2. Fights between players and captured NPCs- Think how Romans brought lions and such to fight with gladiators in the Colosseum. You could make a way to capture NPCs and use them in the arena similarly. Using intelligent NPCs would count as slavery. (For instance using orcs, goblins, bandits, etc. would be slavery while using wolves or oozes would not.)
5. DI Effects- Holding games in the arena could increase the morale of your settlement. However having to-the-death matches (while giving the highest morale bonuses) could generate negative effects like corruption and unrest as well.
It appears Andius is already in favor of some negative effects for the especially brutal arenas.
Animal cruelty is a whole other (heh) animal, of course. In an ideal game, it could give a whole other effect that would help justify druids laying siege to the town to free the poor beasts.
Goblin Squad Member
|
So apparently people can bash on this idea and occasion no comment from you but when you respond to the people bashing on the idea it's flogging a dead horse.
Nice double standard there.
When you haven't an adequate argument, attack the people arguing, right Andius? You are all for your FFA PvP, we get that. It doesn't improve your position to attack people who disagree.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Nice double standard there.
My mistake, and apologies for misinterpreting your concern point. If I've been ignoring those against the idea, it's because I've also been ignoring those for the idea for the last day or two. I felt we had an idea going in the hex-feud thread that could be an acceptable middle ground.
I'm going to guess that I am sensitive to your arguments, and so give them more scrutiny than others. That's not fair, but it's what it is. There is something about communication between the two of us which is sub-optimal, and I apologize for my part in that.
I hate to get on the wrong side of an Andius Debate, but...
And to go back to flogging the horse, just in case, you know, it's not already dead
I believe he was responding to this perhaps misaimed remark.
EDIT: Which Caldeathe Baequiannia just acknowledged, so it's a moot point. I'm torn between congratulating Caldeathe Baequiannia on his class act and sic'ing the rust monster on him for ninjaing me.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I hate to get on the wrong side of an Andius Debate, but...
And to go back to flogging the horse, just in case, you know, it's not already deadI believe he was responding to this perhaps misaimed remark.
I'm pretty sure I understood which remark he was responding to. It was the concern he expressed that I misunderstood.
[edit, never mind. KC, we've got to stop meeting like this.]
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I care. Very much. I not only care about the opinions of family and friends who don't game, but also about participating in something where captives are forced to fight for their lives for sport. I have fewer issues with people who want to fight for fun, nor with people who fight and kill others for scarce resources. I'd prefer not to participate in a game where people kill other beings purely for entertainment. The distinction isn't really all that subtle.....seriously? Who cares. It's a video game, people shoot each other in the face by the millions every day in video games.2. Fights between players and captured NPCs- Think how Romans brought lions and such to fight with gladiators in the Colosseum.You understand this recreates the thing about Rome that western civilization finds most abhorrent, and reinforces the perception that gamers are just looking for a way to exercise the urges that they'd prefer to do in real life if it wouldn't get them arrested?
Killing not-like-us because they a are a threat, or have resources we need, is a large perceptual step from capturing them and killing them for sport, regardless of the risk to self.
So if I'm walking along the road and a bandit kills me to loot the herbs I've been harvesting, that's all well and good. If he instead drags me to an arena and makes me fight a bear, it's morally reprehensible? And actually offensive to some of you?
Kill me, fine. Make me fight a bear, offensive?|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Hell. You'll be hard pressed to find too many forms of PvP don't fit your definition of "arena PvP"
Pretty much, yes. That is why players have been clamoring for ages for open world PvP. You want specific places where 'normal' pvp regulations are lifted, where there is no consequence but loss or victory. Such a defined area is certainly an arena. I realize you have your refined definition that imposes regulations of another sort, like equal sides, etc. but there are arenas that don't fit into your super special definition and they are certainly arenas.
Just because you want control, Andius, doesn't give you that control. You have to be able to argue a point. Make your case. Attacking other posters who disagree is the weakest form of argumentation. It is so weak it suggests that you are intellectually impotent. Set out a convincing argument for what you wish to see happen. How is it superior to any other proposition? Why should we choose your interpretation of how it should be done?
