Goblin Squad Member
|
Feuds, Caravans, Outposts/POI defenders and aggressive raids and even small gang and individuals constitute settlement warfare. They are not left out of the wars, they make the wars.
They are not left out, but they are also not always bound within the settlement vs. settlement conflict.
There are and will be groups that function outside of the larger settlement vs settlement or nation vs nation conflicts.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Feuds, Caravans, Outposts/POI defenders and aggressive raids and even small gang and individuals constitute settlement warfare. They are not left out of the wars, they make the wars.They are not left out, but they are also not always bound within the settlement vs. settlement conflict.
There are and will be groups that function outside of the larger settlement vs settlement or nation vs nation conflicts.
Well, of course. The game is not intended to only be PvP (unless I am mistaken). But in terms of active PvP, why will gangs and individuals engage in PvP outside the auspices of settlement or company conflict?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, of course. The game is not intended to only be PvP (unless I am mistaken). But in terms of active PvP, why will gangs and individuals engage in PvP outside the auspices of settlement or company conflict?Feuds, Caravans, Outposts/POI defenders and aggressive raids and even small gang and individuals constitute settlement warfare. They are not left out of the wars, they make the wars.They are not left out, but they are also not always bound within the settlement vs. settlement conflict.
There are and will be groups that function outside of the larger settlement vs settlement or nation vs nation conflicts.
Banditry, random killing, .... hmm can't think of much else.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, of course. The game is not intended to only be PvP (unless I am mistaken). But in terms of active PvP, why will gangs and individuals engage in PvP outside the auspices of settlement or company conflict?Feuds, Caravans, Outposts/POI defenders and aggressive raids and even small gang and individuals constitute settlement warfare. They are not left out of the wars, they make the wars.They are not left out, but they are also not always bound within the settlement vs. settlement conflict.
There are and will be groups that function outside of the larger settlement vs settlement or nation vs nation conflicts.
Because settlement A does not want settlement B to know at this point in time who is interfering with their trade routes, gathering operations and PVE operations. Therefore they get gangs and individuals to do it for them via various inducements.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So we have an outlier condition, an exception on the part of some few that, because of the game advantages it yields, would make into a required behavior.
And for the sake of which we would be compelled to either endure wanton, irresponsible murder or commit the same ourselves and all because we have a few people who argue we should not invest mechanics to prevent such behaviors.
And of course any motion to engineer the mechanics is derided as unmanly and weak, something no competent worthy would stoop to. Which is unadulterated rhetoric instead of reason or logic, of course.
So what to do? Whatever should we do? Throw away the game we intended to fund in order to build the game instead around a rhetorical ploy delivered by someone apparently uninvested in the end product?
I do like your RP in the RP thread, Steelwing, btw.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
You can party with anyone. If not, then the game gets a whole lot more limited for everyone....not just those who want to be bandits.
My assumption is that the bandits are partied together. Not members of any company and members of an NPC settlement. Who do you declare feud against...there is no company game object to set as target for a feud. Who do you declare War against? The entire NPC settlement?
Heck lets say the bandits even are members of companies and spread there companies out. Each feud costs you something to declare. You declare Feud on a company to kill one of thier members who isn't carrying something once? Want to engage the entire bandit group...pay the cost to feud 20 companies? Congratulations you've just spent more then it would have cost you to let the bandits rob you blind?
These are the kind of design decisions that have to be taken into account when trying to impliment such systems because players WILL game the heck out of them to gain the best mechanical advantage from them in conflicts.
Yeah. That was the point of the question. There are a goodly number of problems associated with every feature. Some that can be addressed and some that can't.
I would really like to see a mechanic list for "trespassing" individuals from sovereign territory. It is possibly bulky and resource intensive, but it solves so many problems of these work arounds. I don't think that it needs to be as complicated as Andius' "Exile" idea, just a simple list.
*You are on it and enter the hex, you go "hostile" flagged.
*You want off of it, talk to the boss.
*Those that proclaim it unfair, are likely those with an unfriendly agenda in any case.
*Make it an option when the target is already criminal and you spot them in the hex.
*Solve the problem of "corruption" scammers with a personal 1/day per account marker.
A way that the resource issue is simply to make it a non-persistant manualy applied timer. A settlement member with the authority to use it targets the individual. A timer starts that says "You have X number of minutes to leave this settlement hex before you get marked as Hostile". The individual leaves within the time-frame....no harm/no foul, the timer goes away. If they are still within the hex when the timer expires they get marked as hostile. That should eliminate the resource issue....it really becomes no more resource intensive then any buff/debuff that can be put on another player within the game.
