Forencith of Phaeros, TSV's page

Minimally, PFO needs:

1. Full Loot + Destroyed

2. Refining of Items to base materials

3. Open PVP Zones where higher tier resources can be gathered

4. Gatherers / Crafters need to have required tools

5. Greater Risk vs. Reward balancing. Right now there is no meaningful risk.

I entirely agree this would improve the game.

However, I would argue we currently have #3. There is a difference between there being incentives to not PvP and being unable to. You are entirely welcome to PvP anywhere, including - especially including - areas with higher tier resources. I would admit that the incentive system, reputation, is not working as I would like to see it work.

I do not see this as a broken system, I see it as incomplete. I would be wary of changing the design of a house after only building the foundation, because I want a more comfortable couch. I am still excited to see the finished structure.

Forencith of Phaeros, TSV wrote:

Gaskon wrote:

Flynn Pontis wrote:

Gaskon I don't know what you can't understand about the story here.

I guess what I don't understand is why Golgotha chose to escalate from "we lost one tower" directly to "We kill all Phaeros members."

...

I want the response to "we lost a tower" to be "we take 2 towers back", instead of what's happening now.

Out of curiosity, what would you (or anyone) feel is an appropriate response to hostilities as defined below -- specifically (as in this case) someone attacked escalations and establishing a holding in declared territory?

TEO Cheatle wrote:

The EBA has established our borders, shown on the following map, for resource, escalation, and holding claims. We consider anyone harvesting resources, attacking escalations, or establishing holdings to be hostile, unless given prior permission from EBA leadership.

Is anyone suggesting the EBA (of which Phaeros is a member) does not have a right to respond to acts of hostility?

Is this game about territorial control?

Finally, in the name of being constructive, assuming no one is objecting to Settlements/Alliances/Kingdoms defending their territory, what would be an appropriate way to address the actions of rogue companies? Is there any agreement as to whether settlements should or should not be be held accountable for the actions of companies they agree to sponsor?

How about in ways that don't break the arrangements or agreements political affiliates have made?

Did the agreement or arrangement in question offer permission to harvest resources, attack escalations, and/or establish holdings in EBA territory? If not, can you offer the details of the arrangement so I can understand how it trumped EBA sovereignty?

Flynn Pontis wrote:

Gaskon I don't know what you can't understand about the story here.

I guess what I don't understand is why Golgotha chose to escalate from "we lost one tower" directly to "We kill all Phaeros members."

...

I want the response to "we lost a tower" to be "we take 2 towers back", instead of what's happening now.

Out of curiosity, what would you (or anyone) feel is an appropriate response to hostilities as defined below -- specifically (as in this case) someone attacked escalations and establishing a holding in declared territory?

The EBA has established our borders, shown on the following map, for resource, escalation, and holding claims. We consider anyone harvesting resources, attacking escalations, or establishing holdings to be hostile, unless given prior permission from EBA leadership.

Is anyone suggesting the EBA (of which Phaeros is a member) does not have a right to respond to acts of hostility?

Is this game about territorial control?

Finally, in the name of being constructive, assuming no one is objecting to Settlements/Alliances/Kingdoms defending their territory, what would be an appropriate way to address the actions of rogue companies? Is there any agreement as to whether settlements should or should not be be held accountable for the actions of companies they agree to sponsor?

Sorry, I missed the last few days (birth of a new baby).

I must admit it seems everyone us getting tangled in the details.

Granted I call Phaeros and TSV home, but as many can attest, I am not against calling out my own when I think they are wrong. To me it seems to boil down to this:

From here:

The EBA has established our borders, shown on the following map, for resource, escalation, and holding claims. We consider anyone harvesting resources, attacking escalations, or establishing holdings to be hostile, unless given prior permission from EBA leadership. Any non-hostile individuals are free to travel our land, trade, buy/sell at auction houses, as well as bank.

Territory Map Border

...

This is the EBA's stated policy. And...I think this is pretty much an admission of the EBA's ability to enforce it.

