BurnHavoc wrote:

Freevale's Icon so far

E PLURUBUS ANUS!

We were so very close to using that...

Freevale's Icon so far

As this is a computer game, I believe we should only use variations on base 2, ie Oct or Hex. We don't even need descriptive unit names at that point.

For example "The settlement is 1FB distance units from town." Hell, as players we can create our own lecixon! DU = Distance Units, IW = Inventory Weight, CV = Currency Value, SS = System Steps (for time!)

Truth be told, I've never had a good grasp on anything imperial except inches, feet and lbs (though only for body weight). I know exactly how walking a KM feels like, a mile is such a foreign concept to me though. And I live 120km from the US border and have driven in the US several times. Still nothin'.

I support Metric for selfish reasons.

I welcome that discussion, and always encourage folks to speak what's actually on their minds - civilly if they can, and with a bit of forgiveness if someone else can't.

I just despair when the discussion devolves to "you're not listening!" The best way to handle folks trying to shout you down is to ignore them - don't let them change the subject.

If you're interested in brainstorming ideas for PvP cases that don't involve Reputation loss, only respond to posts that present those kinds of ideas.

If you're interested in convincing folks that Reputation loss for PvP against unflagged targets is a bad idea, use History, Facts, and Evidence - don't rely on assertions. And again, don't respond to posts that change the subject.

It's easy to get frustrated when it feels like someone's ignoring what you're saying... almost as easy as it is to ignore what someone's saying when you're frustrated. I'm still learning to recognize that in myself.

You are quite right, I keep getting drawn in by the forum trolls like Audoucet, Jazzlvraz, and Malvius012. I apologize, because you and others have been extremely civil and getting entwined in shouting matches with the same few people out to derail every open PvP thread is disrespectful to those who WANT to foster a meaningful discussion.

I've had a night to sleep on it, and I might have a few more ideas bouncing around there.

One of the ideas a few of us threw around is resource/location control for static game elements. Something like locking down a Skymetal node or entrance to a particular dungeon/area to prevent unauthorized players from using it. It'll mean players will have to come in force to break the blockade. So in this case, you have the reverse of "running around killing everything in sight", but rather "monopolizing something people want". I think this is a perfect play example of meaningful PvP that would otherwise be punished by reputation loss. The action of blockading something is decidedly evil AND lawbreaking (Chaotic) in the Riverlands, so here is a valid and meaningful game action that would also bring together groups of Lawful Good players to break the blockade. I believe that NEITHER SIDE should lose reputation for engaging or attempting to break a blockade.

This also prevents certain tactics I've seen in other games that can be viewed as extremely annoying in this case. I've seen large groups monopolize resources from small groups/solo players, but scramble when a large group comes to break the blockade to prevent getting a mass equivalent of rep loss for engaging in that large-scale fight. Then they just reform when the larger blockade-breaking group gets bored of having no targets of fight and leaves. Rinse and repeat until players basically give up on that resource for the day.

NOW, I think in this case we want to encourage the blocking group to stand their ground so that eventually the blockade breaking group prevails with persistence (plus the upper hand of being able to reinforce and not basically being under siege). At the moment, you're basically going to see the scramble method become standard, and I think thats a frustrating situation where no actual PvP occurs except killing of the small groups/solo players.

There are a lot of aspects that harm a game in its consumers eyes reputation systems have never been high up on my list for biggest issues. If you are basing this off of the fact that YOUR actions are constantly constrained in the MMO's you play I would suggest the problem might not have been with the MMO's.

Naw, I'm more basing it off of watching MMOs fail at implementing similar systems. I've been in this game a long time, I've seen some pretty terrible design decisions kill some really good games. Most of which I stuck with till near the end.

Here is where I think you fail to see the difference between a fair number of us and wow style battleground 'PvP'ers, for a fair number of us the ability to build a world is AWESOME and the politicking, city building, poi claiming/upgrading, caravan moving is the bread and butter of our interests. Now note bread and butter leaves plenty of room for other things but these are the shining baubles that we went out and supported PFO for. I don't mind PvP in a game but don't like looking over my shoulder every second I'm in the game. If we are feuding then I know my play style has to adapt to that circumstance, this is not consensual PvP but I'm not asking for that. What the builders, tinkerers and want to be statesmen are looking for is a game that let's them do their thing and gives them a clear signal when to scuttle aside or hang up their robes and strap on a breastplate. We want a chance to meet a foe with a sword in our hands and fight for all we are worth- which might not be much we are craftsmen darn it- but being surprised with a Pickaxe in our hands without warning is not fun it's downright traumatic. And to be honest complaining about needing to declare hostilities before slaughtering those of us of more constructive inclinations is really no betting than flat out saying your a bully who never looks for a fair fight but instead takes the fights they 'know' they can win.