This isn't a political stage where you get to attack me as a person. Your argument must stand on its own merits or get it the hell out of my face.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As has been said harvesters are right now the safest population in the whole game, bandits are currently the only people that can make being a harvester risky, and we still aren't sure how SADs will work.
I'm Neutral Evil, I live in Golgotha the biggest evil, and I and everyone else in Golgotha is unable to attack a harvester whenever we want, they have no other people wanting to kill them, and because they are harvesting and not using main roads like a caravan would, then the odds of them meeting a bandit are also unlikely.
It's fairly safe for right now with known game mechanics to call harvesters the single safest play style in pfo. Which is funny because people that invest in being a necromancer are the most unsafe individuals in the high rep category.
So if you guys are going to keep talking that harvesters are always risking things, I'm going to keep calling shenanigans on you, because a harvester is rarely risking anything, nobody who is smart will ever attack a harvester as it stands right now, not a single person.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From the blog Darkness on the Edge of Town:
Slavery
Martial law isn't necessarily evil in and of itself, but one aspect of life in Fort Inevitable unquestionably is: The practice of slavery. Indentured servitude is a common punishment for failure to make good on debts, and slavery is perfectly legal within the Hellknights' territory. In the Hellknights' view, all debts must be paid, whether they're debts to society incurred through lawbreaking or obligations to individuals incurred through renting land, borrowing money, or other ordinary affairs. If someone cannot meet their debts in any other way, they and all their work become the property of the person to whom they're indebted—and rights of property trump rights of personal freedom. The Lady Commander's administration holds regular auctions in which chronic debtors, vagabonds, or convicted criminals are sold into slavery.
Slavery is highly unpopular in the River Kingdoms, to say the least. In fact, the River Laws specifically ban the practice. However, the Hellknights don't particularly care about the River Laws, and no one who does care has yet confronted Fort Inevitable over the issue—the Hellknight position in the Crusader Road is quite strong, and unless a regional power such as Daggermark or Tymon takes up the cause, nothing is likely to be done anytime soon. The issue is confused somewhat by the fact that slavery in Fort Inevitable is not as awful as it could be: It's illegal to kill or mistreat slaves, and the Hellknights enforce those laws just like they do all others.
While the Hellknights recognize slaveowners' rights of property, they do not condone those who come by their property illegally. A slave-taker who abducts random people and drags them off is *not* protected by Fort Inevitable's laws, and in fact stands a good chance of being accused of kidnapping and tried by the Lady Commander's officers. A person who enters Fort Inevitable's territory in possession of slaves must be able to prove his right of ownership. Unfortunately, professional slavers have a knack for producing the right paperwork at the right time.
From the blog If I Had a Hammer:
Gathering kits are crafted by players and generally include peasant levies provided by a settlement (this represents you supervising a large number of unseen NPCs doing most of the work). This is one of the ways a player can get the Heinous flag: levies of enslaved peasants produce a slave labor gathering kit that can mark you Heinous while the operation is in progress.
From the blog I Shot a Man in Reno Just to Watch Him Die, dicussing Flags:
Heinous
The character has committed an act that is universally viewed as evil, such as raising and controlling undead, using slaves to build structures or gather resources, etc.Each time the character gets the Heinous flag they lose good vs. evil.
Anyone may kill a Heinous character without fearing reputation or alignment loss.
Heinous is removed once the character has been killed.
The Heinous flag lasts one minute beyond the duration of the deed unless the character does something to get it again before the duration runs out. Characters using undead for example will have the Heinous flag the entire time they are using undead.
If the character gets the Heinous flag again within the duration of its existing Heinous buff, the count of Heinous increases by 1 and the duration resets ten minutes longer, up to a maximum of 100 minutes.
If the character gets to Heinous 10 they get a new flag, Villain, which lasts for 24 hours and does not disappear on death. It acts the same as Heinous, allowing repeat offenders to be hunted down for longer periods of time.
From the blog Blood on the Tracks, again about Flags:
Heinous: Certain incredibly evil actions (like raising undead or using slaves in a construction project) may briefly flag a character with the Heinous flag. These actions are universally considered wrong, and other players are not punished for attempting to stop another player from doing these things.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So if I'm walking along the road and a bandit kills me to loot the herbs I've been harvesting, that's all well and good. If he instead drags me to an arena and makes me fight a bear, it's morally reprehensible? And actually offensive to some of you?