Did Golgotha act in a manner defined by the EBA as hostile in EBA territory (making this an EBA issue) or in a manner defined by a settlement of the EBA as hostile in their territory (making this a settlement issue)?

Was action by EBA members claimed to be in direct response to that violation?

Why is this being framed as a matter concerning a member of the EBA versus the whole?

Why is Golgotha surprised when the EBA reacts to acts of hostility?

Finally, what is the relevance of acts of hostility in EBA territory to any member of the EBA farming escalations in any unclaimed territory anywhere on the map?

.......

That said/asked, I must congratulate everyone on the eventful weekend; sounds like much content was created and fun had.

coach wrote:

April Fool's aside I think it would be completely fun if the EBA did go to the Dark Side of the Force

player content would surely be more interesting :)

The significant thing about EBA is not the number of GOOD settlements (even though there are quite a few GOOD settlements, the entire alliance is not GOOD aligned) it is that absolutely every settlement in EBA is NEUTRAL on the CHAOS/LAW axis.

Admittedly, all of that is a guess. We will end up where we end up. Technically, we do not really know what it means to be Good, Evil, Lawful, or Chaotic. If Neutral means I have to go to do random acts of Chaos in order to "balance" my tendency to fulfill contracts...I will probably not be neutral.

Well, my "preference" would be no static PvE encounters.

I would like to see entities/agents that "seek out" or wander until they find conditions ideal for them. Then they "compete" with PCs for resources to build up their position.

These entities could be everything from squirrels (who seek out specific wood nodes) and foxes (who hunt squirrels) to goblins and bandits (who might hunt PCs and compete with PCs for construction resources).

But, I think it is beyond the point where I could successfully argue that such a system could/should replace escalations.

International Times

Just to confirm, much of EST is currently EDT, do you mean that?

Forencith of Phaeros, TSV wrote:

I would be interested in participating in/contributing to this as well (although the meta-complications of doing a course instructing a character on how a player should behave is making me twitch...). Maybe we can pull together some of the great advise that has already been submitted to these forums in the last 3+ years and create yet another Guide...and give credit to the original contributers.

Let me know if someone takes the lead.

I wasn't suggesting telling people how to role play / play, but more so pointing to information and resources that might help facilitate more role playing.

No, sorry...I did not mean to say you were. I was more imagining me (the player), playing my character, instructing another character in the best-practices of how to use out of game concepts - to actually educate the player playing that character...and considering how to do so, in character.

I'm not going to presume to suggest rules for PFU, but might I suggest a course?

Role Playing in PFO:

101: Introduction to the River Kingdoms.

102: Introduction to RP in PFO: Knowing the Settlements and Companies that are actively RPing.

103: Creating a Character Concept that fits in

103B: Creating a Character that sets a trend (does not fit, but without breaking)

104: Introduction to the Escalations

105: NPC Factions in PFO

Advanced RP in PFO:

201: How to create RP Events

There is of course a lot of room for adding to this, tweaking it or removing elements.

Discuss...

I would be interested in participating in/contributing to this as well (although the meta-complications of doing a course instructing a character on how a player should behave is making me twitch...). Maybe we can pull together some of the great advise that has already been submitted to these forums in the last 3+ years and create yet another Guide...and give credit to the original contributers.

Let me know if someone takes the lead.

Forencith of Phaeros, TSV wrote:

Also hasn't GW already hinted/stated that settlements will get more DI for having less experienced citizens?

That's actually a benefit for Companies, not Settlements. Companies earn Influence as their Characters earn Achievements. New Players will have a much easier time earning Achievements. Therefore, Companies gain Influence faster when they have lots of new Players in them.

I expect that the devs are struggling with how Influence transfers with a Character when that Character changes Companies specifically because of their desire to support Pathfinder University without negatively impacting their design goals with respect to new Players earning Influence for Companies.