Edit: Making it manualy applied should give folks like Bludd who want to play bandits have the opportunity to do so even in a controled hex. They just have to avoid the PC patrols that can manualy apply the condition to them. You could even make it a trained/slotted ability...so it really does become law enforcment/millitary that can apply it, not neccesarly his merchant targets.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
But in terms of active PvP, why will gangs and individuals engage in PvP outside the auspices of settlement or company conflict?
Personal gain; independent goals that are not settlement based; adventure; role playing; and as Steelwing pointed out, to fill the need of plausible deniability.
Grumpy Mel has a fair understanding of how and why bandit alts will be used. I think the only part that he is missing is that some players choose to play bandit / pirates as their main characters and the alts are the supporting cast.
Main-Character Bandit Companies may need one added alt in PFO, that they did not have a use of in EVE.
Main Bandit / PVP Focused
Alt Support (Unaffiliated) / Trade - Crafter
Alt Unaffiliated / PVP Low Rep (disposable).
Even the main character Bandit needs to maintain a moderate to high reputation, to avoid "sucking".
The "Inducements" that Steelwing mentioned, would lilley come in the form of access to training.
Mercenaries aren't just those that are willing to sign on for a brief period and fight your wars for you. Mercenaries will also come in the form of hired bandits, looking to wage the economic warfare against your rivals, meanwhile still giving the employer the cloak of deniability.
When the UnNamed Company raids an outpost or caravan, you won't know for sure if that was a freelance act, or at the behest of an employer. That is the basis for our company name.
So we have an outlier condition, an exception on the part of some few that, because of the game advantages it yields, would make into a required behavior.
And for the sake of which we would be compelled to either endure wanton, irresponsible murder or commit the same ourselves and all because we have a few people who argue we should not invest mechanics to prevent such behaviors.
And of course any motion to engineer the mechanics is derided as unmanly and weak, something no competent worthy would stoop to. Which is unadulterated rhetoric instead of reason or logic, of course.
So what to do? Whatever should we do? Throw away the game we intended to fund in order to build the game instead around a rhetorical ploy delivered by someone apparently uninvested in the end product?
I do like your RP in the RP thread, Steelwing, btw.
It is not throwing away the game in the least the example I gave is one of perfectly meaningful pvp not wanton and wholesale murder. It will be whether we join the game or not a part of settlement conflict.
Such a tactic for instance we would use for one of the following three reasons
1) We get the thugs working against settlement B and blame it on settlement C so that we can foment a war between the two. We can then persuade B that because they are weaker than C they will lose unless they decide to join our alliance.
2) We get the thugs working against settlement B and blame it on settlement C so that we can foment a war between the two. We can then wait until the two have destroyed the best part of the reserves then step in and take both settlements.
3) We get the thugs working against settlement B and blame it on bandits so that we can persuade settlement B they need to hire our mercenaries to protect them.
All of these I feel are legitimate reasons for PVP.
The fact they are outside of the mechanics is the fault of GW and does not mean these are not meaningful player interaction. This is why I object to the terms meaningful and non meaningful and prefer GW approved and non approved.
False flag enterprises are standard military tactics and will be used
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Edit: Making it manualy applied should give folks like Bludd who want to play bandits have the opportunity to do so even in a controled hex. They just have to avoid the PC patrols that can manualy apply the condition to them. You could even make it a trained/slotted ability...so it really does become law enforcment/millitary that can apply it, not neccesarly his merchant targets.
This may in fact be the way that the Marshal position Tork was talking about works.
As long as it has costs, requiring training and or slotted skills, I would welcome it. It would be a reasonable counter to the SAD, and or any person you "suspected" to be of criminal intent before they actually committed a crime.
It would also create reciprocal hostility states and allow both sides to square off without reputation consequences, should the "criminals" choose not to accept the demand to leave.
Or... You could train and slot the SAD mechanic and do the same thing, just that you won't be limited to your own lands or tie up a settlement title to do it.
You see it keeps on coming back to the SAD. People on these forums want to use the mechanics of it, but not the name of it. I have to wonder, is it really the name or is it the cost?
You Grumpy Mel, at least mention that there needs to be a cost with your idea.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ GrumpyMel
If it is non persistent, I don't see the use. You would still need to be ALL over your hex 24/7. If you are, then you don't need it at all. As soon as they flag, you attack.
The non-persistance would be a way to address the resource issue. Essentialy it allows the game to focus on only those threats that are likely to be relevant at the time rather then every suspect character ever made in the history of the game.... some sort of expiration is neccesary if you want to get away from being resource intensive.
You would still need a local force present, in any event, to deal with the situation.....marking them hostile and not having anyone availble to engage is no better then not marking them hostile. The system really shouldn't remove the need for player involvment in protecting thier own hex's.
