Aet Areks Kel'Goran's page

From the blog If I Had a Hammer:

Ryan Dancey wrote:

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:
Ryan Dancey wrote:

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:
Ryan Dancey wrote:

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.

While I don't know how accurate this information still is...

It seems to me, playing evil will result in being flagged for consequence-less PvP. All the benefits of being evil come with being able to be attacked by anyone. Evil cannot initiate aggressions without taking a rep hit.

Maybe LG will be able to march around and try to kill evil unopposed after all.

While I have no issue with Commoner, I think Settler would be equally acceptable. The question is does "Settler" fit the role that "Commoner" would be performing?

And... he went there.

No seriously... what's up with the Emus?

He's been busy glitching in alpha. Can't say I blame him either.

=========================================================================

Look, we are being serious.... DO NOT BUMP THIS THREAD.

*draws a line in the sand*

________________________________________________________________________

Gedichtewicht of Brighthaven wrote:

it was a long time ago, but didn´t i read someday the UNC will have a feedback forum were its "victims" can go to to talk abut their experiences?

Like the Ankh-Morpork Thieves' Guild? Thank you for choosing UNC for your highway robbery experience. Here's your receipt, would you like to complete a satisfaction survey for 5% off your next mugging?

In the realm of Wheaton's Law, that could be a useful tool.

Necro-thread FTW!!

Oldies are the besties.... Talking Head Tavern in Callambea FTW! Aseveljet agrees!

Rain starts to pelt down.

From a building where much commotion is eminating from, a large framed man stumbles out in front of the travelling troupe.

"Lads... Its not beer..."

Areks holds up his three mugs and tries to drink from the two in his left hand at once.

"Its ale... And not just any ale... Its Warstein ale! One of the many things dwarves of Callambea can do right! Come inside the Talking Head...

Areks motions up to the sign for the Talking Head Tavern.

"You look like you could use a mug or twelve."

Areks opens the door to the Talking Head and motions for the troupe to follow him.

Do we lose anything in ee if we totally disband the guild in land rush? We still get all the same things that we would get as a guild that didn't made the top 33 in land rush?

Those guilds don't get anything. Guilds were created specifically for the LR2. They'll likely stick around as Companies, but I don't know how GW will do that cross-over. The only reason any guild is in the LR is to get a settlement, if you are in the top 33, you do, if not, you don't.

Hope that clears some things up for you.

Xeen's awesome. Easily one of my favorite people on these boards... Even when we are on opposite sides.

Glad to see you folks find a home closer to Callambea! Freevale is just over the mountain from us, be sure and visit =)

Not.... dun dun dun...... THE GOOGLE!!

LMAO Oh geez, KC you are the man.... even if you down voted my Taxes Idea ;)

*wanders in*

So... I heard there were Battle Emus?

Nice work. It wouldn't be too hard to polish it a bit more and package it in a .pdf and have it look like a genuine Goblinworks product! Great job everyone.

@Guurzak Long thread. Just for argument's sake why is it you don't just harvest the star ore the same way that everyone does? Just go and harvest it? If you are not near the ore why is that? The land rush is not over is it? Were the spots clear on the map when you choose your favorite spot? No one can keep you from the ore spot without the same methods that all will have to work with now. Why be so deceptive about it?

Glad to see you back.

You too should lay off the kool-aid.

Why don't you ask the guy that actually had this idea as a possibility back in the day... referring to a time which is now upon us.

Probably chaotic evil. I say probably because there's a debate to be had in Crowdforging about the presence of anything-goes territory. If we decided to have that kind of territory, then in that territory, your actions would have no mechanical effect on your character.

That's what we are doing right now... and you can edit your post all you want, Golgotha is anything but "deceptive" or whatever you change that phrase to next.

Aet Areks Kel'Goran wrote:

I didn't want something terribly large. Hopefully "TEO" and "TSV/T7V" would suffice for you guys =)

I had also thought of adding a third color for a star above it to signify officers within an organization, but we might be getting a little complicated there, cause then they'd have to have a system for a company leader to select who officers are. Just some thoughts =P

You can just make that part of your sig instead.

Then its not a tag it's a sig and it doesn't look as cool. =)

Kudaku wrote:

I never really understood why if as you say the default LG paladin fights evil, he has to be lawful?

Mechanically the class heavily favors an anti-evil approach: He gets Aura of Good, Detect Evil, Smite Evil, Aura of Justice (group-wide Smite evil), Aura of faith (weapon treated as Good-aligned), Aura of Righteousness (DR 5 v Evil), and finally Holy champion, which is utterly Good-themed.