I think you just accurately described an antagonist, which is precisely what I'm advocating for the ability to be. Have your politicking, city building, poi claiming/upgrading, caravan moving. Have your builders, tinkerers and statesmen. I'm here wanting to play the thing you're scared of, that your building your arms and armour to safeguard yourself from. The reason you post guards and hire caravan guards. I want my character to be the reason you've learned to keep one eye open when you sleep. Why certain parts of the map are just... well, just don't go there if you want to come out alive.

Without people like me, there is no risk, no tension, no flavour to your conflict. And the only way for that to exist is if that archetype can BE viable and BE strong.

2. Build mechanics to enforce the behavior you want.

My whole point is that #2 never works because people just find ways around it, and feel rewarded for doing so. On top of that, the devs and players all think the problem no longer exists because #2 was designed into the game. So when it does BECOME a problem, it's slow to be looked at, slow to be dealt with or is dealt with badly, and usually harms the game irreparably.

BurnHavoc wrote:

I don't have to convince 90% of anyone, I just need 51% on my side...

I think you may have the wrong impression.

Let me start by saying I'm not trying to shut you up, or make you quit advocating for what you want. I'm only trying to share with you the information Ryan has already given us.

Ryan Dancey (In-Game Supports for Role Playing) wrote:

Notmyrealname wrote:

Crowdforging is all about the votes in the end , isn't it?

No. It would very dangerous to assume Crowdforging will just be a series of votes. That won't work. We can't have a game designed by majority rule.

I totally agree with Ryan there. That's part of why I'm so strongly advocating my position on this. I'm trying to be the voice of reason.

I sincerely believe, in my experience, that trying to draw players into an "open PvP sandbox game" game and then heavily regulating how, where and when they can PvP is akin to the battlegrounds in a lot of themepark games and will drive your players right back to them, or to more openly implemented systems.

I also sincerely believe that any deterrent to open PvP will be seen as a challenge to abusers/griefers as well as turn into a metagame of avoidance and exploitation by the regular kos players. It'll also give players and CSRs/devs a false sense of "fixing the problem" of red=dead players when in fact they've only found a way to satisfy a vocal minority of people who are afraid that their play experience will be ruined by other players.

What I'm saying is by putting an obstacle in the path rather than actually DEALING with the problem, you're inviting challengers to best your obstacle, not deterring them from coming up against it.

NOW, I also do realize that we're ALL more or less talking out our asses until we actually get some screen-time playing the game. It doesn't mean I don't appreciate a good solid discussion to kill the time in-between ;)

;) I'm still going to like it either way. In all the years I haven't played a MMO that I totally disliked. I've been frustrated at certain things, I've been pissed off at this update or that, but never totally disliked one. I was just hoping for something different for once, something closer to some of the MUDs I love and I'm kinda frustrated that instead of TRYING something new they're playing it safe by sticking to the mold and that's what has been killing MMOs before they even have a chance.

I've played free MUDs with thousands of players and open PvP with alignment-based systems function perfectly fine without penalizing anything and without needing the idea of "asking for consent to PvP". This is not impossible, it's just that no major development company is willing to TRUST their players.

Access isn't being removed for acting in a CE manner. Access is removed for characters that don't meet the reputation threshold set by the town's citizens. If some group of CE wants to be high rep, they can keep that threshold high. If characters act in a CE manner *and* maintain a high enough rep, they can enter.

For the record, I think rep thresholds above +1000 (starting character rep) will be very, very rare. They might be pointless.

Access is removed for a settlement to even CONTAIN the buildings/services if the rep threshold is not high enough. This is essentially equivalent. What I'm saying is if we already have CE, and actions that are essentially CE are what cause you to lose rep, then why not drop rep and just use the CE alignment itself.

But since you are if I'm not mistaken from UNC

You are mistaken.

Because GW wants killing of unsanctioned target on a regular daily basis to be punished.

*sigh* Thats what I'm disagreeing with. If they want them to be punished, offer other players an incentive to punish them on their own. Put a mechanic in, you're essentially challenging people to find a way around the mechanic so that it happens anyway AND there's the reward of knowing you've beaten the system. It's perpetuate a cycle of increased killings rather than occasional killings.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating REWARDING meaningless combat. I'm advocating NOT PUNISHING it because PUNISHMENT DOESN'T WORK. If you get NO MATERIAL REWARDS from meaningless killing, it's a boring thing eventually. If other players take it upon themselves to enact justice, then you're no longer indiscriminately killing but engaging in meaningful PvP. If you get punished, it's a CHALLENGE to beat the system. You'll literally have players seeing how negative they can go or how many kills they can get by finding ways to circumvent the system before it catches on.

I know it sounds counterintuitive, but a punishment based system is a net NEGATIVE for the actual gameplay.

Another Alternative
If you absolutely want to prevent meaningless killings, here's a different way to approach it: Outright turn off non-consensual PvP but not the material consequences of declining.

- Guarding a caravan or traveling on a road and you decline to fight? then they may be robbed but not harmed.
- Guarding a Settlement, PoI or Outpost and refuse to consent to PvP combat? Your PoI/Outpost/Settlement may be destroyed, stolen from, and taken over but no harm may come to you.