What it does is not allow the agressors to perfectly dictate the timing and circumstances of any hostile engagement. By putting a timer on them similar to the one I describe... you force them to leave your territory (and away from your resource gatherers) or be engaged at a time NOT of thier choosing.
Without a system of some sort to address this aspect....I suspect that law enforcment/millitary would end resorting to thier own CE, Criminal, Low Rep unaffiliated ALTS just so that they could engage such intruders to keep them out of thier territory. Functional...although probably a significant cost in combat effectiveness and a pretty absurd situation to need to do that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Such a tactic for instance we would use for one of the following three reasons
1) We get the thugs working against settlement B and blame it on settlement C so that we can foment a war between the two. We can then persuade B that because they are weaker than C they will lose unless they decide to join our alliance.
2) We get the thugs working against settlement B and blame it on settlement C so that we can foment a war between the two. We can then wait until the two have destroyed the best part of the reserves then step in and take both settlements.
3) We get the thugs working against settlement B and blame it on bandits so that we can persuade settlement B they need to hire our mercenaries to protect them.
All of these I feel are legitimate reasons for PVP.
The fact they are outside of the mechanics is the fault of GW and does not mean these are not meaningful player interaction. This is why I object to the terms meaningful and non meaningful and prefer GW approved and non approved.
False flag enterprises are standard military tactics and will be used
#4. We get the thugs working against settlement B and blame it on bandits so that we can secretly prepare for our own invasion, while the bandits gather intelligence and soften up the DI, Outposts, and POIs of Settlement B.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
What reputation and alignment shifts would be ideal for a known false-flag operation, and how could those be easily exploited?
Please, don't give an answer to the effect of "I want false-flag operations to be Easy Mode." the intended goal is that it is unclear if the costs and risks exceed the value, which will result in some people doing false-flag operations and others not.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: Making it manualy applied should give folks like Bludd who want to play bandits have the opportunity to do so even in a controled hex. They just have to avoid the PC patrols that can manualy apply the condition to them. You could even make it a trained/slotted ability...so it really does become law enforcment/millitary that can apply it, not neccesarly his merchant targets.This may in fact be the way that the Marshal position Tork was talking about works.
As long as it has costs, requiring training and or slotted skills, I would welcome it. It would be a reasonable counter to the SAD, and or any person you "suspected" to be of criminal intent before they actually committed a crime.
It would also create reciprocal hostility states and allow both sides to square off without reputation consequences, should the "criminals" choose not to accept the demand to leave.
Or... You could train and slot the SAD mechanic and do the same thing, just that you won't be limited to your own lands or tie up a settlement title to do it.
You see it keeps on coming back to the SAD. People on these forums want to use the mechanics of it, but not the name of it. I have to wonder, is it really the name or is it the cost?
You Grumpy Mel, at least mention that there needs to be a cost with your idea.
I've explained elsewhere the reasons why SAD can't be utilized. It could be an ability SIMILAR in function to SAD but not SAD itself. In brief...
- If SAD is utilized as a method of commiting banditry, which it will be and you outlaw banditry, then law enforcment can't use SAD to stop banditry as they'd have to make SAD (and by extension banditry) LEGAL to use and thus eliminate any just cause they had to use it in the first place. Creating a catch-22 situation.
- SAD involves CHAOTIC alignment shifts. If anything law enforcment acting to enforce law and order in thier own territory should be a LAWFULL not CHAOTIC activity.
- The goal of SAD is to extract money. That is not the goal here, the goal is to get the target to leave the territory.
- Bandits typical modus operandi would be to not carry much money or items of value but leave that to handlers. It would be exploitative to allow an SAD'er to demand more from a target then they owned....thus it would be rendered ineffective for the purposes desired here.
Note, I don't believe it would be of much/any real practical value if such an ability was limited to a single character per settlement. That simply creates an impossible situation since the game is live 24/7/365. You would need multiple characters within a settlement that had such power. I'm willing to accept that it be a trainable/slottable ability.... I wouldn't accept any cost in DI or anything like that per application of it's use. Unless there is some sort of cost in Influence, etc to engage in banditry (or SAD) then there shouldn't be any costs of that nature for PLAYER CHARACTERS to be able to engage/combat bandits.....now if you want to talk NPC guards or Guard Towers, etc sure...but not PC's....the only cost that would be reasonable there would be to require some training or slotting to have access to the ability.
What reputation and alignment shifts would be ideal for a known false-flag operation, and how could those be easily exploited?
Please, don't give an answer to the effect of "I want false-flag operations to be Easy Mode." the intended goal is that it is unclear if the costs and risks exceed the value, which will result in some people doing false-flag operations and others not.