Kill me, fine. Make me fight a bear, offensive?
In that particular scenario, it's actually the bear I'm more worried about, but yes. Killing you for your herbs is quite a bit less offensive to me than making you fight a bear for someone's entertainment, let alone until one of you is dead.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As has been said harvesters are right now the safest population in the whole game, bandits are currently the only people that can make being a harvester risky, and we still aren't sure how SADs will work.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
The fact that some people have said "harvesters are right now the safest population in the whole game" does not mean that it is true, nor that the majority of us accept it as true for purposes of your argument.
Roosters are tiny gods. Anyone who says otherwise is a heretic who must be beheaded, stuffed, and served for a mediocre Thanksgiving dinner.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As has been said harvesters are right now the safest population in the whole game, bandits are currently the only people that can make being a harvester risky, and we still aren't sure how SADs will work.Post hoc ergo propter hoc
The fact that some people have said "harvesters are right now the safest population in the whole game" does not mean that it is true, nor that the majority of us accept it as true for purposes of your argument.
As of right now a harvester will be max rep as they will generally not pvp ergo max rep. Since they are max rep anyone killing them with take the max penalty -2500 rep
Golgotha plans on being as squeaky clean rep wise as possible for max DI, so I'll even be generous with this assumption and say that it doesn't need to be +5000 or something, but we'll just say to get the biggest DI boon it must be at least 0 rep.
Lets say I start off my killing spree at +7500 rep, I kill a harvester 5 times, I am now booted out of my settlement. It takes at least a couple of weeks if not one full month of logged in play time to be able to rejoin my settlement and regain any lost skills through support.
Who would waste any time, if the max amount of people you can kill in a handful of weeks/one month bother to kill 5 dudes. 5 dudes is not a significant amount of people killed, it doesn't gain you anything to offset what you lose by losing your rep. I can not properly defend a hex by only killing 5 dudes, and trying to coordinate who has dudes left to kill slots is too much of a logistical nightmare to put into practice.
The trade off is simply not worth it, there is never a reason to bother with killing you, can you name me a reason where me getting booted out of my settlement is worth killing you? If you can name me one, then I will remove my claim and say you are right.
As a note unless the materials you have on you are worth so much as to make Golgotha the literal representation of Scrooge Mc Duck in one single kill, that is not a valid answer.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As has been said harvesters are right now the safest population in the whole game, bandits are currently the only people that can make being a harvester risky, and we still aren't sure how SADs will work.Post hoc ergo propter hoc
The fact that some people have said "harvesters are right now the safest population in the whole game" does not mean that it is true, nor that the majority of us accept it as true for purposes of your argument.
Are you saying that Cyneric's calculation is incorrect, or that there is not compelling evidence to indicate he is correct?
The former would be Argumentum ad populum with the inclusion of your last sentence.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It looks like the latter case, because of the inclusion of "accept" in the last sentence. It was confusing to me at first, because I see no relevance to it's inclusion (especially after calling a logical foul).
The proposition is either true or false. The belief of the majority has no bearing on it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As has been said harvesters are right now the safest population in the whole game, bandits are currently the only people that can make being a harvester risky, and we still aren't sure how SADs will work.Post hoc ergo propter hoc
The fact that some people have said "harvesters are right now the safest population in the whole game" does not mean that it is true, nor that the majority of us accept it as true for purposes of your argument.
Are you saying that Cyneric's calculation is incorrect, or that there is not compelling evidence to indicate he is correct?
The former would be Argumentum ad populum with the inclusion of your last sentence.
Partly column A, and partly something else, though my post was terrible.
I'm saying two things. One, that if harvesters are the safest people on the board, that doesn't mean that eliminating the reputation and alignment mechanic in high value hexes is a good way to balance it and two, that people making a claim does not mean it is true.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As has been said harvesters are right now the safest population in the whole game, bandits are currently the only people that can make being a harvester risky, and we still aren't sure how SADs will work.Post hoc ergo propter hoc
The fact that some people have said "harvesters are right now the safest population in the whole game" does not mean that it is true, nor that the majority of us accept it as true for purposes of your argument.