It's the mechanical equivalent of "Your gold or your life" to banditry, but eliminates the problem of someone killing without consent.

And what exactly did I put in Bludd's mouth ?

*AHEM* So. Either are you just train to have your way by manipulating the developers into making them believe that they don't need any control, so you can in the end grief all you want, OR, you are a very kind and trusting person who thinks that everybody is nice, trusting and fair-play, and that everything will be great.

That. Right there, that is putting words in his mouth. Building a straw man argument, Literately THE DEFINITION OF THE PHRASE "putting words in [someones] mouth".

This is a game with consequences for playing a psychopath, and you try to argue for having no consequences.

No, I'm arguing that:

You don't want to play an antagonist, this is just excuses, as always.

Yes. I'm a griefer in disguise looking to ruin the game for everyone. I'm willing to spend hundreds of dollars and hours of my time NOT to try to make Pathfinder Online the MMO I've always wanted to play, but rather to insure I can be a griefing a*&#!++ once it comes out and run everyone away so my money is wasted, GoblingWorks fails, and I can consider my life complete.

Was that tone dry enough? I though about not responding to this one like the other one above about derailing the subject (ironic statement, no?) but I think there was plenty of room for a good sarcastic take on this one.

And seriously, stop talking about compromise, that's laughable.

Your attitude is poisonous to the entire concept of crowdforging. Try to help us find a middle ground. I've offered several suggestions, adjustments, and ideas in this thread. You've offered... lets see... "my way or the highway" aaaand... vitriolic bile! Awesome.

While the original text of both the RA and the NC are pretty vague, I think members of both have chipped in with their interpretations that are significantly more specific. Quoting the original text is like quoting the US Constitution and pretending there are no amendments or judicial decisions on the text therein applied to specific situations.

Welcome

BurnHavoc wrote:

Kobold Cleaver wrote:

I am not a supporter of Bluddwolf's conditions, but since he's not speaking for Aragon, perhaps all that will amount to is a bit of IC discontent between our characters as we each strive to interpret the rules to our own benefit. ;)

More or less a lot of this is left to be hammered out when the actual mechanics of the game come into play, but even I personally disagree with Bluddwolf's interpretation.

I'd like to remind everyone here that this is a non-AGGRESSION pact, not an alliance. The idea is not to take aggressive actions that will adversely affect each others SETTLEMENTS. That is all. This is not your personal "time out" button.

Disagreeing without an explanation of what you are disagreeing to or why is not helpful. I have no way to clarify or consider what your view is. You could convince me to rethink my position.

For 1. The gear on a corpse has nothing to do with a non-aggression pact. Nor does petty theft in general. That is sorted out by the owner of the land it occurs on.

For 2. I don't think a single player joining a group doing anything short of attempts to take settlement land or holdings, or attacking a settlement directly, would really apply. Joining a general brawl on either side shouldn't really matter.

Either way, we're not here to micromanage individual actions nor impose each others justice systems on one another.

I am not a supporter of Bluddwolf's conditions, but since he's not speaking for Aragon, perhaps all that will amount to is a bit of IC discontent between our characters as we each strive to interpret the rules to our own benefit. ;)

More or less a lot of this is left to be hammered out when the actual mechanics of the game come into play, but even I personally disagree with Bluddwolf's interpretation.

I'd like to remind everyone here that this is a non-AGGRESSION pact, not an alliance. The idea is not to take aggressive actions that will adversely affect each others SETTLEMENTS. That is all. This is not your personal "time out" button.

My understanding is this is a broad strokes agreement, no premeditated violence or aggression; no raiding each others caravans, no attacking each others settlements and holdings, no targeted or unprovoked ganking sessions, no land hijacking.

This has nothing to do with personal feuds or small scale brawls, and any of these small things that do happen and get brought to the members of the non-agg pact will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

NOTE: THIS IS SIMPLY MY INTERPRETATION. Fine details have not been hammered out yet, but this is a kind of broad realization of what a "non-aggression" pact is.

The Caravan example is perfect situational way of looking at things. If you take a contract with A who are at war with a pact member, B. If B attacks the caravan, it is their right and you are not covered by the pact as you are under contract to non-pact member A and are acting as an agent of A for the period of the contract.

Another example, if you and some company members team up with a company from non-pact settlement Z, and in the course of your ganking spree you take out several groups of pact-member Y citizens, you are violating the non-aggression pact, though in a minor way which the Y citizens will have to bring up to their leadership and have the argument made against you. If you stand at a distance during those specific encounters and do nothing, you're NOT violating the pact.

If you participate in a raid on Y's mines or territory with Z's group, you're VERY MUCH in violation of the agreement and either your own settlement will deal with you with their own variety of justice (economical, political or physical, depending on the settlement), or they will back your actions and will be removed from the pact.

This agreement is not a shield to hide behind, it's a method to protect our collective territory and peoples from each other. That is it.