If that was meant to be a question for me because of my statement
"The fact they are outside of the mechanics is the fault of GW and does not mean these are not meaningful player interaction"
I was not and am not asking for changes we can work our magic anyway. I was merely pointing out that the fact that it is outside the approved pvp does not make it non meaningful or wanton murder
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What reputation and alignment shifts would be ideal for a known false-flag operation, and how could those be easily exploited?
Please, don't give an answer to the effect of "I want false-flag operations to be Easy Mode." the intended goal is that it is unclear if the costs and risks exceed the value, which will result in some people doing false-flag operations and others not.
Decius,
What's shifts or other mechanical ramifications that might be desired doesn't really matter in this case. The game has no way of understanding that the thugs used to conduct the "false-flag" operation are in any way associated with the characters it's being conducted to benefit. In other words "false-flag" operations are impossible for the game systems to detect....even if they are patently obvious to the players.
As such the only type of mechanical penalties that the game system can allocate are to the thugs conducting them. However there is a very decent chance that those Thugs are simply "throw-away" Alts...so penalties don't matter much. Even if they aren't....I think the people using them are pretty much expecting that they are going to suffer from the same sort of mechanical penalties that "thugs" not innvolved in Flase-Flags are.
Heck, since the goal in such operations isn't really to do alot of effective material damage just incite tensions and shift political allegiances...the actual effectiveness of the "thugs" is kinda incidental.
This is one area where there are no mechanical controls the system CAN impliment, even if it was desired. The real control was if the target or any of the other powers in the area found out that it WAS actualy a False-Flag and who was responsible for it. THAT would be the only really effective cost toward the power running the False-Flag, the ramifications that might result from discovery of the operation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What reputation and alignment shifts would be ideal for a known false-flag operation, and how could those be easily exploited?
Please, don't give an answer to the effect of "I want false-flag operations to be Easy Mode." the intended goal is that it is unclear if the costs and risks exceed the value, which will result in some people doing false-flag operations and others not.
If that was meant to be a question for me because of my statement
"The fact they are outside of the mechanics is the fault of GW and does not mean these are not meaningful player interaction"
I was not and am not asking for changes we can work our magic anyway. I was merely pointing out that the fact that it is outside the approved pvp does not make it non meaningful or wanton murder
Is it all asking for changes, or is it looking at almost completely undetailed mechanics and tinkering with ideas that will make them work best? Work best so that there is no need to do all of this "stuff" outside of them.
Is it all asking for changes, or is it looking at almost completely undetailed mechanics and tinkering with ideas that will make them work best? Work best so that there is no need to do all of this "stuff" outside of them.What reputation and alignment shifts would be ideal for a known false-flag operation, and how could those be easily exploited?
Please, don't give an answer to the effect of "I want false-flag operations to be Easy Mode." the intended goal is that it is unclear if the costs and risks exceed the value, which will result in some people doing false-flag operations and others not.
If that was meant to be a question for me because of my statement
"The fact they are outside of the mechanics is the fault of GW and does not mean these are not meaningful player interaction"
I was not and am not asking for changes we can work our magic anyway. I was merely pointing out that the fact that it is outside the approved pvp does not make it non meaningful or wanton murder
False flag operations by their very nature require a certain amount of secrecy to function correctly. Creating a mechanism goes against that grain and I would venture to say that should they attempt such most would still prefer to use more covert ways to achieve them
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
Unless I'm missing something, you would pretty much create a catch-22 here Ryan for new organizations seeking to enter the game and establish a settlement or existing organizations seeking to recover from a lost settlement. In order to be effective in the things that are needed to begin to create a PC settlement you need to be a member of a company but if you are not already a member of a PC settlement you can't be a member of a company. See the problem?
I see that people who want to form a Settlement might do the required things while being a member of a PC Settlement.
Unless I'm missing something, you would pretty much create a catch-22 here Ryan for new organizations seeking to enter the game and establish a settlement or existing organizations seeking to recover from a lost settlement. In order to be effective in the things that are needed to begin to create a PC settlement you need to be a member of a company but if you are not already a member of a PC settlement you can't be a member of a company. See the problem?I see that people who want to form a Settlement might do the required things while being a member of a PC Settlement.
Here we are guys the very answer to your prayers. Want to keep the player base pure and free of contamination by the doubters. Simply those Early enrollers that get the first 15 settlements do not recruit another player. Not only will they not be able to access advanced training or crafting they will not even be able to form a company to claim a POI or settlement. What more could you want in order to make sure the game conforms to the Dancey vision
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Unless I'm missing something, you would pretty much create a catch-22 here Ryan for new organizations seeking to enter the game and establish a settlement or existing organizations seeking to recover from a lost settlement. In order to be effective in the things that are needed to begin to create a PC settlement you need to be a member of a company but if you are not already a member of a PC settlement you can't be a member of a company. See the problem?I see that people who want to form a Settlement might do the required things while being a member of a PC Settlement.
