither are they a joke nor were they of my invention.
The only thing that they would remove from the company or settlement system is players who wish to play in a manner other than the expected and intended manner.
And the NPC factions are likely to attract players who don't want to participate in the murder simulator subgame, or who don't want fights to be fair.
If the CC you join to participate is not named after a color, that's isomorphic to the "colored companies" idea; if it is, then they are identical.
@Quallz
Search for it in my post history. ;)
To be fair, the first post I made was in your thread, and I thought that "Goblin Squad Member" meant that you worked for GoblinWorks.
If the CC you join to participate is not named after a color, that's isomorphic to the "colored companies" idea; if it is, then they are identical.
It's different because RvB is always "PvP for the sake of PvP", whereas fighting for a CC, or in a group, is often to achieve a political agenda (such as starting an escalation cycle within enemy territory, or capturing outposts). It would just allow the flagged people to attack the other flagged people without a formal war/feud, a formal SAD, a formal formality, or anything else you can think of with the word "formal".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
4. More Than A Gankfest- Unlike other Open World PVP MMO's currently on the market, Pathfinder Online actively discourages meaningless PVP.That was Andius' statements, and not binding in any way for GW to hold to that.It's important to not that was reviewed, edited, and posted by GW employees.
If you compare the original list to that found on the Kickstarter you will note that it's slightly different and missing some elements on the Kickstarter page.
I only ever submitted the original so GW has pretty much stamped their approval on the statements made in the version posted on the Kickstarter page, as infuriating as that may be to individuals such as Bluddwolf.
"Infuriating", whatever gave you that idea? I just made a statement of fact. None of those points on the kick starter page are promises. The kick starter itself does not guarantee a game. We are not investors and are owned absolutely nothing in the way of promises.
Is this in dispute?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given that the Kickstarter succeed, yes. We have a reasonable right to assume they will deliver a product similar to what was being described on the Kickstarter page.
People paid over a million dollars for a game that was promoted as more than a meaningless gankfest. I think that should mean something.
Anyway it's really a pointless discussion. This devs have consistently said this game won't be the murder simulator other similar titles offer over and over and over. It's a stance they've never backed down from even a little. This game will not be a murder sim, regardless of how much anyone denies it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Given that the Kickstarter succeed, yes. We have a reasonable right to assume they will deliver a product similar to what was being described on the Kickstarter page.
People paid over a million dollars for a game that was promoted as more than a meaningless gankfest. I think that should mean something.
Anyway it's really a pointless discussion. This devs have consistently said this game won't be the murder simulator other similar titles offer over and over and over. It's a stance they've never backed down from even a little. This game will not be a murder sim, regardless of how much anyone denies it.
AND as I've said for the millionth time now... adding in one system of consensual PvP amongst PvP'ers doesn't turn the entire game into a murder-fest.
Of course, I know the objection to that is going to be: "But, GW doesn't want PFO to be a murderfest". :-?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Qallz
One of the major concerns that I have is that the bonuses make it pretty much a "required" flag for anyone that ever plans to PVP. Even gatherers and merchants would need it to try and equalize the differential created by the bonus.
So now EVERYONE is flagged for non consequential PVP.
Nothing to lose at all (except some gear) for running wild and killing everything that you see.
Why do you think that it wouldn't result in a murder festival?
@ Qallz
One of the major concerns that I have is that the bonuses make it pretty much a "required" flag for anyone that ever plans to PVP. Even gatherers and merchants would need it to try and equalize the differential created by the bonus.
So now EVERYONE is flagged for non consequential PVP.
Nothing to lose at all (except some gear) for running wild and killing everything that you see.
Why do you think that it wouldn't result in a murder festival?
A valid concern, but keep in mind that flagging would open one up to A LOT more consequence-free PvP, so I think if there were a TON of people doing it, then people would avoid it more and more, and it would just sort of balance itself out.
There will always be a big advantage to NOT being flagged. Far less people will be willing to attack you.