Thanks for that clarification. And realize, I do not think PFU should give up ANY of its sovereignty unless it is deemed by them to be in their best interests. I just recognized a concern and shared it with a possible solution. It is my hope others will build upon that (or discard it) to offer an even better solution.

Forencith of Phaeros, TSV wrote:

I am sure you are right, I was just trying to think of a way to keep those you want to give you stuff (namely your requests above) interested in supporting your endeavor.

It may a bit easy to forget exactly what PFU is actually providing that makes it so damn important and worthy of community support. The resource that PFU controls is more valuable than any other in this game. Nothing comes close. It is of course the graduates.

If organizations haven't already tuned into the game and realized that a prime concern needs to always be recruiting, training, and replacing culturally acceptable members of their organizations to compensate for burnout and turn around, they probably don't have a long life expectancy in PFO. Recruiting, equipping, and training contains a huge risk though as certain folks will just decide not to play, others will decide another org betters fulfills their play style etc.

PFU alleviates much of the risk for groups in this game. In 90 days most of us should have got our feet under us and stopped drooling on ourselves (well, maybe not Padric). As at the end of the day what Hoffman and faculty is running is kindergarten much more than university. So when you recruit a grad you can feel much better about the lower risk you are taking because we known the basics, known what we want in game, and know why we want to play in your group particularly.

This sole reason is enough foy ANY forward thinking organization to assist PFU if ever required. Else they will see the majority of prepared and pre-invested players moving off to play with competitors.

From another perspective, recruiting...and training recruits is a great source of ongoing content. I cannot overstate how important I think it will be to the success of a settlement to have ongoing content for all members.

Also hasn't GW already hinted/stated that settlements will get more DI for having less experienced citizens? There will be mechanical incentive for settlements to recruit (which is the purpose I think).

Of course, just because each settlement "owns" its own recruits, does not mean they cannot utilize the PFU instructors/facilities (but then you loose the benefits).

I am just pointing out that it is not as clear cut as you providing a valuable service...you ARE providing a service, some will see it as a good service, but others, even forward looking ones, might see it as digging into their DI or content...if DI is worth fighting for...

I am just trying to think of ideas that might assist in your survival and success.

Forencith of Phaeros, TSV wrote:

Perhaps an option would be to create a "board of directors" ... The "Board" would provide some minimal function of oversight and advise, perhaps even just periodic reviews of policy, audits of communal requests, or judicial reviews of conflict with(in) PFU.

There is no need for large settlement tentacles in PFU. That will only turn PFU into another vehicle for fatcat politicking. PFU is a refuge (for up to 90 days) for new players to learn the game without being or feeling beholden to large companies or settlements.

What PFU does is extremely public and transparent and has no need for a board of your description.

I am sure you are right, I was just trying to think of a way to keep those you want to give you stuff (namely your requests above) interested in supporting your endeavor.

I say this simply as a suggestion, not as an expectation.

I have found people are more apt to provide support for things they feel invested in. One issue you have is that those with power, no longer need you. Perhaps an option would be to create a "board of directors" consisting of (for instance) 1 representative from the top 5 most populous/active participating settlements (with a caveat that no 2 can be from any one kingdom/alliance) and the "CEO" of PFU. Participating settlements would be those who agree to your requests above and promise to enforce that amongst their residents.

The "Board" would provide some minimal function of oversight and advise, perhaps even just periodic reviews of policy, audits of communal requests, or judicial reviews of conflict with(in) PFU.

Meetings of this board could even be public, offering you periodic opportunities for transparency and RP.

As suggested by LazarX, it really comes down to what you (or as Rynnik pointed out, a friend/ally) can enforce. While PfU might exist to benefit the community, it really comes down to trying to get everyone who might have an interest in what you have to agree that benefit outweighs their desires...and since most settlements seem reluctant to impose or enforce restrictions on their membership, it really is a matter of trying to to get everyone to individually agree.