So essentialy the PC settlements who exist at the start of the game have a virtual monopoly on who may/may not attempt to create any future settlement in the game, ever? Since they can exclude or remove from membership any members who might wish to work on forming thier own settlement without approval....thereby eliminating any possability for those people to attempt to establish thier own settlement?
That doesn't sound very welcoming/enticing to new players, guilds or groups who might wish to join after Early Enrollment.
I know I certainly wouldn't join such a game, if I hadn't joined by Early Enrollment....and I certainly wouldn't bring any gaming group or guild I was involved with into it.
What would be the appeal? Having to ask existing player organizations to even attempt to achieve something in the game? Being assured no possability of independence, ever?
P.S. No disrespect....just trying to play Devils Advocate and point out what seem to me to be some pretty serious drawbacks with those approaches.
Unless I'm missing something, you would pretty much create a catch-22 here Ryan for new organizations seeking to enter the game and establish a settlement or existing organizations seeking to recover from a lost settlement. In order to be effective in the things that are needed to begin to create a PC settlement you need to be a member of a company but if you are not already a member of a PC settlement you can't be a member of a company. See the problem?I see that people who want to form a Settlement might do the required things while being a member of a PC Settlement.
So essentialy the PC settlements who exist at the start of the game have a virtual monopoly on who may/may not attempt to create any future settlement in the game, ever? Since they can exclude or remove from membership any members who might wish to work on forming thier own settlement without approval....thereby eliminating any possability for those people to attempt to establish thier own settlement?
That doesn't sound very welcoming/enticing to new players, guilds or groups who might wish to join after Early Enrollment.
I know I certainly wouldn't join such a game, if I hadn't joined by Early Enrollment....and I certainly wouldn't bring any gaming group or guild I was involved with into it.
What would be the appeal? Having to ask existing player organizations to even attempt to achieve something in the game? Being assured no possability of independence, ever?
P.S. No disrespect....just trying to play Devils Advocate and point out what seem to me to be some pretty serious drawbacks with those approaches.
Glad I am not the only one that sees it that way :)
What was the original concern that sparked the idea that perhaps Companies should not be formable outside of PC settlements?
If it was to address a real concern, and now we are complaining that it is too far, well what do we really want?
There was no concern or suggestion merely Dancey telling us it was an assumption that players in NPC settlements could form companies. Apparently he wants everyone in EE to spend most of it with no player led organizations.
The ramification of that is as posted by myself and Grumpy mel albeit his was in less sarcastic tones
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I am thinking Settlements on the Frontier may welcome new players, since new players bring perks to a settlement. And then, when these leave to found their own settlement, create an Alliance between the two so they may help eachother against any threats from the more settled parts of the River Kingdoms. Well, that is one of the things that I could see happen.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
APPLICATION
Why do you want to join our settlement?: So I can make my own settlement over there in that spot next to you!
Question Two: When we accept you and you form your company, can we count on you to contribute crafts and Harvested resources to the settlement?
Answer: Uhm, no. We have to save our stuff so we can build our own place.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
What was the original concern that sparked the idea that perhaps Companies should not be formable outside of PC settlements?
If it was to address a real concern, and now we are complaining that it is too far, well what do we really want?
There was no concern or suggestion merely Dancey telling us it was an assumption that players in NPC settlements could form companies. Apparently he wants everyone in EE to spend most of it with no player led organizations.
The ramification of that is as posted by myself and Grumpy mel albeit his was in less sarcastic tones
I remember that. I had thought that the original thought had been sparked by a conversation of some sort that I vaguely remember. Since I can't find it, I will chalk it up to senility. :)
I remember that. I had thought that the original thought had been sparked by a conversation of some sort that I vaguely remember. Since I can't find it, I will chalk it up to senility. :)What was the original concern that sparked the idea that perhaps Companies should not be formable outside of PC settlements?
If it was to address a real concern, and now we are complaining that it is too far, well what do we really want?
There was no concern or suggestion merely Dancey telling us it was an assumption that players in NPC settlements could form companies. Apparently he wants everyone in EE to spend most of it with no player led organizations.
The ramification of that is as posted by myself and Grumpy mel albeit his was in less sarcastic tones
This was I believe the first time Dancey mentioned it at post 757 in this thread
Lets be perfectly clear about how MOST Bandits/Brigands will operate.There's a continent's worth of assumptions in this post, many of which are unlikely to prove true.
- Most bandits/brigands WILL be members of the NPC Starter Settlements so no way to declare WAR upon them (at any expense) and so that they will be able to use legitimate newbies as cover for thier operations.
- Most bandits/brigands will NOT be members of any company so there will be no way to feud them (at any expense) and no way to hold them accountable for thier actions.