Are you saying that Cyneric's calculation is incorrect, or that there is not compelling evidence to indicate he is correct?
The former would be Argumentum ad populum with the inclusion of your last sentence.
Partly column A, and partly something else, though my post was terrible.
I'm saying two things. One, that if harvesters are the safest people on the board, that doesn't mean that eliminating the reputation and alignment mechanic in high value hexes is a good way to balance it and two, that people making a claim does not mean it is true.
Ah, that is true enough. As long as you were not also claiming that a majority (or minority for that matter) not accepting the premise was a condemnation of his stance.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why are we declaring absolute facts when we know very little about feuds and factions?
I can't list all the things that we don't know.
Absence of fact does not equate to compelling evidence or lead to supportable conclusions.
Edit: Not without a helluva lot of IF.... Then... speculatives.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Before we can know how true his proposition is, we have to see the system in action. We haven't seen the system in action. We've only seen low-level PvP and consequences in Alpha, and they'e all highly subject to change at the moment.
I sincerely doubt harvesters in high level zones will ever feel safe by the time the system is finished.
If they adjust the system from alpha levels, would that not make harvesters less safe generally?
We can measure the reputation penalties, but we can not account for adjustment. That is a fair and true statement.
If reputation is adjusted to make it less penalizing, would that not make everyone more susceptible to attack?
Do we know if GW plans to adjust reputation penalties relative to what tier you are in?
Has anyone attempted to attack a player outside of city hexes and measure the reputation loss? Is there any significant difference?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The originally posted concept is to introduce a type of interaction that many of the players enjoy and many of the players don't, with no evidence that it is needed or will achieve the stated results.
It might, in fact, turn out to be the best way to address an issue that might exist. But it might not. At this stage in the game, it permits a part of the player base more freedom to exercise their chosen play style, while increasing the difficulty for another part of the player base on the first group's postulation that it is needed. That makes it appear self serving. In exactly the same way that one group of players posited that something needed to be done about another group (apparently) breaking into two to their advantage in the landrush.
In the end, the group that said "This is broken and needs to be fixed in this way." didn't get their way. My preference is not to assume that the game is broken before it is deployed.
(edit: that's not a reply to anyone. Just a post that took nearly 15 minutes to complete while I'm cooking supper.)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why are we declaring absolute facts when we know very little about feuds and factions?
I can't list all the things that we don't know.
Absence of fact does not equate to compelling evidence or lead to supportable conclusions.
Edit: Not without a helluva lot of IF.... Then... speculatives.
I did state that as of right now with known mechanics as they are this is how it is. If it changes then my statement would no longer be true, but at current it remains true.
The current rep for Morbis's stream was roughly two to three kills before guards became forever hostile, so unless the numbers vary wildly based on location as this is the only thing to remain untested then my statement is still true.
As it stands there isn't a good reason to kill people with the current rep penalty, if it was lowered to where you could theoretically make 25-30 kills each week while still remaining fairly high rep then there would be a meaningful choice to be made.
As it is the number is too low for that choice to be anything other then never killing unless feud or war.
Edit: I am getting these numbers from https://goblinworks.com/blog/i-shot-a-man-in-reno-just-to-watch-him-die/
As of current they have not edited those numbers, so as of right now with known information it is a rough -2.4k penalty for each kill. I'm sure it will be changed in a live environment, however that is just making the opposite assumption that I'm making, of what if it doesn't?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Cyneric regarding Morbis and being chased by guards: Guards remain hostile to those who kill them. That is not part of rep system. It seems separate and continues even after rep is restored. The devs(spell checker keeps converting this to debs) have warned about this.
Until we see how badlands and mister homes work in EE, we do not know there is anything to fix. THe little bit of harvesting I did at Paizo Con saw yields as his as 10.5 units to low as 0.01 units. Do not assume presence means riches. Do not assume the monsters will be as easy as alpha.
It still seems that some you are arguing a cure for a problem which has not been demonstrated.