Personally, I agree to honour your requests, and will assist you in defending it as I am able, until said time as you no longer seem politically neutral, you no longer provide a benefit to the community, what you take exceeds what you have requested here, or I need something that only you hold. I reserve the right to, at that time, reevaluate my position in light of the new situation.

Yes to both questions and thanks for sharing Kaitiakitanga - hadn't heard about it but it looks close enough to describe it.

Thanks again for the clarifications. That is all I saw that seemed ambiguous

Maybe my stance on husks originates from me being mainly a gatherer.

My only suggestion would be to relate it to the River Freedoms. Perhaps you can simply say that in light of your claim on the land, you see all dropped belonging as being "held" by you, and under your protection...and it is your choice to release them back to their original owner. This justifies why you feel you "have it" and as such, have power over it. I think it is difficult to misconstrue the intent or function. The only argument I can see is whether you have the power to enforce it (a question that anyone who makes a claim needs to consider; of course, the inability to enforce it does not mean you cannot claim it as your position).

Thanks for the responses. And to clarify, I am not trying to attack your position. I am just providing the feedback I thought you were asking for...developing policy positions is what I do for a career and I love my job.
______

Would the following two statements be true?

While no one owns the nodes, you support stewardship of the land. Charging for licenses is your implementation of Kaitiakitanga, a way to create some limits, while providing a means to help support the stewards.

So would it be accurate to say that in EL lands, husks always belong to the "dropper" unless ownership is explicitly transferred. Taking another's belongings is theft. Thieves are handled as described in the OP.
_______

Can you define "inferior materials"?

Thanks for sharing Thod. I like your RP rationales, that helps me better understand the implications and consequences of the position when I must consider new situations.

Question 1, if you claim no one owns the nodes in your land, including EL, and you allow peaceful visitors unlimited travel, under what rationale do you limit harvesting and demand licensing fees?

Question 2, do husks fall under the same rules as nodes?

In this case I'm assuming its Pax and our use of carefully worded documents/Policies.

Perhaps...you might be surprised...

To be clear, while I do not think it followed from his initial proposition, which I debated, I do think his conclusion was true, "TSV (and all members of the EBA) generally back the plays of their friends and allies, and they generally call good plays."

I think that could be an internal truth of any community of like-minded individuals (including Pax).

One of the nice things about being Free and Conscientious is that we don't have to have an elaborately worded document that everyone has to abide by to the letter. We generally back the plays of our friends and allies, and they generally call good plays.

Sorry, there is nothing about being Free and Conscientious that precludes the existence of an elaborately worded document, nor vice versa. I don't understand the point being made.

One issue with not having an elaborately worded document is that there can be no expectation of understanding by anyone else.

Forencith of Phaeros, TSV wrote:

Understood, thank you for the clarification.

So there is no confusion, would the statements:

"The EBA does not recognize the ownership of any unclaimed non-settlement hex. And, unclaimed means not explicitly claimed by a recognized power."

be true at this point?

Also, can you clarify whether the EBA views husks as resource nodes?

The EBA has not made any policy statements regarding those questions.

Understood, that is why I was forced to ask. I thought it relevant to the posted public policy.

Any policy statements made by the EBA would be irrelevant to the current situation, because the EBA does not have the authority to make policies which are binding to individual Phaerites.

I am not sure of the relevance of this. I am only asking in the abstract sense.

Phaeros does not as of yet have offer official guidance on how citizens should handle husks of strangers.

Thanks, I will keep my eyes open...but not hold my breath (not that I am claiming it is necessary or even desirable to dictate anyone's behaviour).

However, again - "The EBA does not recognize the ownership of any unclaimed non-settlement hex. And, unclaimed means not explicitly claimed by a recognized power." seems to me to be a logical conclusion of the positions expressed, I was just confirming it as such. If it is not, I am still confused about the EBA public policy and supporting statements made here and elsewhere.

But...Since my purpose has been forced from "be constructive to the understanding of situations of this type, for myself and others" to "justify why my question(s) are not an attack on the EBA", I obviously took a wrong turn somewhere...and am going to shut up now.