Assumptions:
Members of NPC Settlements can be members of Companies
Members of NPC Settlements will be able to soulbind to points other than the NPC Settlement for resurrection. Dying halfway across the map from where you soulbind will be a pretty big limitation on how effective a bandit can be.
Members of NPC Settlements will be able to make Hideouts.
Members of NPC Settlements will be able to train and use exotic character abilities linked to maximizing banditry operations.
I remember that. I had thought that the original thought had been sparked by a conversation of some sort that I vaguely remember. Since I can't find it, I will chalk it up to senility. :)What was the original concern that sparked the idea that perhaps Companies should not be formable outside of PC settlements?
If it was to address a real concern, and now we are complaining that it is too far, well what do we really want?
There was no concern or suggestion merely Dancey telling us it was an assumption that players in NPC settlements could form companies. Apparently he wants everyone in EE to spend most of it with no player led organizations.
The ramification of that is as posted by myself and Grumpy mel albeit his was in less sarcastic tones
The only thing I can think of is it is a knee jerk reaction about unaffiliated alts. Naturally it will not affect groups like mine. Guess what we will get around it by setting up a low rep settlement in a metagame alliance and letting it be generally known that anyone declaring war on it will find us declaring war on them pretty damn quick. We may even have an agreement between two or three groups like mine to support the same settlement as we will all need these alts.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
So after a quick huddle with Lee, I think it is time to nip this particular thread in the bud because it's way past the point where anything useful is coming from the discussion.
The plan as it stands now is that companies can be created and joined by anyone regardless of their membership or lack thereof in a PC Settlement.
I would challenge the community however, to reflect that the core problem at the root of this long digression into madness is the presentation of assumptions as facts, followed by the outline of how those assumptions then lead inexorably towards a conclusion which supports or denies various factions' desires with regard to the game design.
That's a problem.
The core of the Crowdforging idea is that we are going to work in conjunction with the community to define how significant parts of the game system works. If people begin to believe that they can alter the trajectory of that debate by convincing a sizable component of the community that their opinion on how something will be developed is a fact when it is not, we will lose our ability to have effective and wide-ranging discussions about those features.
Every day this project gets exposed to more people. Every day some of those people come here and encounter the discussion in media res. We want those people to hear the message loud and clear that this is a project where many many aspects of the design are undetermined at this time and will be worked on via a process where the community will have a deep and meaningful ability to shape those features including the ability to introduce new ideas and new variations on existing ideas.
...do not recruit another player.Do you see any possible way that if new players and their characters are being so excluded that GW won't change things? Our gods are going to present in the world with us, altering their creation to fit their whims and our (mis)deeds.
There are many reasons to think this is an idea that shouldn't be considered now let alone if new players are not being recruited in my opinion. Here are some of them
a) During EE there will be no player settlements and only npc settlements therefore no way to group people in a permanent way
b) cant test of the company system in terms of permissions and chat channels during EE.
c) cant test the feud mechanic as feuds are declared at the company level
d) When you lose your settlement you get booted back to the npc settlements, does your company get disbanded?. Imagine a thousand person settlement with 30 companies trying to rebuild. First all of those people need to find a settlement to join before they can even reform a company. Then they have to persuade their new settlements (and they may have joined lots of different ones according to training needs) to let them band together and form a new settlement.
e) new groups entering the game have no way of forming companies and taking vacant settlement hexes meaning the original 15 basically can dictate who can and cannot form new settlements
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The only thing I can think of is it is a knee jerk reaction about unaffiliated alts. Naturally it will not affect groups like mine. Guess what we will get around it by setting up a low rep settlement in a metagame alliance and letting it be generally known that anyone declaring war on it will find us declaring war on them pretty damn quick. We may even have an agreement between two or three groups like mine to support the same settlement as we will all need these alts.
More reasons for Warfare, I guess. We take your GrimeyTown, come at us. It's like fighting over resources.
More reasons for Warfare, I guess. We take your GrimeyTown, come at us. It's like fighting over resources.
The only thing I can think of is it is a knee jerk reaction about unaffiliated alts. Naturally it will not affect groups like mine. Guess what we will get around it by setting up a low rep settlement in a metagame alliance and letting it be generally known that anyone declaring war on it will find us declaring war on them pretty damn quick. We may even have an agreement between two or three groups like mine to support the same settlement as we will all need these alts.
Not something that is going to worry us and even if you take grimeytown (good name btw :) ) It doesn't really affect us much. It also assumes grimeytown is even necessary which I am not even convinced of as I can't see a reason company forming is actually that important to unaffiliated alts for defense purposes (maybe more so if used offensively).