Some of this is like a two year old with a hammer. Everything is a nail which needs to be knocked down.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@Cyneric regarding Morbis and being chased by guards: Guards remain hostile to those who kill them. That is not part of rep system. It seems separate and continues even after rep is restored. The devs(spell checker keeps converting this to debs) have warned about this.
Until we see how badlands and mister homes work in EE, we do not know there is anything to fix. THe little bit of harvesting I did at Paizo Con saw yields as his as 10.5 units to low as 0.01 units. Do not assume presence means riches. Do not assume the monsters will be as easy as alpha.
It still seems that some you are arguing a cure for a problem which has not been demonstrated.
Some of this is like a two year old with a hammer. Everything is a nail which needs to be knocked down.
He was also not allowed to train, and he checked his reputation to verify its loss.
It is true that an adjustment to how reputation loss works (either lessening the penalty or adjusting it by hex type) would disprove Cyneric's proposition. He actually admitted such multiple times.
Here is his most recent from above:
I did state that as of right now with known mechanics as they are this is how it is. If it changes then my statement would no longer be true, but at current it remains true.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Why are we declaring absolute facts when we know very little about feuds and factions?
I can't list all the things that we don't know.
Absence of fact does not equate to compelling evidence or lead to supportable conclusions.
Edit: Not without a helluva lot of IF.... Then... speculatives.
I did state that as of right now with known mechanics as they are this is how it is. If it changes then my statement would no longer be true, but at current it remains true.
The current rep for Morbis's stream was roughly two to three kills before guards became forever hostile, so unless the numbers vary wildly based on location as this is the only thing to remain untested then my statement is still true.
As it stands there isn't a good reason to kill people with the current rep penalty, if it was lowered to where you could theoretically make 25-30 kills each week while still remaining fairly high rep then there would be a meaningful choice to be made.
As it is the number is too low for that choice to be anything other then never killing unless feud or war.
The way that I have understood the design is that "killing" through faction feud, war, maybe refused SAD, and other flagging was as intended. Outside of that, rep penalty was to discourage "killing" and is actually "murder".
I haven't seen anything to indicate that GW wants it any different. It seems that they want a system that caters a bit to many kinds of play but certainly not either extreme of the spectrum.
Rep crashes outside of faction, feud, war, criminal flags? Working as intended.
They seem to want PVP in abundance. Nothing seems to contradict that. I am not ready to assume that they will make Influence hard to gain, feuds excessively costly, or factions (allowing lots of free PVP) unattractive and maybe mandatory to do the best stuff (whatever that is for the individual). Not until we see it and early alpha seems a poor time to judge that.
After all that, it is a PVP war game also. I would be fine with "zones" that allow FFA PVP 24/7 at no cost, from a personal perspective. I still won't like killing non hostiles. I still don't think it would be cool for people not much interested in PVP. I still think we should re examine it if there is a problem that can't be addressed by the system that is planned (which we know zilch about).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So apparently people can bash on this idea and occasion no comment from you but when you respond to the people bashing on the idea it's flogging a dead horse.
Nice double standard there.
I'd appreciate an apology on that one.
I've made a comment on the notion of fighting captured NPCs, and on the notion of conflating cost with risk, but until the message you attacked, I haven't commented on the notion of skyfall hexes being PvP since the alternate of feuding a hex was brought in which I have been supporting.
I will not. I was referring to the fact Lifedragn was bashing the idea and you made no comment. Then I make a direct reply to his comment and you hop on me for beating a dead horse.
That actually should be obvious by what I said:
"So apparently people can bash on this idea and occasion no comment from you..."
So yes you are operating by a double standard and I won't apologize by calling it like it is.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A pure gatherer will be no more dangerous to a PvP player than a brand new one. Mining skills do not also come with combat skills. They are not dangerous, and you should know that.*SNIP* lot more powerful than the vast majority of other gatherers in the game. These are gatherers at the top of their game. Not only does this make them more dangerous *SNIP*
We know that there are PVE threats surrounding many if not all gathering spots. We also know most miners will have brains and this is a PvP oriented title. So based on that we can assume.