Edit: Also, I'd point out, that by that same logic, the NPC faction system should turn the game into a murder-fest anyways, since Ryan has said there will be decided advantages to opening yourself up to more PvP via those avenues as well.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A valid concern, but keep in mind that flagging would open one up to A LOT more consequence-free PvP, so I think if there were a TON of people doing it, then people would avoid it more and more, and it would just sort of balance itself out.
There will always be a big advantage to NOT being flagged. Far less people will be willing to attack you.
There we will have to disagree. I think that few would pass it up. Especially considering that it gives advantage AND that it takes time to ramp up. Even those that did not really want consequence free PVP would have to use it OR want to use it because it is a nice free buff and you can't take the chance that your enemies might have it.
Edit: Also, I'd point out, that by that same logic, the NPC faction system should turn the game into a murder-fest anyways, since Ryan has said there will be decided advantages to opening yourself up to more PvP via those avenues as well.
Unfortunately, your idea is more laid out for us at this point, to examine, than the entire faction system. Critique of your layout is easier (right now) simply because we have very few details about GW's Faction System. We have no idea how that might play out, without more info.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
While the four of you say the same thing over and over to each other without any chance of advancing the discussion I feel compelled to respond to this just in case one of the other hundred thousand plus users of these forums wanders by on accident:
They (Ryan) had already said that neither system [alignment & rep - rsd] will be in place through most if not all of EE.
No, I can't recall ever saying that. It will be in at the start barring technical problems.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While the four of you say the same thing over and over to each other without any chance of advancing the discussion I feel compelled to respond to this just in case one of the other hundred thousand plus users of these forums wanders by on accident:
They (Ryan) had already said that neither system will be in place through most if not all of EE.No, I can't recall ever saying that. It will be in at the start barring technical problems.
Lol. Thanks for clearing that up Mr. Dancey. :)
While the four of you say the same thing over and over to each other without any chance of advancing the discussion I feel compelled to respond to this just in case one of the other hundred thousand plus users of these forums wanders by on accident:
They (Ryan) had already said that neither system [alignment & rep - rsd] will be in place through most if not all of EE.No, I can't recall ever saying that. It will be in at the start barring technical problems.
YES, Ryan, I keep getting the same stupid objection over and over again, THIS is why I'm getting pissed off.
Can you comment on the one-flag system since I clarified that it would be a simple replacement to the NPC Faction system.
Do you think the NPC Faction system will really be so meaningful to PvP'ers that it's better than a regular one-flag type deal?
Are you OK with the idea of PvP'ers engaging in more consensual PvP? (though I alreay know the answer to this is probably yes, otherwise why would you have implemented the flagging and then NPC faction system at all?).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
YES, Ryan, I keep getting the same stupid objection over and over again, THIS is why I'm getting pissed off.
I wonder why the "stupid objection" is repeated? Could it be because it hasn't been or can't be answered to the questioner's satisfaction?
No, of course not. We are just too stupid to except your "hand wave" answer.
YES, Ryan, I keep getting the same stupid objection over and over again, THIS is why I'm getting pissed off.I wonder why the "stupid objection" is repeated? Could it be because it hasn't been or can't be answered to the questioner's satisfaction?
No, of course not. We are just too stupid to except your "hand wave" answer.
It's been answered nearly everytime it's been asked. The fact that I've answered it so many g#% d**n times I suppose implies that I am the stupid one.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion
I do not see the "Opt-in" Flag being put in game, because(again, in my opinion) it would end up hurting the character interaction of the game more then it helps. It would lessen the amount of people engaging in the main interactions of the game.
assuming of course that the intended actions were geared for a more logistical and social approach to pvp then the -me and my friends only want to pvp so we are going to hide away in this little corner over here- approach while being social within the little group isnt really the definition of social i think they are going for
I don't have enough interest to keep going round-n-round. I tried to engage you into discussion in an adult way about your idea.