This mechanic will hurt legitimate players more than it will hurt those taking an end run around mechanics to enable meaningful pvp or players who just want random killing
scroll back. It is over now.
Yup missed that.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe the cure would be to stop thinking of reputation in a black or white context.Not to single you out or anything, but why propose a cure? Are you certain there is an ill to be cured?
I think there is an illness. If you read the blogs and all the things written about the various flagging systems, it does say that outlaws, banditry and robbery could be a way of life for some characters. The anxiety that I sense seems to be surrounding on how we can differentiate between meaningful pvp and griefing, and who is a bandit playing within the mechanics of the game and adding depth, and how is just a scumbag just trying to tick people off. And this is an anxiety on both sides of the issue.
Speaking personally, I plan on playing a bandit, as do my friends, that has a purpose. Whether it be the acquisition of wealth through banditry of mercenary work, I don't want to be lumped in with guys who are camping npc settlements and murdering noobs for a copper piece. I think that PF0's rep systems have a chance of doing this...but the reason I threw the colored tier system into the mix is so players who are good guys can differentiate between bandits and griefers. In other words, I would like it if Being and his friends can tell the difference between who is PLAYING a bad guy and who IS a bad guy, if that makes sense.
Maybe the cure would be to stop thinking of reputation in a black or white context.Not to single you out or anything, but why propose a cure? Are you certain there is an ill to be cured?I think there is an illness. If you read the blogs and all the things written about the various flagging systems, it does say that outlaws, banditry and robbery could be a way of life for some characters. The anxiety that I sense seems to be surrounding on how we can differentiate between meaningful pvp and griefing, and who is a bandit playing within the mechanics of the game and adding depth, and how is just a scumbag just trying to tick people off. And this is an anxiety on both sides of the issue.
Speaking personally, I plan on playing a bandit, as do my friends, that has a purpose. Whether it be the acquisition of wealth through banditry of mercenary work, I don't want to be lumped in with guys who are camping npc settlements and murdering noobs for a copper piece. I think that PF0's rep systems have a chance of doing this...but the reason I threw the colored tier system into the mix is so players who are good guys can differentiate between bandits and griefers. In other words, I would like it if Being and his friends can tell the difference between who is PLAYING a bad guy and who IS a bad guy, if that makes sense.
Until we see how the reputation system works in practise I would oppose any labelling of people. Why? Fairly simple my prediction is the low rep people are going to be mainly rp'ers,vigilantes, and haulers as I have said on these boards on numerous occasions. There are contrary views to this such as Nihimon though he decided he did not wish to debate my assertion that most griefers and rpkers would be able to do so quite adequately with the feud system.
However if I turn out to be right in my prediction (which I may not be) then branding low rep people with a label at this point is a disservice. Wait and see if it works before making pronouncements on how we should feel about the low rep and what we should do about them is my suggestion
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Maybe the cure would be to stop thinking of reputation in a black or white context.Not to single you out or anything, but why propose a cure? Are you certain there is an ill to be cured?I think there is an illness. If you read the blogs and all the things written about the various flagging systems, it does say that outlaws, banditry and robbery could be a way of life for some characters. The anxiety that I sense seems to be surrounding on how we can differentiate between meaningful pvp and griefing, and who is a bandit playing within the mechanics of the game and adding depth, and how is just a scumbag just trying to tick people off. And this is an anxiety on both sides of the issue.
Speaking personally, I plan on playing a bandit, as do my friends, that has a purpose. Whether it be the acquisition of wealth through banditry of mercenary work, I don't want to be lumped in with guys who are camping npc settlements and murdering noobs for a copper piece. I think that PF0's rep systems have a chance of doing this...but the reason I threw the colored tier system into the mix is so players who are good guys can differentiate between bandits and griefers. In other words, I would like it if Being and his friends can tell the difference between who is PLAYING a bad guy and who IS a bad guy, if that makes sense.
Until we see how the reputation system works in practise I would oppose any labelling of people. Why? Fairly simple my prediction is the low rep people are going to be mainly rp'ers,vigilantes, and haulers as I have said on these boards on numerous occasions. There are contrary views to this such as Nihimon though he decided he did not wish to debate my assertion that most griefers and rpkers would be able to do so quite adequately with the feud system.
However if I turn out to be right in my prediction (which I may not be) then branding low rep people with a label at this point is a disservice. Wait and...
I agree with much of what you are saying. And you could be completely right. But I gave a more in detail post about what it would take to sink to a new tier and what it would take to get to raise it. Personally speaking, I just question the wisdom of labeling a person with a -3,0000 rep because he has unlawfully mined a resource that isn't his a few dozen times in the same way we would label a murderer with a -3000 who has killed a couple of noobs. That's basically it...and all of my fears are predicated by not exactly knowing what and what won't constitute rep hits. I have read the blogs and have the big picture in mind...and honestly I think my bandits rep will probably be fine...but we'll see.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Valtorious,
What you are witnessing is the Theme Park MMO conditioning I call "Loot Monkeyism". It is the irrational fear of losing material possessions due to PvP.