In relation there is a distinct lack of class features that focus on the Lawful aspect of the class. There's the code of conduct (which is... Well, let's call it controversial) and they can use Divine Bond to make their weapon Axiomatic. Near as I can tell that's pretty much it.

The way I interpret it is that a stock Paladin fights Evil, and takes an organized, knightly approach to doing so. They're Good first, Lawful second.

An NG or CG paladin would only require adjustments to the Code of Conduct (such as perhaps removing it, retaining only the 'evil act' language.)

Likewise, making an LE or NE antipaladin out of the antipaladin would not be difficult.

I've always seen Paladins as Lawful first and Good second. If they stray from their path, even in the name of Good, they still have penalties to face. Again, this is just one interpretation.

As far as the opposites of a Paladin, I've always thought there were two.

The Marshall, LE, who takes a very similar code oriented approach to order through the use of evil. The Marshall mirrors the Paladin with a few changes. A Marshall and a Paladin might very well find themselves on the same side of a conflict at certain times, but that doesn't mean they'd like it.

The Death Knight, CE, who is the antithesis of the Paladin, is all about chaos, death, and suffering. These guys worship Rovagug above all else, and focus primarily on necromancy.

It would be cool when people ask about them a few years down the road and we can tell them of bygone days. :P

Indeed, yes it would.

I didn't want something terribly large. Hopefully "TEO" and "TSV/T7V" would suffice for you guys =)

I had also thought of adding a third color for a star above it to signify officers within an organization, but we might be getting a little complicated there, cause then they'd have to have a system for a company leader to select who officers are. Just some thoughts =P

Welcome Silicor,

We'll happily add yet another crafter to the ranks.

*slides a mug of Warstein Ale down the plank*

May Callambea bring you the best materials to craft with and bring your wares the most coin!

I mean we've done a fine job improvising, but just a few shapes with a background color, five characters max with font colors on a tab next to your name where the goblin is doesn't seem like it'd be too difficult or resource consuming.

Will there be an option for affiliation prefixes? Or will we have to rename ourselves like a lot of us have done?

Yeah I get you. Interesting take on it. I don't agree, but still its something to keep in mind when looking back on your previous posts to clarify where you may have been coming from, at least from my perspective.

Aet Areks Kel'Goran wrote:

Amaranthar wrote:

Areks wrote:

My apologies for being so short.

I am not trying to say FFA is "fair".

That is a blanket and vague statement that does not summarize the points I promote.

I am saying the reputation system should account for variables.

Where the most valuable materials are concerned, I think penalties should be lessened. That does not equal to FFA.

One can say, "Yeah, well almost." Almost isn't FFA.

I'd also like to point out that I am in favor of it working in the opposite direction.

If you need random root and T1 hex and you get killed while harvesting it, those penalties should be stiffer because the act was even more senseless.

Considering all this, I hardly think that quantifies as me saying "FFA is fair", hence me saying you aren't paying attention.

Ok, but I have to disagree with your opinion here. In both cases of the value of what's in possession of a character, the game should not want to make it any less "antisocial" to kill and rob them. It's bad to allow such actions without consequence in any case, because by doing so the game tells players to go ahead and do it.

If that is your stance, why does the game make it less detrimental to kill a player with lower rep?

Regardless of what someone possesses killing them should have the same impact right? So if value doesn't matter, why does it matter when it comes to reputation? Why does it inflict more detrement on you if you kill a +2500 rep character than a -250 rep character?

The design of the game has already told us that values do matter. Low rep characters' lives are worth less than high rep characters. That's already been established.

And I see a problem with that. Just as with "Newbie Ganking".

What exactly do you see a problem with? Cause reading that, it seems like you want killing players to be a static REP hit no matter who it is, regardless of their and your reputation.... which kind of defeats the purpose of the system in the first place.

Areks wrote:

My apologies for being so short.

I am not trying to say FFA is "fair".

That is a blanket and vague statement that does not summarize the points I promote.

I am saying the reputation system should account for variables.

Where the most valuable materials are concerned, I think penalties should be lessened. That does not equal to FFA.

One can say, "Yeah, well almost." Almost isn't FFA.

I'd also like to point out that I am in favor of it working in the opposite direction.

If you need random root and T1 hex and you get killed while harvesting it, those penalties should be stiffer because the act was even more senseless.

Considering all this, I hardly think that quantifies as me saying "FFA is fair", hence me saying you aren't paying attention.