A. A miner will train in combat.
B. They'll hire guards to protect them.
C. They'll do both.
Maybe, if there is no PvE threats (which contradicts what I'm hearing from the alpha) you'll get the occasional ninja miner who trains no skills except perhaps stealth and movement speed but that's a form of protection of it's own.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I will not. I was referring to the fact Lifedragn was bashing the idea and you made no comment. Then I make a direct reply to his comment and you hop on me for beating a dead horse.
That actually should be obvious by what I said:
"So apparently people can bash on this idea and occasion no comment from you..."
So yes you are operating by a double standard and I won't apologize by calling it like it is.
It disappoints me my apology was inadequate, but I have nothing else to give you.
A box of chocolates might help.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I will not. I was referring to the fact Lifedragn was bashing the idea and you made no comment.
His comment was not bashing anyone or anything. His post was well reasoned and not targeted towards any particular person. He did not say "this idea is dumb", he explain his thoughts on why he disagreed.
If that is your definition of bashing an idea, I frankly don't know what to tell you.
The irony of this is that we, here, discussing the matter of Antius and Caldeathe Baequiannia, are beating a dead horse.
We can rebuild it. It will be better than it was before. Better...smaller...cuter.
Alright, just playing it safe. I know some people who are dead serious about nicknames.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The bottom line for the people still arguing for this is to stoke their own egos. They want the absolute power of choosing who when and where without any prior declaration of hostilities. They have a multitude of consequence free avenues for engaging in all levels of PvP and persist in crying they aren't being allowed to play the game they want. The expectation is that these high end resources are going to be more closely guarded by NPCs among the most invested in training to gather most rare and require the most organization to exploit of any rare resource in a game to date. A PvPer will have to optimize only one skill pvping to be successful for the gatherers of the game they need to optimize gathering, logistics, and organization to be successful. If you think a gatherer will be organizing an expedition to extract sky metal you feud their company. That's the way the game is designed to work and you attack it because it means you have to actually DO something to engage in your chosen play style.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In that particular scenario, it's actually the bear I'm more worried about, but yes. Killing you for your herbs is quite a bit less offensive to me than making you fight a bear for someone's entertainment, let alone until one of you is dead.
I realize this is Goblinwork's call. But I would hope this game doesn't cave to political extremists trying to cram their warped values down our throats.
Anyone who's more concerned about a bear than a human when both are in mortal danger needs to get their priorities straight.
For most people enslaving and murdering your fellow man is far more offensive than fighting animals even if both are evil acts, so the idea of omitting fighting captured creatures because it offends people but keeping slavery in, makes no sense.
The point of allowing people to capture creatures is to allow players to build their own custom PVE scenarios to test one another and prove their abilities. It's fun. And no real animals would be harmed in the making of this feature.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I can kill 100% of the people I really want to kill with two feuds, I expect they will offer a lot more easy targets, the influence cost to feud them should be low, and there will be no penalties at all of either alignment or rep. Robbing starmetal from people I have no beef with isn't my playstyle just a very meaningful one that should not be penalized.
Rep penalties are meant to punish the crap out of undesirable PvP, not give consequences to PvP which is very meaningful, and competition over the scarcest resource in the game is just that.
I think it's repulsive that such a large portion of the community is so averse to PvP they freak out at the idea of 1% of the map being a lawless zone.
This is a game driven by competition not Minecraft in a Golarion setting. If people can't handle that then feel free to opt out by avoiding those areas. There will be plenty of other profitable ventures likely to be less dangerous.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you think a gatherer will be organizing an expedition to extract sky metal you feud their company. That's the way the game is designed to work and you attack it because it means you have to actually DO something to engage in your chosen play style.
So a query about this. If there is a single gatherer, no issues. What if there are two or more from different companies? What if their guards and carriers are also from different companies?
Do the antagonists only target one of the gatherers via a feud, and take what they can from them while the rest of his the party stand by and watch? Do the antagonists get the attacker flag while engaged in a feud thus allowing the rest of the gatherers party to intervene? Will the guards take reputation hits to fight off the antagonists if not?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So... other than Mbando's point about the advantages for LG, there are no effective, well-reasoned expositions, no explicit insight on the merits of making starmetal hexes FFA rather than permitting a company to invest in a feud declaration on a target hex.