There is not one shred of fear over death or death penalties, except for what can be looted. This can be seen with the near hysterical reactions to SADs as well, if not more so.
I'm hoping to actually use SADs very sparingly. Let the population get used to losing 75% for a while, so that later when SADs are offered at a lower rate, they will be more appreciative of the opportunity.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@ Valtorious
Indeed. Let Bluddwolf lead you right down the "rabbit hole". Some weak unprotected characters will get killed for 75% of their unthreaded junk, and your reputation score will go nice and low.
Sweet!
To be fair Bringslite, I met Bluddwolf through Xeen. We talked on TS and we have now gamed together in some other MMOs. If I thought that Bluddwolf's plans were to do what you just said...I wouldn't be in UNC. Neither would Xeen. And I wouldn't pay into a kick starter so I could gank junk gear, lol.
I understand your concerns, but as far as our guild goes...they are unfounded. You are going to acquire power, wealth, prominence through conquest (presumably). We are going to do if through banditry, robbery, merc work, and contracts. Different play styles. Both valid.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Valtorious
Indeed. Let Bluddwolf lead you right down the "rabbit hole". Some weak unprotected characters will get killed for 75% of their unthreaded junk, and your reputation score will go nice and low.
Sweet!
... At the bottom of the rabbit hole, Valtorious is greeted by a strange man wearing a Green Hat..... "Quickly, Valtorious, save yourself.... Bluddwolf has already corrupted the soul of Milo Goodfellow. He was destined to be a Paladin, and now he is a bloodthirsty Assassin... your path is a dark one, tainted with bad reputation and nothing but chaos and evil... Flee you fool, flee!!"
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@ Valtorious
Indeed. Let Bluddwolf lead you right down the "rabbit hole". Some weak unprotected characters will get killed for 75% of their unthreaded junk, and your reputation score will go nice and low.
Sweet!
To be fair Bringslite, I met Bluddwolf through Xeen. We talked on TS and we have now gamed together in some other MMOs. If I thought that Bluddwolf's plans were to do what you just said...I wouldn't be in UNC. Neither would Xeen. And I wouldn't pay into a kick starter so I could gank junk gear, lol.
I understand your concerns, but as far as our guild goes...they are unfounded. You are going to acquire power, wealth, prominence through conquest (presumably). We are going to do if through banditry, robbery, merc work, and contracts. Different play styles. Both valid.
Sometimes it is hard to decipher what Bluddwolf thinks. He goes all over a wide spectrum. I don't think he really knows himself. Sometimes I like what he posts or at least think it is rational, and sometimes not so much. You just seem an odd fit there, but if you are comfortable that is perfectly fine and I wish you well and success.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Valtorious
Indeed. Let Bluddwolf lead you right down the "rabbit hole". Some weak unprotected characters will get killed for 75% of their unthreaded junk, and your reputation score will go nice and low.
Sweet!
To be fair Bringslite, I met Bluddwolf through Xeen. We talked on TS and we have now gamed together in some other MMOs. If I thought that Bluddwolf's plans were to do what you just said...I wouldn't be in UNC. Neither would Xeen. And I wouldn't pay into a kick starter so I could gank junk gear, lol.
I understand your concerns, but as far as our guild goes...they are unfounded. You are going to acquire power, wealth, prominence through conquest (presumably). We are going to do if through banditry, robbery, merc work, and contracts. Different play styles. Both valid.
Yes, for some odd reason many people don't understand that we will be using the same systems to avoid reputation loss as they will.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Valtorious
Indeed. Let Bluddwolf lead you right down the "rabbit hole". Some weak unprotected characters will get killed for 75% of their unthreaded junk, and your reputation score will go nice and low.
Sweet!
... At the bottom of the rabbit hole, Valtorious is greeted by a strange man wearing a Green Hat..... "Quickly, Valtorious, save yourself.... Bluddwolf has already corrupted the soul of Milo Goodfellow. He was destined to be a Paladin, and now he is a bloodthirsty Assassin... your path is a dark one, tainted with bad reputation and nothing but chaos and evil... Flee you fool, flee!!"
And what's even funnier...Valtorious is my Paladin's name which is what I originally was going to play.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
And what's even funnier...Valtorious is my Paladin's name which is what I originally was going to play.
Come to think of it, if you look at Xeen's posts before he joined UNC and then those after, he has been twisted into a very different character as well.
I have been corrupting MMO players into a life of piracy / banditry since 2002.