Ok, but I have to disagree with your opinion here. In both cases of the value of what's in possession of a character, the game should not want to make it any less "antisocial" to kill and rob them. It's bad to allow such actions without consequence in any case, because by doing so the game tells players to go ahead and do it.

If that is your stance, why does the game make it less detrimental to kill a player with lower rep?

Regardless of what someone possesses killing them should have the same impact right? So if value doesn't matter, why does it matter when it comes to reputation? Why does it inflict more detrement on you if you kill a +2500 rep character than a -250 rep character?

The design of the game has already told us that values do matter. Low rep characters' lives are worth less than high rep characters. That's already been established.

Aet Areks Kel'Goran wrote:

The game needs harvesters, but PvPers shouldn't be the only ones that suffer alignment and rep hits for their choices.

PVPer isn't a role, it's a play style. A play style the developers have set a cost for induling. Everyone in the game is a PvPer whether they like it or not. No one but the individual can decide how much of that they want to instigate and when the price is too high. The mechanism is there to discourage anyone from instigating too much of it. Every person in the game has to make a choice around how expensive it is to instigate as much PvP conflict as you want.

That's your choice.

No but there are currently combat oriented roles and non combat oriented roles.

Both should have to make choices that affect alignment and reputation, when performing their desired play style.

I'm not saying all choices have to be tied to those axises.

I'm not saying choices that aren't tied to those axises are meaningless.

I am saying if alignment and reputation is tied to character development, which it is, then when playing your play style, it only makes sense that you have to make choices BASED on playstyle / role that affect it.

All characters development is tied to their alignment and reputation, why is it ok that only some characters performing their roles have to make choices that can infringe on their ability to develop?

I'm not saying that those choices have to suck.

I think a great example is the varying harvesting techniques. You can strip-mine fast and dirty which could be evil or chaotic, or you could replant saplings to replenish resources, which could lead to an increased index of resources for the hex over the long term.

Hell, that opens up a world of possibilities. What if harvesters actions, overtime, impact the quality and abundance of resources?

You would sacrifice time harvesting to cultivate. After two or three years, your forests would be lush and green producing 25% more resources and instead of 30 nodes, you have 45?

In cultivating your region, you gain more benefit, but it makes you a target for those that chose the fast and dirty route.

Stripmining over time has reduced your resource output by 25% and now only 15 nodes spawn instead of 30.

So again, this is completely off topic, but I think it provides some depth for harvesters and meets my second intent.

Aet Areks Kel'Goran wrote:

Amaranthar wrote:

That's not how it works.

First of all, it's hard to get players to stand around playing guard on a consistent basis.

Secondly, players looking to run off with the work of other players just adapt to whatever the situation is. They organize, scout the situation, and show up with the advantage needed. Otherwise they don't attack.

It's a formula that's played out since the early days of MMOs.
And so is this conversation in which you attempt to say how "fair" FFA is.

Again, someone isn't paying attention.

I thought I was. Care to explain?

My apologies for being so short.

I am not trying to say FFA is "fair".

That is a blanket and vague statement that does not summarize the points I promote.

I am saying the reputation system should account for variables.

Where the most valuable materials are concerned, I think penalties should be lessened. That does not equal to FFA.

One can say, "Yeah, well almost." Almost isn't FFA.

I'd also like to point out that I am in favor of it working in the opposite direction.

If you need random root and T1 hex and you get killed while harvesting it, those penalties should be stiffer because the act was even more senseless.

Considering all this, I hardly think that quantifies as me saying "FFA is fair", hence me saying you aren't paying attention.

This is incorrect, they made a meaningful choice to *not* take those precautions. Or they made the meaningful choice to *not* become acquainted with harvester best practices (taking precautions). At some level, that player who was killed and robbed made a choice that prevented them from being prepared.

I don't buy that. A new person picking up the game and diving right in getting killed because they were confused about what Stand and Deliver meant or they couldn't pay it or because they were harvesting some where without guards is not meaningful. That same player a year later, still going out without guards, still getting killed, not meaningful.

Honestly, this is kind of left to center mass. Choices have consequences, in a game where there is meaningful human interaction. "Choices are meaningful" is nebulous. Meaningful human interaction is not. That has been defined for us by the devs.

That's not how it works.

First of all, it's hard to get players to stand around playing guard on a consistent basis.

Secondly, players looking to run off with the work of other players just adapt to whatever the situation is. They organize, scout the situation, and show up with the advantage needed. Otherwise they don't attack.