If your idea can be worked into something that works for the game as intended, I congratulate you. Good luck
You actually did bring up a couple good points. The repetitiveness was mostly on account of Decius and Alexander (and a few others as well). So, don't take it too personally.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You actually did bring up a couple good points. The repetitiveness was mostly on account of Decius and Alexander (and a few others as well). So, don't take it too personally.I don't have enough interest to keep going round-n-round. I tried to engage you into discussion in an adult way about your idea.
If your idea can be worked into something that works for the game as intended, I congratulate you. Good luck
If you would answer a question and defend your assertion, a question would not need be asked over and over.
I'm going to tap out of this thread, as it is obvious that an answer is not forthcoming.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
While the four of you say the same thing over and over to each other without any chance of advancing the discussion I feel compelled to respond to this just in case one of the other hundred thousand plus users of these forums wanders by on accident:
They (Ryan) had already said that neither system [alignment & rep - rsd] will be in place through most if not all of EE.No, I can't recall ever saying that. It will be in at the start barring technical problems.
If I extended the meaning beyond your original point, then I was mistaken. However, I did not pull the idea out of thin air. I can't find your exact quite, but your concern was that there will be very little else for us to do in EE (unclear what part of EE you were speaking of) but fight each other and you did not want a lot of us leaving EE as CE and Low Rep.
That aside, can you break down the 18 or so months of EE into phases (perhaps 3, 6 month phases)so when systems are discussed they can be placed into the EE phase that is your target?
Example: Settlement Warfare is targeted for phase 3 of EE.
* Note: If EE is less than 18 months, that would be a welcomed bit of information, and please feel free to modify the description of the EE phases to reflect an overall shorter term of EE.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are incredible, Bludd. Ryan presents a straight clarification that contradicts what you imputed to him. So consequently you interpret his clarification to mean your imputation was almost right by using an oblique inference based on another of your interpretations.
Then to deflect correction you raise a different question.
This board is at times astonishing.
I remember the concern that there would be little else to do but fight and he mentioned his concern that everyone would end CE because of that. But he wasn't saying at that time that they would suspend rep and alignment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EE could be really interesting (for everyone involved) SEEING how alignment/reputation systems change player's behaviors and vica-versa players feedback into changing these systems.
@Being, these boards are very good tbh. Some other mmorpgs "boards" are like being on a sinking ship amid a storm, crossing the Cape Horn, during Winter!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
EE could be really interesting (for everyone involved) SEEING how alignment/reputation systems change player's behaviors and vica-versa players feedback into changing these systems.
@Being, these boards are very good tbh. Some other mmorpgs "boards" are like being on a sinking ship amid a storm, crossing the Cape Horn, during Winter!
Well yes. The board is quite good and the intent of nearly everyone is, as far as I can tell, quite honest as far as internet discussions go. Several of us, and I include myself, are still pretty brazen at times, especially if it is given that we recognize the caliber of who the rest of us are.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some other mmorpgs "boards" are like being on a sinking ship amid a storm, crossing the Cape Horn, during Winter!
...with all the passengers and crew poisoned, and beset by rabid rats, while armed with flamethrowers and suffering a full psychotic break.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I remember the concern that there would be little else to do but fight and he mentioned his concern that everyone would end CE because of that. But he wasn't saying at that time that they would suspend rep and alignment.
Actually, "suspend" is the wrong word to use, because that would imply that in was in place to begin with. I believe a better term would be to "delay" implementation until other systems were in place, so that we could have the opportunity to PVP within non rep losing means.
I interpreted his meaning to be that there would be PVP before there would be the alignment / reputation systems to govern PVP. But as I stated before:
If I extended the meaning beyond your original point, then I was mistaken.
I can't do much more than admit that I may have been mistaken or wrong if you prefer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Some other mmorpgs "boards" are like being on a sinking ship amid a storm, crossing the Cape Horn, during Winter!...with all the passengers and crew poisoned, and beset by rabid rats, while armed with flamethrowers and suffering a full psychotic break.