I'm not sure this is the right place for a debate about EBA internal policy. We made a public announcement outlining what we felt we owed it to the community to state publicly.

I actually thought the questions I asked were a clarification of the public policy.

@Yrme, that is exactly what I am trying to clarify, what the understanding/justification is/was. I realize I might have been alone in my understanding of the rationale for the WoT NAP. To me, "fair" should never part of a conquest game, therefore I saw it as an attempt to respect each active settlements' sovereignty. Understanding the viewpoints of those involved in a debate is necessary. I realize I was wrong, thanks for the clarification. That is why I asked.

If the intent was that a settlement held sovereignty over the core six hexes and everything in them, including towers, I'm sure my betters would have included that in their treaty.

But, by this logic, there was no intent (at least that I can identify), which is surely not the case.

Understood, thank you for the clarification.

So there is no confusion, would the statements:

"The EBA does not recognize the ownership of any unclaimed non-settlement hex. And, unclaimed means not explicitly claimed by a recognized power."

be true at this point?

Also, can you clarify whether the EBA views husks as resource nodes?

@Decius, Didn't the EBA once champion a treaty based upon the policy that each settlement had sovereignty over its core six?

I have a few questions concerning "etiquette".

1) If husks belong to no one, yet opening them is harvesting (plus the mobile node rhetoric), and if harvesting in another's territory is criminal, should it be frowned upon/criminal to open any husks in another's claimed territory?

2) If policy needs to be explicitly stated, shouldn't change of policy be explicitly stated too? Case in point, a large portion of the map had a treaty at the beginning of the WoT that was built upon the idea that each settlement "owned" its core six. That treaty may not exist anymore, but why should anyone who would actually cares about other settlements' sovereignty think that policy had changed?

Sorry for being pedantic, the culture of the game is in flux at the moment, and I am just trying to figure it out. This is why GW asked us here, to create a persistent understanding of how we should view the "world"...so we can then share that with the later influx. There is no reason we need be logically consistent, but it is easy to understand how new players might fall into that by default unless we publicly post our expectations loudly and often.

Personally, I will probably stick with logically consistent simply because I have a hard time working with discordant ideas. Also, I am not trying to dictate anyone's behaviour...there are perfectly good OOC and IC rationales to violate the above even if true.

My only issue with this whole discussion is that it seems to equate content with PvP. The devs did promise other people would be our content, they also said there would be PvP, I see nothing in either of those positions that suggests that content must be PvP.

Personally, I see all interactions as content. Have I created content? Yes...I think I was pretty instrumental in creating one of the most successful social groups in game...and I must admit, I am not done creating them. That is a big part of my content.

I keep seeing mentioned the fact that it is an open PvP world as evidence that we must all be prepared and that it is justified everywhere and anywhere and anytime. Well, it is also an open dialog world, open RP world, open emote world...and most importantly, open story world.

I am all for PvP. What I am most looking forward to is tactical battles, strategic choices, and meaningful events. I am looking forward to PvP for a purpose, PvP as a tool to achieve or progress that story.

I have to disagree a little concerning the absolute nature of the River Kingdom Freedoms and Alignment.

First, alignment is universal everywhere in Golarion. What Asmodeus, the current personification of LE approves of, he will approve of everywhere.

The River Kingdom Freedoms on the otherhand, might be univerally known in the River Kingdoms, but are interpreted by each as seen fit. Similarly, sometimes the decision is made to ignore one (or more) all together...as evidence shows.

What I think we cannot know, is what alignment will end up meaning in PFO. The devs, as creators of our version of Golarion, might infuse the pantheon with variants of judgement than what we would normally expect in a more traditional setting. I enjoy alignment banter for the sake of the philosophical argument. However, what the alignments will really end up being or meaning, we must wait and see.

At this time, I really do not see what staking out our territory and our plan for defending it have anything to do with an alignment system we can not yet know.

