I don't know what any of this means, but I'm way over my post quota.
Hi Hobbs! I wasn't gone, and I'm not back. I don't think the moderation policies at these boards are well-thought out or effective, and so I don't choose to generate content here. I'm hoping we get new boards soon, so that I can contribute my little 2 cents in a useful way :)
Generate content. lol.
Well said Valkenr. PvP also increases the danger of gathering and transporting resources... with increased danger, you have more valuable resources, and thus, you can earn more money from them... enough to hire the honest protection you need from honourable mercenaries/protectors.
It's a nice feeling going through a dangerous area surrounded by people who're protecting you. It gives the non-PvP'ers a fun sense of danger... and, since they're gathering resources, they can afford to hire the help while providing jobs for those who wish to PvP on the side of light, (or the side of honest profit, as the case may be).
Someone had to fill my shoes. OK, there's my daily post. Goodbye.
Ryan Dancey wrote:
If we cannot get people to engage in meaningful PvP and they simply insist on treating the game like a murder simulator, we'll have to impose restrictions on where and when PvP can occur. But there's no design or plan for that because I don't think we'll need one.
No offense, though I think people in general are underestimating the power of incentive. People will engage in meaningful activities (PvP included) if they have an incentive to. Even if there are absolutely no restrictions on PvP.
Yea, that question was really directed at Ryan. Thanks though, I'll pretend that allowing FFA PvP even when people are motivated to engage in the "desired" forms of PvP and game-building would somehow magically turn the game into a "Murder simulator" which would indicate that my question was answered (even though we both know it wasn't).
Ryan Dancey wrote:
TBH, I'm not really that worried about the "combat lobby" concerns. Long term, the game either establishes that PvP can be implemented without becoming degenerate, or it can't. No amount of hand waving by us at this point is going to convince anyone otherwise.
@Ryan - Assuming it can't, what's Plan B? Are you going to shut off PvP entirely, or, just remove the Reputation system and let people have the pure PvP freedom?
How can the game possibly work with NO PvP, if that's the solution?
Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
Wizard's Tower is one that strikes me as a good inclusion in either the settlement structure or PoI area. Of course, with different wizard's towers having the option to specialize the school of magic they teach.
Let's tear down that Wizard's Tower and throw up a Sorcerer's Mansion plz.
In a place of Divine Magic, I think there would be Church's instead of hospitals. If people can cast a spell to heal wounds, it doesn't make sense to try and heal them by mundane means.
@ Any Dev ...Could we get an answer to these All-important questions please:
1) Does raiding an outpost not belonging to a faction your at war or feuding with change alignment, and if so how?
2) Does it shift Reputation? And if so how?
Drakhan Valane wrote:
It'll make sense to have dedicated crafting toons, so yea.
@ Tork Shaw if Stephen Cheney doesn't answer the above question... Could you also let us know if there are alignment shifts as well? (this question also applies to @Stephen Cheney if @Tork Shaw doesn't get around to answering said question)...
I think you may be confusing EE #'s with OE. There won't be 220 Settlement hexes in EE, that's OE.
They split each Hex into 7, so likely, that means there's 7x as many Settlement hexes... which means for EE, we likely went from 15 to about 75. Not 15 to 220.
Tork Shaw wrote:
Otherwise you'll become more Chaotic?? Also what happens to your Rep? Would it be affected either way?
@Qallz My rough sketch on a piece of hex pad says about 1 per 3 settlements; about 70-80?
No, cuz I think the map is 50x50 isn't it? Or am I wrong about that? I also didn't factor in NPC hexes, but I'm pretty sure there won't be too many. So maybe 250 Monster hexes?
So maybe the same amount as Settlement hexes? My math could be way off here. I don't have all the facts...
Stephen Cheney wrote:
Numbers are subject to change as we build out the map, but 2000 PoI hexes is slightly rounded up and number of settlement hexes is around 220, such that if every single settlement played nice and tried to distribute them as evenly as possible (hah!), each settlement would sponsor 8-9 PoIs.
And how many Monster hexes then?
Edit: Wow. According to my rough estimate, that's ~300 Monster hexes. Does that sound about right? I guess there's going to be more Monster hexes than Settlement hexes it would seem.
Have to agree with Andius here. Can we get an answer to this?
I think if Criminal flags are activated and make people more chaotic, it'll be nearly impossible for Lawful, or even Neutral (LvC) settlements to compete on a large scale, without being heavily dependent on smaller Choatic companies to raid and steal Outposts.
I dare say no one on these forums enjoys hurting people more than you, Andius. You just tend to want to do it in such a way that allows you to justify it to yourself as being the "good guy". But, hurting people, that's what you really love, isn't it? At least that's what I gather from reading most of your posts.
I was hoping there would be a few of us, and we'd say, "mission accomplished". I already got the opportunity to say "told you so". But yea, I agree, it would be totally worth it. :D
ESO is a joke, and will fail. They keep inviting me to their stupid beta, it's like they're begging me to come in.
The problem, however, isn't that they made it a sub game, it was a sub game from day one when Matt Firor kept saying it would be "Premium". People kept saying "well, we don't know for sure it will be sub-game", and I was like *rolls eyes*. And... sure enough.
The PROBLEM, was them making it a sub game from the start, and then bending to a whole bunch of self-entitled whiners on their forums who played the Single-Player ES games, and wanted a completely different game than they were offering.
So, they CHANGED the game to suit their needs, and made it more like their regular single-player TES games, and then once that happened, people were expecting that it wouldn't be a sub game, just like the other single-player TES games they've played. Originally, it was never like those games, it was more akin to DAoC.
Then they destroyed it. I just hope it causes Zenimax to go bankrupt, and no mroe single player TES games are made. That way I can look at all the Single-Player TES fans who worked to destroy the game with a big smile on my face, and say, "Mission Accomplished". :)
If you're referring to the Victimized flag, the first two are already in effect.
Yea, reputation is totally irrelevant, unless you want to not suck.
I was talking more about Rep than alignment, though the two seem to go hand and hand according to Ryan Dancey.
Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
If all the best crafters and combat-focused players get big advantages like that for playing LG, the game will devolve into a two faction game: LG vs. CE. LG will win of course, turning it into a one-faction game where everyone holds hands and never ride their horses over the speed limit.
Pax Shane Gifford wrote:
They said the training will be superior in LG/High Rep settlements, but they didn't specify "combat" training. I think if crafters benefit from joining LG settlements, it's going to be a VERY boring game.
If there's no lax on the Rep system during open PvP windows around a Settlement, sadly, this couldn't happen anyways (making Settlement warfare a back and forth endeavor see: Pong).
However, I have to agree that any type of fast travel that allows people to send rapid reinforcements is essentially a game destroyer. The only exception to the rule, naturally, would be very high level and dedicated Sorcs/Wizards with a teleport spell. Teleport being so integral to D&D, I would think that if someone spends 18 months dedicated to a Sorcerer or Wizard role, they'd have that ability. Otherwise I'd agree.