I see relative merit in permitting companies to declare feud on a hex. That is much more flexible in more situations (third party intervention on a siege and supply line interdiction are examples that come to mind) than this highly specialized starmetal case.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In that particular scenario, it's actually the bear I'm more worried about, but yes. Killing you for your herbs is quite a bit less offensive to me than making you fight a bear for someone's entertainment, let alone until one of you is dead.I realize this is Goblinwork's call. But I would hope this game doesn't cave to political extremists trying to cram their warped values down our throats.
If you think that is a politically extreme viewpoint, then I feel sorry for your friends and relatives. I'm pretty sure that most people in civilized nations think it's wrong to stick captured enemies in arenas with wild animals and force them to fight to the death for the entertainment of other people. Even the U.S. at the height of it's persecution of "enemy non-combatants" wouldn't have tried that one.
Can you proved a single example of a nation that is not controlled by despots where such activity would be an open, encouraged, part of the system?
[edit: and by the way, thanks for the ego boost in taking me sufficiently seriously about being more worried about the bear to launch a screed at the notion. You may wish to note that I have, throughout the boards, used "wildlife" (i.e. bears) as a placeholder for referring to an assortment of NPCs, be it guards or goblins]
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Andius we know next to nothing about the kingdom level aspects of this game and how PvP will work so your use if words like repulsive show how ignorant you are. We do know a character can be a member of 3 companies and gives influence to 2 for someone like myself interested in playing the kingdom game I'm going to want the first to be a chartered company so I can help expand Brighthavens territory and improve the hex that company has claimed, my second choice will probably be a non chartered company that has claimed a hex nearby which improve at a slower rate and probably to a lesser degree to direct more resources to my settlement.
The third company is most interesting because I give them no passive benefits. It has been proposed that these third companies will be friends but that is only a small part of the role they can play on the strategic level of the game. I can join a PvP company and add my sword arm to their efforts or be part of a regional defense force that protects a certain area rather than a settlement directly. What of the true Murderhobo who seeing that they can't get in any settlement and even into the starter settlements to train, might they not organize and claim several hexes long enough to develop POIs on them just to train whatever those might offer? If they had the numbers to start a settlement that would be the preferred route but if you expect it to be taken away from you and you will lose access to abilities a faster cheaper solution is ideal.
I'm sure some people will diversify their star metal parties to make your actions harder to execute, guess what, that's meaningful play and a viable strategy. Others will want the security of company mated and they would be your preferred targets to feud. These are all meaningful choices and anyone professing to have the experience at strategy and empire building should be eager to play under the rules PfO offers before crying for FFA.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just so you and Audocet are aware company vs. settlement feuds have been confirmed. So yeah if I want an all you can eat buffet of every target I really want to kill it's two feuds, and whatever those targets do with their three company slots won't matter to me one bit. That's all I need to know about the kingdom level aspect of PvP.
Whatever other company breakdown star metal harvesters use I find irrelevant to the point I have made which is all conflict over star metal is meaningful therefore none of it should be penalized.
This isn't people attacking random newbs, something I fought very hard to see penalized. It's people specifically targeting some of the richest people in the game, harvesting the most valuable resources in the game, in one of the most dangerous areas in the game. The fact anyone feels people deserve a penalty for that is repulsive to me.
It cheapen's the reputation system from something that protects people from random, meaningless attacks into a babysitter for people who never want to PvPed by non-feud/faction war targets ever even while taking part in some of the most competitive aspects of the game. In order for it to fill that new and less meaningful role the consequence must be lowered making it less effective for it's true purpose. They're hijacking something meant to protect newbs and halt meaningless aggression for their own selfish purposes.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The bottom line for the people still arguing for this is to stoke their own egos.
That is an extremely unfair assumption to lay on anyone that supported the premise of the OP or the comments thereafter.
Guurzak's OP might be a terrible idea for the game, or it could be helpful.
Cyneric's assessment of reputation consequences in relation to high value items is either true or not on its own merits.
Taking everyone that supported the OP and stamping them narcissists cheapens the discussion. It is untrue, and is a Superman level logical leap.