I can say I intend to be TN...but what I really intend to do is play how I find it fun, and accept whatever alignment PFO makes that be. If I am forced to find a new team to play with because of this, well then I welcome the challenge and the adventure of making new friends. Similarly, we have stated our plan, if that plan makes us LG, we will be LG, if it makes us LN, TN, NG or even CE, so be it.

I'll reserve the label "good" for the folks who'd bring food to starving pilgrims, rather than the guy who'd fence people out.

What's the difference if the fence is realized in a way that only keeps out the people who would take away the food the people do have?

To be honest the fact that you are in a game where you continually kill things including human NPCs all the time and it is not evil until you kill a character played by a human rather than a computer is a bit illogical.

Killing a computer controlled bandit who lorewise does not resurrect is not evil. Killing a player controlled bandit who does resurrect is evil.

There is a lack of logic here.

Agreed, sorry. I know it is an unpopular position, but I have always been of the opinion that the game should strive for no mechanical differences between PCs and NPCs.

If you kill another player for harvesting "your" nodes, and it is a non-PvP hex. You will get flagged as an attacker/aggressor. You will lose reputation.

That is clearly in game terms, a crime.

How is that Lawful Good?

I prefer to look at it a different way, Reputation is a diachronic aggregate representing your behaviour. Any value over x shows one to be a "non-aggressive player", any value under y shows one to be an "aggressive player"

Any single incident of lowering is irrelevant to the representation of behaviour over time. The values of x and y are dependent upon the community making the judgement.

Alignment is and should be mostly independent of Reputation (although there will probably be some correlations).

EDIT: I also expect as the game develops, Reputation might be tied to more than PvP aggression, but for now it is not.

I'm just stating a set of truths.

Claiming EBA is LG is not one of them...we have tried to make that clear several times.

I don't need to provide you with examples on how to play Lawful Good. You need to demonstrate that you are able to play as Lawful Good because you want to play as Lawful Good. If you cannot do so then you are not Lawful Good.

Hence, the rest of this does not follow.

Replied again, sorry for being dense.

Quote:

Without that, I see continued calls of "look at the evil EBA" as just refusing to engage in constructive conversation.

You have chosen to label yourselves as Lawful Good...

Honest question...we have?

KotC - Erian El'ranelen wrote:

I ask again, what is a reasonable Good response other than what we've outlined? Without that, I see continued calls of "look at the evil EBA" as just refusing to engage in constructive conversation.

I reasonable good response would be something other than execution. If you cannot think of another response besides that, or if the game doesn't provide a suitable option for your means, then honestly that is either a failure in imagination on your part or a failure of the game to create an adequate role-playing environment.

Trust me, most if not all the EBA would prefer a mechanic that would allow us other options.

I am sure Nihimon can link you numerous suggestions he has made concerning removing offenders from a controlled area in a way that does not require killing them.

I can't tell if this conversation is in character or out of character.

*laugh* I can't either.

Forencith of Phaeros, TSV wrote:

Gol Tink wrote:

Quote:

Committing a crime is a moral offense.

And they call us evil.

You do not see stealing as a moral offense?

Sure it is. But it isn't a moral offense because it is against the law. By that standard I could say that breathing is now against the law, and you breathing is now a moral offense. Legality does not inform morality.

And what else is morality but the long standing tradition of legality? Are you suggesting an absolute authority beyond the pantheon of gods who would not agree on a single moral/law anyways?

Quote:

Committing a crime is a moral offense.

And they call us evil.

You do not see stealing as a moral offense?

Killing people who are in your territory because you don't want them to be there, despite not having committed a moral crime, is definitely not Lawful Neutral.

That is straight up Lawful Evil, since you are attaching the legality of applying a death sentence or execution for violating a set of laws you have decreed rather than the distinction of being an aberrant of nature or having been known to have committed a heinous act.