It's a formula that's played out since the early days of MMOs.
And so is this conversation in which you attempt to say how "fair" FFA is.

Again, someone isn't paying attention.

You really haven't been paying attention have you, mon ami?

The reputation system should be scaled based on variables.

Talk to Being, he got it yesterday.

Reputation loss over rare resources should be lessened. I am fine with reputation loss over mundance resources being increased. Reading the OP, this was the originally considered by GW as a possibility.

Aet Areks Kel'Goran wrote:

No, not everything and no, there are meaningful choices that do not affect alignment and rep and they are plentiful. I do think every ROLE should have SOME meaningful choice to make that affects their alignment and reputation.

Maybe the answer lies in contracts or harvesting in others territory or over-harvesting. There could be different harvesting techniques that provide different quantities and qualities of goods.

Much like when you raid an outpost and strip mine it. Give that option to harvesters and attach reputation and alignment mechanics to it.

Hoggish Greedly is an example of a harvester that made decisions that affected his alignment and reputation.

I think these are great suggestions. Also, thumbs up for a Captain Planet reference. =P

Thank you sir.

*tips hat*

Three hours harvesting, and then, a guy comes out from nowhere, and kill you. You just played three hours for nothing.

Seems pretty meaningful to me...

Indeed. The guy that killed the harvester made a very meaningful choice. I completely agree.

The harvester should have ran. Or had guards. Read the beginning of this thread where I used this same example.

The harvester dying is a result of not making meaningful choices. Hiring guards, having a pick up schedule, not going out alone, scouting the area... all meaningful choices. Dying because you failed to coordinate, plan, and execute is not meaningful. Dying after doing those things, because you failed in some but not all, is not meaningless. Its a learning experience. Dying because you didn't do any of those is not meaningful, its ignorance and the event hopefully will enlightn you.

Aet Areks Kel'Goran wrote:

I do think every ROLE should have SOME meaningful choice to make that affects their alignment and reputation.

Do you not accept that every PLAYER already has meaningful choices to make that affects their Alignment and Reputation?

In relation to the advancement and maintenance of their character, no I do not. Feel free to enlighten me. A few already have in this thread... Stormweaver being one of them.

Aet Areks Kel'Goran wrote:

Actually no, there was a whole movement about defending those that are new to the game from pointless slaughter. That is PART of the reason the system of Reputation was created. To deter bad player behavior. In a game where PvP is a primary element, it makes sense that the system caters to the defense of the inexperienced. Where will most inexperienced players start the game? The starter towns.

I believe in the intent behind the reputation system. I also believe the more you reach for, the more you should have to risk. Harvesters risk the same thing gathering a T1 node in a starter town than they do in a skymetal hex. Their life and their gear. T1 - T3.

That isn't a meaningful choice, its the same choice over and over again.

The game needs harvesters, but PvPers shouldn't be the only ones that suffer alignment and rep hits for their choices.

The reputation system was never meant to protect the noobs, it was meant to not play a murder simulator because Ryan comes from EvE, where 75% of the characters never put a foot outside high security, because it sucks to die too much.

I never said it was nor am I ignorant if that is your implication. I said that it makes sense in that application as to not drive new players away, which if you recall was an initial concern in the early stages of this community.

Aet Areks Kel'Goran wrote:

You can harvest all you want and no matter where you harvest or what you harvest, you will not have to make a decision that affects your alignment and reputation.

This seems a really bizarre comparison. Are you suggesting everything should have Alignment and Reputation consequences? Or are you suggesting the lack of Alignment and Reputation consequences (even if there are other consequences) equates to a lack of meaningful choices?

No, not everything and no, there are meaningful choices that do not affect alignment and rep and they are plentiful. I do think every ROLE should have SOME meaningful choice to make that affects their alignment and reputation.

Maybe the answer lies in contracts or harvesting in others territory or over-harvesting. There could be different harvesting techniques that provide different quantities and qualities of goods.

Much like when you raid an outpost and strip mine it. Give that option to harvesters and attach reputation and alignment mechanics to it.

Hoggish Greedly is an example of a harvester that made decisions that affected his alignment and reputation.

Aet Areks Kel'Goran wrote:

Also, for the record I have no problem with it being turned all the way up in areas that are supposed to be completely safe, IE starter towns.

Ah, so things you want to do may have a high penalty in places you don't care to go, as long as they have the minimum possible penalty where all the good stuff is?