The passengers are eating rats, and the crew are eating the passengers! (who needs disaster movies when you've got mmorpg boards).
@Bludd: I imagine Reputation hit will start very high for certain opportunistic pvp actions outside a basic flag system (ie who, which hex, who attacked who first etc). Start with a heavy bat and see how effective it is then work on other types of effectiveness that are harder to predict?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It would be a strange situation if during EE the reputation system is implemented but none of the "sanctioned" PvP activities are.
Without raids, SADs, wars, sieges, feuds, factions and I don't know what else, what PvP can you do without losing reputation? Killing flagged attackers or criminals of course but to end up attacker or criminal one would first have to commit a reputation-lowering act?
I don't believe that this will be the case so clearly either the reputation system needs to be more lax during EE or there needs to be one or more "sanctioned" PvP activity already implemented from the start (or EE will be one huge PvE fest :D).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While the four of you say the same thing over and over to each other without any chance of advancing the discussion I feel compelled to respond to this just in case one of the other hundred thousand plus users of these forums wanders by on accident:
They (Ryan) had already said that neither system [alignment & rep - rsd] will be in place through most if not all of EE.No, I can't recall ever saying that. It will be in at the start barring technical problems.
It's a pattern.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
They (Ryan) had already said that neither system [alignment & rep - rsd] will be in place through most if not all of EE.No, I can't recall ever saying that. It will be in at the start barring technical problems.If I extended the meaning beyond your original point, then I was mistaken. However, I did not pull the idea out of thin air. I can't find your exact quite, but your concern was that there will be very little else for us to do in EE (unclear what part of EE you were speaking of) but fight each other and you did not want a lot of us leaving EE as CE and Low Rep.
That aside, can you break down the 18 or so months of EE into phases (perhaps 3, 6 month phases)so when systems are discussed they can be placed into the EE phase that is your target?
Example: Settlement Warfare is targeted for phase 3 of EE.
* Note: If EE is less than 18 months, that would be a welcomed bit of information, and please feel free to modify the description of the EE phases to reflect an overall shorter term of EE.
I'm fairly certain you were responding to this:
I think that it will be very common for the first thing people to try is fighting one another. We may find that we need to create some kind of "Red vs Blue" structure very quickly to accommodate this kind of thing even if other game systems are not mature enough to let it emerge naturally. Otherwise I think we'll end up with meaningless reputation and meaningless alignment systems (everyone will be low rep chaotic evil).
At least, that's from Dec. 3rd and you have a post from Dec. 5th that references a "recent" revelation from Ryan:
With so much discussion taking placed, based on some of Ryan Dancey's recent posts, the UNC will be having our own internal discussions about our role during EE.
The revelation that there will likely be no alignment or reputation systems in place until late EE or early OE, will be quite an interesting proposition for the UNC.
I tried to point this out before to demonstrate that you (Bluddwolf) are not a trustworthy or credible source of information about the game mechanics. That you have a pattern of taking throwaway statements, some not even from devs, and twisting them around and then proclaiming your twisted versions as fact.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think that it will be very common for the first thing people to try is fighting one another. We may find that we need to create some kind of "Red vs Blue" structure very quickly to accommodate this kind of thing even if other game systems are not mature enough to let it emerge naturally. Otherwise I think we'll end up with meaningless reputation and meaningless alignment systems (everyone will be low rep chaotic evil).
That rendered (unintentionally?) my previous post unnecessary. Thank you Nihimon.
I'm fairly certain you were responding to this:
I think that it will be very common for the first thing people to try is fighting one another. We may find that we need to create some kind of "Red vs Blue" structure very quickly to accommodate this kind of thing even if other game systems are not mature enough to let it emerge naturally. Otherwise I think we'll end up with meaningless reputation and meaningless alignment systems (everyone will be low rep chaotic evil).At least, that's from Dec. 3rd and you have a post from Dec. 5th that references a "recent" revelation from Ryan:
An unlikely Savior. You're full of surprises Master Nihimon.