Stealing EBA's property, which we consider all resources within our domain, is a crime. Committing a crime is a moral offense. Minor moral offenses will be corrected with a warning or threat. Major moral offenses will be corrected with execution of that threat.

Theft of EBA resources by an organization or association known to be collectively in conflict with the EBA is a violation of our sovereignty and hence an act of war. Defense of one's self and neighbors in war is a moral imperative.

I will grant that recognition of such things as laws, belongings, territory, and even collective associations is a Lawful ideal, but defense of one's personal and neighbors' well-being is hardly Evil.

However, I imagine you judge all through the lens of your understanding of the world - I do not take offense at your err.

unless given prior permission from EBA leadership

...

Cheatle - Brighthaven Rep.
DeciusBrutus - Phaeros Rep.
Erian El'ranelan - Keeper's Pass Rep.
Fierywind - Brighthaven Rep.
Nihimon - Phaeros Rep.
Teribithia9 - Hammerfall Rep.
WxCougar - Keeper's Pass Rep.

Thanks Cheatle, I have been waiting/hoping for an official policy announcement.

Can you clarify that the statement above means the list also presented? Alternately, if that list is not the EBA leadership, can you clarify who/what is?

Asked a question in your linked thread.

For EBA folks that keep talking about BWG going it alone and how that led to their failure, do please curb that. BWG is/was part of the EBA. They were beginning to work with us. This event occurred at the most inopportune time, right as they were getting their feet under them. The EBA failed BWG in that regard, just as BWG failed in not taking advantage of the alliance earlier.

In case this was aimed at me...what I meant by "I wish the residents of BWG had tried joining forces with another settlement before deciding to leave the River Kingdoms." was that I wished they had consider joining another EBA settlement en masse before just leaving. Sorry for my ambiguity.

What we really need is a good old-fashioned war. Lots of well-armed, veteran soldiers around who know nothing but violence but lack an enemy to fight, and so they turn to banditry. If we had a war between factions going, it wouldn't make gatherers immune from getting ganked, but the number of people ambushing them would surely be reduced.

I must admit, I do not think there are enough people in game to make a war interesting to me.

My fear is the current system will ultimately push the bulk of the population into heavily defended settlements with a few excursions every day or so for bulk resources.

This is exactly what I expect will occur. By the beginning of OE, with the exception of fulfilling crafting or quartermaster duties, I expect I will be logging on for large(-ish) pre-planned events only - be those events harvesting, PvPing, PvEing, or RPing.

While the PvP system might add to my prediction, it only has minor efficacy. More importantly, being a sandbox, it will be absolutely necessary for players to develop their own content (read preplanned events). In fact, I would go so far as to claim that the eventual "winners" will be the settlements who manage that best...in the long-term this will be more important even that who can PvP the best.

In addition to this, PFO is specifically designed to require groups (as opposed to solo play) to accomplish most goals. The bigger the goal, the bigger the group...probably. Considering the difference in timezone and playtimes, I will be planning mine so I can participate in the big goals.

Finally, with high level skills requiring weeks/months to train, the usual drive to log on an MMO to grind and "accomplish" just is not as powerful or relevant. Playtime (for me at least) will boil down to the points above.

So, I agree that the current system will eventually drive people to the above behaviour. I think that the entire dynamic of the game (PvP least of all) is designed to do so. Like every other aspect of the game, the winners will be those who embrace and utilize the mechanics as given.

EDIT: Sorry for being off-topic. I wish the residents of BWG had tried joining forces with another settlement before deciding to leave the River Kingdoms. Best of luck in their travels.

I must admit, I would be happy to simply have a blacklist for settlement facilities at the moment.

Nihimon wrote:

Gol Guurzak wrote:

Nihimon wrote:

right now, nothing can be done about it other than to ask you to show some restraint, and we all know how well that's going to go over.

You might be surprised. Golgothan leadership does not want to see the world burn. If there's a serious argument that what we're doing is bad for the game I'm open to hearing it.