Actually no, there was a whole movement about defending those that are new to the game from pointless slaughter. That is PART of the reason the system of Reputation was created. To deter bad player behavior. In a game where PvP is a primary element, it makes sense that the system caters to the defense of the inexperienced. Where will most inexperienced players start the game? The starter towns.

I believe in the intent behind the reputation system. I also believe the more you reach for, the more you should have to risk. Harvesters risk the same thing gathering a T1 node in a starter town than they do in a skymetal hex. Their life and their gear. T1 - T3.

That isn't a meaningful choice, its the same choice over and over again.

The game needs harvesters, but PvPers shouldn't be the only ones that suffer alignment and rep hits for their choices.

You can harvest all you want and no matter where you harvest or what you harvest, you will not have to make a decision that affects your alignment and reputation.

The developers can make it exactly as difficult as they want, and can flow the resources at exactly the rate they want. We don't know how much they will put into making it difficult, but we have a notion that other players will be putting in plenty. Why is it the privilege and responsibility of other players to decide how difficult it should be? And why should the developers lessen the mechanic so that other players can make that decision without facing the intended consequence of their own? The end result that appears most likely to me is that those not eager to engage in PvP will eventually abandon the hexes and those eager to so engage will have unlimited access to the resource. This results in exactly the point I made earlier. It does not lessen the flow into the world at all (after time*) it only selects for who will have access to the resource.

* In point of fact, if the developers desire a set amount flowing into the world, then all the...

Please tell me how the developers can moderate the time players utilize, besides shutting the server down that is.

I'm not talking about instances where folks get banned.

I'm talking about what you do with your character in game over a period of time. That is a resource they cannot regulate and only guide.

Players are the only ones that can regulate that through direct interaction. When you engage in PvP there are consequences. Alignment and Reputation hits. What consequences are there for harvesting?

I propose no such thing, because harvesters face that decision every time they enter any hex. That risk is already many times greater in the skyfall hex than in most other hexes.

What evidence do you have to support either of these statements?

The compelling reason as given by the developers is to force meaningful choices. "Is what I will get from attacking this person worth the reputation hit?"

The penalty is everywhere for a reason, with specific, generally time limited, exceptions. Being greedy about a scarce resource is not a compelling reason to eliminate a mechanic that is designed to force meaningful choices around killing.

I think that is a valid point only if the reverse holds true. Why should harvesters not be in more danger when going after more valuable resources?

And for the record, its not eliminating a mechanic... its turning it all the way down. Also, for the record I have no problem with it being turned all the way up in areas that are supposed to be completely safe, IE starter towns.

If someone focuses on PvP and they have to make meaningful choices, so should the harvester who focuses on harvesting.

So how else would you make harvesting more difficult and riskier in these hexes, Cal?

The Devs have also said that for most people, alignment core and active alignment do not have to be exactly the same and with no negative consequences for being one step askew.

You can be NG core, but be TN, CG or LG active with no negative consequence.

Only Paladins need to be very concerned about alignment. Clerics, Druids and Barbarians a little less do. Everyone else, not at all except for Core.

How can you forget monks?

If it seems that competition in Starfall hexes isn't strong enough, incentives should be laid down. The various star metals are some of the rarest and most valuable substances on Golarion, competition for these should be intense and violent.

That is my point, although some seem to miss it or think there are ulterior motives behind it.

While FFA may not be the way to go, your explanation from an RP perspective is quite enlightening.

Again, thank you.

Andius the Afflicted wrote:

Let me educate you because clearly you folks over at TEO and TSV need it.

RESPECT MA' AUTHORITEEEEEEEEY !

Its more like AUTHORITAAAAAAAHHH! Blunted "ah" as opposed to sharp "ey".

T7V Jazzlvraz wrote:

I'm not sure the Gods would suspend their consideration of murdering unflagged innocents as an evil act just because of "ooh! shiny!" metal.

Its not just shiny, its radioactive and has bizarre properties. Each metal was also associated to one of the 7 schools of Thassilonian magic, so it wouldn't be much of a stretch for it to affect your behavior.

Also, the gods don't have a say in your alignment. Alignment is a law of physics, just like Universal Gravitation.

Wow.

*tips hat*

That's the best damn RP centered argument that supports FFA PvP in skymetal hexes yet.

Even if you are against the idea, I commend you sir.

Or another use for the "Observe" skill. The ones harvesting and transporting would get the "Being Observed" debuff indicator. =)

Awesome Mordred!! That's an outstanding idea... I hadn't even thought of that but it doesn't meet my intent.