I'm asking you to show some restraint and not take advantage of situations beyond any player's control in order to engage in more random player killing than you expect will be feasible once the game systems are fully developed.

Savage Grace's point about the 24-hour PvP Window in the unclaimed Tower hexes adjacent to Keeper's Pass was well taken. However, rather than asking yourself why Keeper's Pass was unable to reclaim those Towers (partly due to the lack of a Leader capable of accepting folks into the Settlement), you saw an opening to engage in lots of random player killing.

If you can get 200 people warring and thus testing/crowdforging PvP I will happily do my share of PvE, instead. Until then I actually feel a responsibility to PvP, the same way I wash the dishes when no one else in the household will. And with so very very few people doing PvP we need every rep free opportunity we can find. Though it never occurred to me that the towers were unclaimed for any reason other than being promised to be irrelevant the next day.

I can't tell you how much I would love to see 200 people PvPing each other each week so I could do a lot less PvP (under the PvP systems we had up to yesterday). We'll see if today's version change makes PvP any more interesting.

Again, an issue with your position, if PvP is such a chore...and all of you just want to "kill for research", why not just kill each other? I bet with the cooperation of your victim and the ability to control and/or compensate for all other variables would provide much more accurate results. In fact, given the ability to replicate a given situation repeatedly and monitor the findings, I bet you could develop accurate statistical baselines and ensure there are both no external or internal variables that we are not aware of...or things that are not working consistently that should be.

I mean...since it is in the name of research and all...

How do we do that without turning the I quit threats into an I win button? Serious question.

The issue I have with your logic is that it assumes anyone non-aggressively surviving is beating you in some form of contest. It is not even a consensual us or them fight, it is you saying you want to kill them and either you win by doing so, or you loose by not...which by default means they win because you lost. In that case, your position is as meaningful as PvE, with your target being a simple two dimensional NPC worthy of only one thing, simply because they are not you. I am not sure how, in this case, you can deny the victim of your logic the gripe that they felt the interaction was not meaningful.

Or maybe I got it wrong, how exactly does a non-aggressor you have decided not to kill - win that contest?

While the loss of any players is unfortunate, if their play experience was ruined by 2 nights of banditry...

I highly doubt it was the 2 nights of banditry alone. I imagine it was their perception that the frustration they felt was the new norm.

How many times would you go on a date with someone who frustrated and denigrated you? I would not even give them 2 nights.

Cronge wrote:

Gol Tink wrote:

We just wanted to kill some stuff, and the south happens to be the easiest place to kill some stuff...

Once again, no TT GM in place to give the eyebrow.

Nor should there be. TT is an inherently cooperative experience. This is a competitive experience. The two are not comparable.

Actually, since we all supposedly share basic interests such as the good of the game, I think it is more accurately co-opetitive. The question then becomes how to find ground on which those common interests can be built...the cooperation part, and each finding ways to compete without violating the common interest.

Forencith, this was kind of a stealth move, but the jumping is actually a masterful game design element. When I first played LotR Online, some jerkface trollnugget thought it would be funny to pin me against a wall so I couldn't move. If you can jump over other players (which is exactly the height you can jump), they can't do that. The fact that we can jump the exact height we can jump is actually an unheralded piece of design genius, because it eliminates the problem of whether players should be ghostly apparitions people can just walk right through (like in Planetside) or solid obstacles. This way you can pick the realistic option, people are solid, without having to worry about trolling in the form of boxing people in.

Oh I agree. My post was actually in response to someone who wanted no jumping. I offered the compromise that jumping should cost stamina. And I agree about the jump height. I think it looks goofy, but I understand why they did it...and only a little goofier than crouching to move through characters.

Saying that, I cringe at the thought of watching gnomes jump over half-orcs.

Tied with 10 each.

Please, pretty please forbid jumping 20 Nov 2011.

Chartered Company: The Seventh Veil 20 Feb 2012.

T2 challenges should have T2 rewards.

Like...T2 fun? T2 satisfaction? T2 pride? I agree.